William Payne

William PAYNE (1565 – 1648) was  Alex’s 12th Great Grandfather; one of 8,192 in this generation in the Shaw line.

The Arms of Payne of Hengrave, William’s grandfather: “Argent on a fess engrailed Gules between three martlets Sable, as many mascles or, within a bordure engrailed of the second, charged with fourteen bezants. Crest : a Wolf’s head erased bezantee.”

At first I couldn’t  find a picture that matches this description and made this close approximation

Wolf Crest

Payne Coat of Arms Sussex

Payne Coat of Arms Sussex, not exact, but pretty close. Instead of these three roses, the arms of Payne of Hen grave  should have three golden mascles ( diamond-shaped charges, with diamond shaped holes.)  It’s also missing a bordure engrailed of the second, charged with fourteen bezants (yellow circles or gold coins).

Arns of Payne of Market Bosworth  (I finally found from a 1912 book on archive.com

(I finally found from a 1912 book  “The Paynes of Hamilton” from Open Library.org )

William Payne was born 2 Dec 1565 in Lavenham, Suffolk, England. His parents were Anthony PAYNE  and Martha CASTELL. He married Agnes NEVES 28 Dec 1584 in Lavenham, Suffolk, England.  William died 21 Nov 1648 in Lavenham, Suffolk, England .


William was Lord of the Manor of Nowton from 1606 to 1625  having purchased it from his nephew for 3000.  He  buried inside St James Nowton, a church dating from late Norman times

Agnes Neves was born 1563 in Lavenham, Suffolk, England. Her parents were William NEVES and Agnas [__?__]. Agnes died 8 Oct 1645 in Lavenham, Suffolk, England.

Children of William and Elizabeth:

Name Born Married Departed
1. Elizabeth PAYNE 11 Sep 1586  Nowton Parish Lavenham, Suffolk, England William HAMMOND
9 Jun 1605 Lavenham
14 Sep 1670  Watertown, Mass.
2. Anne Payne 17 Dec 1587  Lavenham, Suffolk, England Richard Nevel
2 Sep 1613 Lavenham
14 Sep 1676 Lavenham, Suffolk, England
3. Judith Payne 22 Jun 1589   Lavenham, Suffolk, England
4. Susan Payne 1 Jan 1591 or 9 Apr 1592 Lavenham, Suffolk, England 9 Oct 1591
5. Jane Payne 1593
Lavenham, Suffolk, England
26 Jul 1594 Lavenham, Suffolk, England
6. Phebe Paine 1 Apr 1594 Lavenham, Suffolk, England John Page
5 Jun 1621  Lavenham, Suffolk, England
25 Sep 1677 Watertown, Middlesex, Mass
7. Richard Payne 20 Feb 1596 Lavenham, Suffolk, England Ann [__?__]
1615 England
Watertown, Middlesex, Mass
8. Dorothy Payne 1598  Lavenham, Suffolk, England Simon Eyre
30 Sep 1615 Lavenham, Suffolk, England
9. William Paine 1598   Nowton, Suffolk, England Anna North
1624 in England
10 Oct 1660 Boston, Mass
10. Frances Payne 20 Jul 1600 Lavenham, Suffolk, England
11. Robert Payne 1601 Lavenham, Suffolk, England Ann Whiting
Hadleigh, Suffolk, England
Dorcas [__?__]
Ipswich, Essex, Mass.

William Payne Lord of the Manor

William Payne was for many years “lord of the manor” of Nowton, Parish Suffolk County, England. and  was a descendant of Sir Thomas Paine, Knight, who lived in Leicester in 1400.  The Paine family  used the same coat of arms after coming to America as the family of William Paine “Lord of the Manor” of Nowton which he bought from his nephew Anthony Paine in 1607 for three thousand pounds.

William Payne, son of Anthony, was baptized at St. Mary’s , Nowton, Bury St. Edmund’s, Suffolk, Eng., 2 Dec 1565. By the will of his father he was devisee of a part of his estate, but being a younger son, he was not heir.

His oldest brother, John, having died previous to his father, his oldest son, Anthony, was heir to his grandfather. As such heir, he inherited from his grand father the Manor of Nowton. This made him “Lord of the Manor,” and such, owner of the advowson of that church, having the right of presentation belonging to that office. Anthony having his estate in 1607, sold the manor and advowson to his uncle William Payne for 3000 pounds, he being then resident William then became “Lord of the Manor”, and as such held his first court there on 6 October 1609, and his last court in 1621, having thus held the manorship 12 years, when he sold out to Sir Daniel de Ligne.

manorial court was the lowest court of law in England during the feudal period. It dealt with matters over which the lord of the manor had jurisdiction, and its powers extended only to those living in the manor or who held land there. Historians have divided manorial courts into those that were primarily seignorial – based on feudal responsibilities – and those based on the delegation of authority from the monarch. There were three types of seignorial court: the court of the honour; the court baron; and the court customary, also known as the halmote court.

Each manor had its own laws promulgated in a document called the custumal, and anyone in breach of those laws could be tried in a manorial court. The earlier Saxon method of trial by ordeal or of compurgation was modified by the Normans into trial by a jury made up of 12 local freemen. The lord or his steward would be the chairman, whilst the parish clerk would write the record on the court rolls.

Periodically all the tenants met at a ‘manorial court’, with the lord of the manor (or squire), or a steward, as chairman. These courts, known as courts baron, dealt with the tenants’ rights and duties, changes of occupancy, and disputes between tenants. Some manorial courts also had the status of a court leet, and so they elected constables and other officials and were effectively Magistrates Courts for minor offences.

An advowson is the right to nominate a person to be parish priest (subject to episcopal approval), and such right was often originally held by the lord of the manor of the principal manor within the parish.  An advowson was regarded as real property and could be bought, sold, or bequeathed; but following reforms of parish administration in the late 19th century it had little commercial value.

Advowsons were valuable assets for a number of reasons, principally as a means for the patron to exert moral influence on the parishioners, who were his manorial tenants, through the teaching and sermons of the parish priest. The manor was a business enterprise, and it was important for its commercial success that all who lived there should live and work in harmony for a common purpose, and should obey the law of the land and of the manorial court. Such a law-abiding attitude could be fostered by a suitable parish priest, and clearly the appointment of a priest who preached against this would be a disaster for the interests of the lord of the manor. An appointment could also be used as a reward for past services rendered to the patron by the appointee. A benefice generally included use of a house, i.e. a vicarageparsonage or rectory, as well as the income from the glebe and tithes, which would provide for the living expenses of the incumbent, and the value of the advowson would thus vary according to how richly endowed the glebe had been out of the lord of the manor‘s manorial lands. Advowsons were frequently exercised by lords as a means of providing a career and income for a younger son who, due to the custom of primogeniture, would not inherit any of the paternal lands. If the father did not already own a suitable advowson, he might purchase one for this purpose. Appointments however were subject to the approval of the Ordinary (usually the bishop of the diocese) who could refuse for good reason although since the Reformation the refusal could be tested in the civil court.

Nowton is a small village and civil parish in the St Edmundsbury district of Suffolk in eastern England. Located on the southern edge of Bury St Edmunds, in 2005 its population was 140.

St Peter’s church, with a good collection of late medieval Flemish glass windows, the Hall and most of the village to the south.

“Of the 150 persons who emigrated at the time William and Phebe Payne, son and daughter of William of Nowton, scarce half a dozen claimed the title of gentleman, or had the prefix, “Mr.” a title which he was readily accorded as the son and heir of one who had been “Lord of the Manor”.

The history and antiquities of Suffolk: Thingoe hundred By John Gage, 1832

The history and antiquities of Suffolk: Thingoe hundred
By John Gage, 1832

Nowton 2
Nowton 3
Nowton 4
Nowton 5
Nowton 6
Nowton 7
Nowton 8
Nowton 9
Nowton 10
Nowton 11
Nowton 12
Nowton 13
Nowton 14
Nowton 15
Nowton 16
Nowton 17
Nowton 18
Nowton 19

Lavenham where William Payn and his children were born, is a village and civil parish in Suffolk 7 miles north of Newton.   It is noted for its 15th century church, half-timbered medieval cottages and circular walk. In the medieval period it was among the 20 wealthiest settlements in England

Before the Norman Conquest, the manor of Lavenham had been held by the thegn Ulwin or Wulwine. In 1086 the estate was in the possession of Aubrey de Vere I, ancestor of theEarls of Oxford. He had already had a vineyardplanted there. The Vere family continued to hold the estate until 1604, when it was sold to Sir Thomas Skinner.

Lavenham prospered from the wool trade in the 15th and 16th century, with the town’s blue broadcloth being an export of note. During the 16th century Lavenham industry was badly affected by Dutch refugees settled in Colchester who produced cloth that was cheaper and lighter than Lavenham’s, and also more fashionable,  ]The most successful of the cloth making families were the Springs.

The town’s wealth can be seen in the lavishly constructed parish church of St Peter and St Paul which stands on a hill top at the end of the main high street. The church is excessively large for the size of the village and with a tower standing 141 ft  high it lays claim to being the highest village church tower in Britain. The church is renowned for its Late-Gothic chantries and screens.

During the reign of Henry VIII, Lavenham was the scene of serious resistance to Wolsey’s ‘Amicable Grant’, a tax being raised in England to pay for war with France. However, it was being done so without the consent of parliament. In 1525, 10,000 men from Lavenham and the surrounding villages took part in a serious uprising which threatened to spread to the nearby counties of Essex and Cambridgeshire. However, the revolt was suppressed for the King by the Dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk, with the aid of local families.

The Guildhall of the wool guild of Corpus Christi stands in the center of the village overlooking the market square. Established in 1529, most of the timber framed building seen today was constructed in the 17th century and is now maintained by The National Trust.


1. Elizabeth PAYNE (See William HAMMOND‘s page)

2. Anne Payne

Anne’s husband Richard Neves (Nevel, Reve) was born 1587 in Lavenham, Suffolk, England.

6. Phebe Payne

Phebe’s husband John Page was baptized 25 Sep 1586 in Boxted, Essex, England.  His parents may have been Richard or Robert Page and Frances Mudge or Robert Page and Susanna Syckerling.  John died 18 Dec 1676 in Watertown, Mass.

Phebe arrived with Winthrop Fleet in the Great Migration of 1630.

At 44 years of age, John Page was living in Dedham, Essex, England, with his wife Phoebe Paine (Payne) and their three children, William, Phoebe, and Daniel. He, considering the conditions in England and fired by the thought of freedom and opportunity for himself and his growing family, closed his affairs in the mother country , embarked with his wife and children upon the ship “Jewel“, one of the fleet under the leadership of Gov. John Winthrop. They left the port of Yarmouth, Eng., on April 8, 1630 and landed at Salem, MA. Shortly after, they moved to the peninsula which is now occupied by the city of Boston. The colonists were dissatisfied with the soil there for farming purposes and many members of the colony moved to Watertown, seven miles west of Boston, where he was a well-to-do yeoman. He was constable of that town in 1630. In those days, in order to start a fire in one’s own fire place, one would watch a neighbor’s chimney, and where there was smoke, to that place he would go for a hot coal. Perhaps it was one of the children who had been sent on this errand, but whoever it may have been, he dropped the coal in the dry leaves and the house was burned on April 21, 1631, whereby John suffered severely.

In 1662 he was one of a group of Watertown men who settled the town of Groton, where he was one of the early selectmen. After the burning of Groton in Philip’s War of 1675, he returned to Watertown. Here John lived until his death December 18, 1676, at the age of 90 years.  His inventory included a “Bible and two other small books” valued at 12s. His wife Phoebe died at Watertown, MA, Sept. 25, 1677, aged 87 years.

John Page Timeline [From: Great Migration Begins]

19 Oct 1630 – Requested to be Freeman of Watertown

19 Oct 1630 – Chosen constable for Watertown

9 Nov 1630 – Member of Trial Jury where our ancestor Walter PALMER was acquitted of murder.

Nov 1630 – In a letter to John Winthrop Jr., John Rogers, vicar of Dedham, Essex, reports that

“this day I have received so lamentable a letter from one John Page late of Dedham that hath his wife and 2 children there and he certifies me that unless God stirring some friends to send him some provision he is like to starve”;

As a result, Rogers donated 20s. to buy meal for the family. Dedham, Essex, is a parish adjacent to Boxted where records of this Page family are found. The two children who came to New England with John Page are apparently Phebe and John.

21 Apr 1631 –  “The house of John Page of Watertown was burnt by carrying a few coals from one house to another: a coal fell by the way and kindled in the leaves”

18 May 1631 – Admitted Freeman of Watertown

25 July 1636 – Granted fifty acres in the Great Dividend in Watertown

28 Feb 1636/37 – Granted thirteen acres in the Beaverbrook Plowland

26 Jun 1637 – Granted thirteen acres in the Remote Meadows

4 Dec 1638 – “Isack Sternes & John Page were fined 5s. for turning the way about, & day was given till the next Court”

In the Watertown Inventory of Grants John Page was credited with five parcels of land: three acre homestall; thirteen acres plowland in the Further Plain [Beaverbrook Plowlands]; thirteen acres in the Remote Meadows; fifty acres in the Great Dividend; and three acres meadow

In the Inventory of Possessions he held six parcels, and in the Composite Inventory the same six parcels: forty acre homestall (originally a Great Dividend lot, purchased of Edward Howe); twenty acres upland (part of a Great Dividend lot, purchased of John Coolidge); eighteen acres of meadow in Plain Meadow (eight acres purchased of Edward Howe, six of Robert Feake and four of Simon Stone); four acres meadow at Beaver Brook (purchased of William Jennison); seventy acres of upland, being a Great Dividend Lot (purchased of Simon Stone); and thirty-five acres of upland, being a Great Dividend lot (purchased of John Smith)

John Page took an unusual approach to the Watertown land granting process. As shown by the Inventory of Grants, he received the usual sequence of land grants down to 1637, when he had his share of the Remote Meadows, but he did not share in any later grants. About 1637 or 1638 he apparently sold off all these parcels which came directly to him from the town, for in the various inventories of Watertown land three of the five parcels appear in the hands of John Biscoe and one in the hands of Michael Barstow. The fate of the homestall is unknown, but this was certainly sold as well, and as this parcel carried with it the proprietary rights in future divisions, John Page did not receive a Farm in 1642.

In the Composite Inventory, which showed landholding as of about 1644, Page held only parcels of land that he had bought from others, and these were almost all in the Great Dividend, close to one another but some way from the center of town. Since Page received thirteen acres in the Beaverbrook Plowlands and in the Remote Meadows, and since his family had at most five members at this time, he must have had considerable wealth in cattle. Combine this with his virtual absence from town affairs, and the occasional rebuke for antisocial behavior, and one has the picture of a man of some substance who was attempting to withdraw from society, build his own little empire, and interact as little as possible with authority.

4 Nov 1646 – With others, he pled poverty to be excused from paying a 14s. 5d. fine, but the court, understanding that some of those pleading were “of good ability,” considered the matter closely

6 Apr 1658 – John Page of Watertown and Phebe his wife sold to Isaac Mixture of Watertown seventy acres of land, being a dividend, lying in Watertown, also seven acres of remote meadow in the third lot.

26 Feb 1652/53 –  John Page of Watertown and Phebe his wife sold to Joseph Child of Watertown “one small tenement” in Watertown containing one dwelling house and four acres of land

May 1665 – The Watertown selectmen ordered several persons, including “old Goodman Page & his wife,” to attend the next selectmen’s meeting “to answer for not attending their seats in the meetinghouse appointed them by the town”

16 Feb 1676/77 – The inventory of the estate of John Page of Watertown “who died about the 19th December 1676″ was taken  and was untotalled but included real estate valued at £50: “half a dwelling house with about twelve acres of plain and four acres of meadow £50

The settlement of the estate witnessed a bitter dispute pitting John, the eldest son, against Samuel Page and James Cutler. Cutler (husband of daughter Phebe Page) and Samuel Page claimed that John kept the estate entirely to himself and refused to make a division. The court ruled in favor of John, finding the estate to be his.

Children of Phebe and John of Laverham

Page vs. Page 167\8 — Divided We Stand: Watertown, Massachusetts, 1630-1680 By Roger Thompson

Page Family 2

Page Family 3
Page Family 4

i. William Page? b. 1619 Dedham Dedham, Essex, England; d. 9 Dec 1664 in Watertown, Middlesex,Mass.; m. Hannah [__?__]

ii. Susanna Page b. 1622 Lavenham, Suffolk, England; d. 24 Jan 1680/81 in Boston, Mass.; m. Apr 1636 to Thomas Gleason ( b. ~1620 – )

iii. Hannah Page b. 1623 Lavenham, Suffolk, England; d. 20 Jun 1633 Watertown, Mass.

iv. Phoebe Page b. 1624 Dedham, Essex, England; d. 17 May 1694 Watertown, Middlesex, Mass; m. ~1661 Watertown as his third wife to  the much older James Cutler (b. 21 May 1605 in Sprowston, Suffolk, England – d.  17 Jul 1694 in Lexington, Middlesex, Mass)

2 Apr 1650 – At the court  Phebe Page sued John Flemming and his wife for slanderously saying that she was with child. This case illustrated a family at odds with itself; with the depositions of over twenty neighbors, it seemed that the entire town was talking about them [Pulsifer 1:6-8].

Flemming defended himself and said that his words were based on “the common practice of Phebe Page, & the report of her own friends.” “John Spring being on the watch on Saturday night after midnight testified that he met John Poole & Phebe Page together, and he asking them why they were so late, she answered because she could dispatch her business no sooner & he said he went with her because he lived with her father.”

Anthony White also witnessed that “Phebe Page said she must either marry within a month or run the country or lose her wits,” and also that “Phebe Page said my mother I can love and respect, but my father I cannot love.”

William Parker deposed that, having “much discourse with Phebe’s mother, she wished her daughter had never seen Poole for she was afraid she was with child.”

White advised her to return to her father’s house again and “she answered no, before I will do so I will go into wilderness as far as I can & lie down and die.”

Perce witnessed that “Goodman Page coming to his house said thus that what with his wife and daughter, he was afraid they would kill him, and constantly affirmed the same.”

Goody Mixture testified that “old Page said if she knew as much as he, Phebe deserved to be hanged.”

Parker again testified “he living at Long Island & Phebe Page there also, she would not keep the house one night, but kept a young man company, and they were both whipped for it by the magistrates’ order there, also that she confessed” and both were censured.

Joseph Tainter said “he was informed by one that lived at Long Island that Phebe Page confessed herself she had carnal copulation with a young man at the Island.”

Phebe withdrew her action, and the Court granted the defendant costs £2 4s. 6d. John Page Senior confessed a judgment of the costs of Court against his daughter.

v. Daniel Page b. 1626 Lavenham, England; d. 1 Aug 1634 in Watertown, MA ( The county copy of this record reports this as a birth rather than a burial creating some confusion)

vi. John Page b. 1 Jan 1630 Watertown, Middlesex, Mass.; d. 1711 in Watertown, Mass; m1.  12 May 1664 in Groton, Middlesex, Mass. to Faith Dunster (b. 7 Mar 1640/41 in Bury, Lancaster Co, England – d. 3 Apr 1699); m2. 3 Sep 1699 to Emory Lamb

John Page Jr.  removed to Groton in 1662 and returned to Watertown in 1675 after the burning of Groton,  as shown by the births of his children in Groton in the late 1660s and early 1670s.

James Knapp deposed in 1678 about working with John Page Jr. at Piscataqua, as many Watertown men of the second generation did, and how young John redeemed a mortgaged piece of John Sr.’s land.   John Hammond deposed that “being at my Uncle Page’s house my Aunt Page was very importunate with my Uncle to give Samuel Page a piece of land and my Uncle Page’s answer was `Thou knowest it was mortgaged and my son John Page hath redeemed it and it is his'”.

John Page Jr. submitted his account of things he had done for his father when the younger John was a single man, having managed his estate for ten years except about five months when he was in Long Island, and about a fortnight “to help James Cutler when his house was burnt”

vi. Samuel Page, b. 20 Aug 1633 in Watertown, MA; d. 1691 in Watertown, MA; m. ~1668 Watertown to Hannah Dane (b. 8 Mar 1645/46 in Concord, Middlesex, Mass. – )  Hannah’s father was John Dane of Concord.

viii Roger Page?  b. 1635 Watertown, Middlesex, Mass; d. ~1691 Watertown; m. Hannah [__?_]

ix. Edward Page b. 1637 Watertown, Middlesex, Mass

x. Robert Page b. 1638 Watertown, Middlesex, Mass

xi. Joseph Page b. 1639 Watertown, Middlesex, Mass

xii. David Page b. 1641 Watertown, Middlesex, Mass

xiii. Elizabeth Page?  b. 1643 Watertown, Middlesex, Mass

xiv Mary Page? b. 1645 Watertown, Middlesex, Mass

Some sources claim that John Page had daughters Elizabeth and Mary living in 1660, but the evidence for this is not seen [NEHGR 101:242, 245, 105:26].

8. Dorothy Payne

Dorothy’s husband Simon Eyre was born 1587 in Lavenham, Suffolk, England. His parents were Simon Aires (1557 – 1637) and Susan Vale (1559 – 1637) Simon died 10 Nov 1658 in Boston, Mass.

The Increase  left London, England April 1635 with her master, Robert Lea, arriving in Massachusetts Bay.    The families of Simon Ayres and William Payne sailed together with 17 family members in all.

April 15, 1635 – Certificate source not given.
#32 Ayres Symon 48, chirurgion  [(archaic) a surgeon]
#94 (From Laverham, Suffolk, bound for Watertown. Ref: NEGR 69/250 36 pg 157) Ayres Dorothy 38, wife of Symon
#95 Ayres Marie 15, child of Symon
#96 Ayres Thomas 13, child of Symon
#97 Ayres Symon 11, child of Symon
#98 Ayres Rebecca 9, child of Symon
#99 Ayres Christian 7, child of Symon
#108 Ayres Anna 5, child of Symon
#109 Ayres Benjamin 3, child of Symon
#110 Ayres Sara 3 mos, child of Symon

Children of Dorothy and Simon

i.  Mary Ayers b. 1620 in England;

The Mary Ayres (b. 16200) that married William Fellows (b. 22 Oct 1609 in London, England – d. 29 Nov 1676 in Ipswich, Mass) had unknown parents.  (See John AYRES ‘ page)

ii. Thomas Ayers b. 1622 in England

iii. Simon Eyre b. 1624 in England; d. 10 Aug 1653 Boston; m. Lydia Starr (b. 22 Mar 1634 in Ashford, Kent, England – d. 10 Jun 1653 in Boston) Simon and Lydia had one child Simon (b. 1652).

iv. Rebecca Ayers b. 1626 in England; d. Watertown, Mass.; m. 1647 in Watertown to Christopher Clark (b. 1628 in England – d. Boston. Mass.) Rebecca and Christopher had five children born between 1650 and 1667.

v. Christian Eyre b. 1628 in England; d. 1669 in Boston, Mass.; m. 1655 Boston to Anthony Stoddard (b. 1600 in Edinborough, Scotland – d. 16 Mar 1686 in Boston) Anthony’s parents were
Anthony Stoddard (1572 - 1637) and  Alice Martin (1582 – 1604).  Anthony first married 16 Jul 1639 in Boston to Mary Downing. (b.  1619 in London, England. – d. 16 Jun 1647 Boston, from birth complications of her third child Simeon).  Mary’s parents were Emanuel Downing and Anne Ware and her grandparents were George DOWNING and  Dorcas BELLAMY.  Not wasting any time, he next married 24 Aug 1647 in Boston to Barbara, widow of Capt. Joseph Weld ( – 15 Apr 1655) and had two more children.

Christian and Anthony had ten children born between 1656 and 1669. Christian may have died in the birth of her last child.

Some of his descendants were: Rev. Solomon Stoddard, over forty years pastor of historic North Hampton Congregational Church and first librarian of Harvard. Made sea voyage to Barbadoes. Aaron Burr, Vice President of the United States, whose daughter Theodosia married Mr. Alston and was lost off the coast of the Carolinas; Amos Stoddard, acting governor of Louisiana; Jonathan Edwards, famous theologian.

vi. Anna Ayers b. 1630 in England; d. 1685 in Boston,

vii. Benjamin Ayers b. 1632 in England; d. 14 Nov 1714

viii. Sarah Ayers b. Jan 1635 in England; d. 1685 in Boston  The Sarah Ayers that married William LAMSON in 1640 in Ipswich, Mass. was born about 1621 in England.  I’m still trying to find out who her parents were.

ix. Jonathan Ayers b. 27 Mar 1637 Watertown, Middlesex, Mass.

x. Dorothy Ayers b. 4 Jun 1640 Watertown, Middlesex, Mass.

9. William Payne

William’s wife Anna North was born in 1595 in England. Anna’s parents may have been Henry North (1581 – 1654) and Sarah Jennor (1582 – ). Anna died 1660 in Ipswich, Essex, Mass.

The Increase  left London, England April 1635 with her master, Robert Lea, arriving in Massachusetts Bay.    The families of  William Payne and Simon Ayres sailed together with 17 family members in all.

April 15, 1635 – Certificate source not given.
#69 Payne William 22, husbandman  (should be age 42, Anna’s  age is right)
70 Payne Anna 40, wife of William
71 Payne William 10, child of William
72 Payne Anna 5, child of William
73 Payne Jo. 3, child of William
74 Payne Daniel 8 wks, child of William
75 Bitton James 27
76 Potter William 25
77 Wood Elizabeth 38
78 Beardes Elizabeth 24
79 Payne Susan 11

William Paine, with his wife, Anna, and five children, left London in April, 1635, for New England, sailing in the ship “Increase.” He landed at Boston, Mass., and set out at once for Watertown, where we find his name recorded as early as July 25, 1636.

Within a few years he removed to Ipswich, and was admitted a freeman, May 13, 1640. He resided there about fifteen years, and then removed to Boston, where he died, October 10, 1660.

Mr. Paine was one of the leading men of his time in New England. He was on terms of intimate acquaintance with the Winthrops, and other distinguished men both in his own Colony and Connecticut. A man of wide experience, and excellent judgment, he was frequently selected to serve on important committees, and to settle disputes concerning boundary lines between several towns in Massachusetts. He was an active merchant, and one of the earliest of the colonists to recognize the importance of home manufactures.

While at Watertown, he had acquired a controlling interest in Governor Dudley’s Mill on the Charles River. This he operated as a “fulling mill” until his death. In 1641, the town of Ipswich granted him permission to build a wharf for his warehouse. He assisted in establishing the iron works at Lynn, Beverly, and Newbury, and gave them his financial support.  He was proprietor of the Saugus Ironworks at Lynn.  He also operated the lead mines at Sturbridge.

He was deeply interested in extending the settlements of the English in Western Massachusetts, and was a member of a company incorporated in 1645 for this purpose, and known as the “Free Adventurers.”

Mr. Paine, after his removal to Boston, continued a prosperous mercantile business, possessing extensive headquarters there and at Piscatauqua.

Both William Paine, and his brother, Robert, were men of public spirit. While at Ipswich, they aided in establishing the free school there, and in their wills, made pecuniary provisions for its support, as well as gifts of land. In all his business ventures, William Paine seems to have been successful. He acquired a fortune for the times in which he lived, and died leaving an estate of more than £4,200.

Nation’s Oldest Charitable Trust

Huffington Post Feb 12 2012 –  With only eight days to live, a wealthy, ailing Massachusetts merchant wrote in his will 351 years ago that he was leaving a spectacular 35-acre seafront property for the benefit of public school children, decreeing the land should never be sold or wasted.

The dying wish of William Payne, one of the state’s earliest settlers, created the nation’s oldest charitable trust and eventually led tenants to build 167 cottages — most of them used by summer vacationers — on the land he left for the seaside city of Ipswich. The rent money has generated some $2.4 million to help fund public schools over the last 25 years.

Now, the trustees want to tear up the will, convert the property into condominiums and sell them to the tenants to settle a 2006 lawsuit filed by the tenants over rent increases. But hundreds of Ipswich residents have gone to court to block the settlement, saying it violates the sacred intent of Payne’s will and shortchanges the schools.

The Massachusetts Appeals Court is considering whether to nullify the settlement and is scheduled to hear arguments in the case March 2.

The residents contend that while independent appraisals show the value of the land is an average of about $41 million, the agreement sets a sale price of nearly $32 million. They also say that the settlement also denies public schools the benefit of rising land value that occurs over the long term and that could help them collect higher rents.

Attorney General Martha Coakley, whose office enforces laws governing public charities, is supporting the settlement approved by a probate court judge in December, saying that the trust is no longer able to carry out Payne’s wishes.

Mark Swirbalus, who represents opponents of the settlement, said the case sends a “troubling message” because it shows the intent of someone setting up a trust could be trampled and the rights of beneficiaries could easily be compromised in decisions that do not protect their best interest.

“In short, the agreement to sell the land, and the court’s approval of this agreement, seem to have been done for the sake of expedience, regardless of William Payne’s intent and Massachusetts law,” Swirbalus said.

Residents seeking to block the deal have accused trustees of mismanagement, operating in secrecy and making sporadic and small payments to public schools for years long before the tenants sued over the rent. Disputes over wastewater and other necessary improvement to the land also fueled complaints against the trustees, formally known as Feoffees of the Ipswich Grammar School.

“The fundamental problem in all this is there are a lot of different opinions in town as to whether the trustees are sort of willfully evil or just incompetent,” said Douglas DeAngelis, an Ipswich parent and one of the 14 people seeking to join the lawsuit. “But, at the end of the day, you have a $40 million asset that’s never been professionally managed.”

Payne’s land gift was intended to help Ipswich comply with a 1647 colonial law that required communities with more than 100 families to set up a grammar school to prepare students for admission to “the College at Cambridge” — a reference in his will to Harvard College, founded in 1636 with a mission to prepare young men for the ministry.

The second paragraph of Payne’s handwritten will declares in flourishing script: “I giue vnto the free scoole of lpswitch, the little neck of land alt Ipswitch, commonly knowne by the name of Jeferrys neeck. The which is to bee, and remaine, to the benifitt of the said scoole of Ipswitch, for euer, as I haue formerly Intended, and therefore the sayd land not to bee sould nor wasted.”

Ed Cafasso, a spokesman for the sale opponents, said the plaintiffs are not only contesting the probate court ruling, but also contend that Coakley “failed to investigate evidence of the charity’s mismanagement,” including the fact that so little money has been distributed to the schools over the years as well as previous instances in which trustees rented cottages they were managing — leaving them with little incentive to set rents at market value.

The attorney general’s office, however, on Friday defended its decision to support the land sale, saying the trust had become ineffective in serving its stated purpose of aiding Ipswich schools.

“The settlement terms … comply with charities law and achieve two important goals: First, they restore a much needed revenue stream for the Ipswich schools consistent with William Payne’s wishes and ensure the long-term viability and sustainability of his gift in the future,” Brad Puffer, spokesman for Coakley, said in a statement.

“Second, they provide for a publicly appointed board to govern the trust that will be created with proceeds from the sale of the Little Neck land,” Puffer said. “This change will enhance public accountability and transparency for the trust going forward.”

Trustee Peter Foote, who manages affairs on behalf of other trustees, declined to comment.

Attorney William Sheehan, who represents the trustees, said the settlement represents the best option in efforts to ensure that Ipswich schools continue to receive funding from Payne’s dying wish.

Suggestions that the trustees have mismanaged the land “and this notion of ‘no, we are better off if the property is rented'” ignores the fact that the settlement shifts to condo owners the burden of about $1 million required to fix significant erosion problem that occurred on the land in 2007, Sheehan said.

The settlement also eliminates the uncertainty created by a potential liability from the 2006 lawsuit that tenants filed to block the trustees from evicting them from their cottages for refusing to pay higher rents, Sheehan said.

Cottages on Little Neck, Ipswich, Mass

167 Cottages on Little Neck, Ipswich, Mass were built on land William Payne left to a charitable trust  to help fund public schools

Salem News Aug 16 2012  –   The trustees known as the Feoffees have sold Little Neck to the peninsula’s tenants for $31.4 million, the latest move in a controversy that has divided the town.  The sale, which closed Friday, officially dissolved the country’s oldest community land trust and created a new trust that starts with an endowment of $24.9 million.

The money will be used to benefit the Ipswich public schools, which was the intention of the original land trust created by William Payne upon his death in 1660.  “Twenty-five million dollars — that’s a lot of reasons to be very pleased that this will turn out well for the kids,” School Committee Chairman Hugh O’Flynn said.

But residents opposed to the sale say the 351-year-old trust should never have been broken and that the land was sold for less than it’s worth.  Their group, Ipswich Citizens for Public Trust, plans to file a request with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to take the case, member Douglas DeAngelis said.

DeAngelis said the sale of the land “blatantly disregards” the intent of William Payne. The proceeds from the sale of about $25 million are far less than its assessed value of $40.6 million, he said. And costs to the town could go up because more residents will now be allowed to live year-round on Little Neck, resulting in higher school costs.

“It’s a triple whammy,” he said.   The schools will receive $800,000 per year for the first three years under the terms of the sale, with future payments to be determined by a new governing board, known as the New Feoffees.

The schools had not been receiving any money from the Feoffees since 2006, when a legal dispute between the trustees and the Little Neck tenants over rent increases set in motion the circumstances that led to Friday’s land sale.

DeAngelis said the land could’ve produced much more income for the schools through the tenants’ rent money if the trust proceeds were managed professionally. The tenants own their cottages but were paying rent for the land.  “In 351 years of the trust, we’ve never had professionals managing the land asset,” he said. “Let’s give it a try before we go and stick a stake through the heart of the trust.”

The Feoffees went to court in 2009 to seek permission to break the trust and sell 35-acre Little Neck to the tenants in order to settle a lawsuit over rent increases. Last December, the School Committee voted 4-3 to authorize a sale.

O’Flynn said the School Committee will not spend any of the trust money until a spending policy has been established and all legal proceedings are finished.  “We’re going to be very serious and deliberate about any use of those funds,” he said.

The deal that closed on Friday transfers ownership of 166 land parcels on Little Neck to the peninsula’s tenants and converts the cottages and land to condominium units.

The governing board known as the New Feoffees has seven members, including two each appointed by the School Committee, Finance Committee and Board of Selectmen and one appointed by the old Feoffees.

The settlement calls for the trust to pay off nearly $6 million in outstanding debts that were borrowed by the old Feoffees for a wastewater treatment facility.   The trust must also pay $575,000 in legal fees incurred by the School Committee in the dispute over the matter, and about $225,000 for legal and accounting costs incurred by the New Feoffees in its oversight of the sale process.    The sale agreement also deducted $8.3 million in Feoffees-financed mortgages that buyers had the option to take out. The monthly interest payments from borrowers will be incorporated into the trust assets to benefit the schools.

“We did our best to do the due diligence and help the sale go through properly, and we’re looking forward to working as the new trust and doing as much as we can to benefit the schools of Ipswich,” said Tracy Filosa, one of the New Feoffees.

The new trust fund has committed to paying the schools $800,000 per year for the next three years. Filosa said the trustees will determine future payments based on market returns and other factors.   “It’s a bit of a moving target at the moment,” she said. “It won’t be as high as $800,000. Over the next few weeks, we’ll be working on a projection.”

Filosa said the New Feoffees will be “as transparent as possible.” The old Feoffees were criticized for operating in secret and a lack of accountability.

Staff writer Paul Leighton can be reached at 978-338-2675 or pleighton@salemnews.com..

William hoped his land trust would last forever.  "Forever" is written across the bottom of the picture in William Paine's handwriting.

William hoped his land trust would last forever. “Forever” is written across the bottom of the picture in William Paine’s handwriting.

Children of William and Anna:

i. Susan Paine b. 1624 in Suffolk, England; d. 1660 Mass.

ii. William Payne b. 1625 in Suffolk, England; d. 11 Jan 1683 New Haven, New Haven, CT; m. 1645 in New Haven to Mary Edwards (b. 1615 in Postslade, Sussex, England – d. 7 Dec 1693 in Connecticut) Mary’s parents were John Edwards (1584 – 1654) and Elizebeth Whitffeld (1588 – 1658) William and Mary had three children born between 1645 and 1648.

iii. Hannah Paine b. 1627 in Nowton, Suffolk, England; d. 1656 Ipswich, Essex, Mass; m. 2 Apr 1651 in Boston to Maj. Samuel Appleton (b. 1625 in Little Waldingfield, Suffolk, England – d. 15 May 1696 in Ipswich, Essex, Mass.) His parents were Samuel Appleton (b. 13 Aug 1586 Little Waldingfield, Suffolk, England – d. Jun 1670 Rowley, Mass) and Judith Everard (1587 – 1629) The Appletons probably came to New England in 1636 with the Nathaniel Rogers Company. Samuel was frequently a judge for the Essex Co. Quarterly Court.

Hannah and Samuel had three children born between 1652 and 1654. After Hannah died, Samuel married 8 Dec 1656 in Newbury, Essex, Mass to Mary Oliver (b. 7 Jun 1640 in Newbury, Essex, Mass. – d. 15 Feb 1698 in Ipswich) Samuel and Mary had five more children born between 1660 and 1677.

Samuel Appleton 1

Records and Files of the Quarterly Courts of Essex County, Massachusetts … By Massachusetts. County Court (Essex County), George Francis Dow

Samuel was a man of the highest reputation in civilian and military service. Representative in 1668 and often after to 1681, when he was made an Assistant by an annual election, continued in that rank until the time of the overthrow of the charter government 1686. In 1675, he had command of all the Mass. forces on the Connecticut River, and late in the season when succeeded by Major Savage in that quarter, was transferred to the expedition against Narraganset for the bloody and decisive action of 19 December (See my post Great Swamp Fight – Regiments). Resolute in the support of the liberties of the people of unlawful taxation in 1687, he was imprisoned by Andros and hardly released. In the new charter of William and Mary 1691, he was made one of the Council, though by the popular vote left out the following year.

In early September 1675 Captain Appleton was given command of a foot company totaling 100 men. He marched to Hadley, Mass. arriving around September 6th.On October 5, 1675 the Indians attacked Springfield destroying about 30 houses and other property including Major Pynchon’s, the army commander, mills and several of his houses and barns. After the destruction of his property and not feeling that he could properly maintain command, Major Pynchon asked to resign his post. This request was granted and on October 12th and Captain Appleton assumed command of all the forces in the Connecticut River area. He held this command until he was ordered home with his men on November 24. When the troops mustered on Dedham Plain on December 9, 1675 for the start of the Naragansett campaign, Major Samuel Appleton was given command of the Massachusetts regiment while also commanding the First Foot Troop. Soon after the battle of Narragansett Major Appleton retired from his protracted and arduous service from the field. On the 19th of October, 1676, the Court appointed him to command an expedition to Pascataqua; but he probably declined, as the order was rescinded on October 23rd.

He was reelected deputy in 1676, and subsequently, except 1678, until 1681, when he was chosen Assistant, and remained in that office till the coming in of the Andros government in 1686. He was proscribed by Sir Edmund’s officer, Randolph, as one of the ‘factious.’ He was arrested on the general complaint of being ‘evil disposed and seditious,’ October 19th 1687, and refusing to submit and give bonds for his good behavior, was committed to Boston jail, where he kept many months till his age and increasing infirmities forced a reluctant submission, and he was set at liberty, March 7, 1688.

iv. John Paine b. 1632 in England; d. 1675 Mass; m. Mar 1659 in Boston to Sarah Parker (b. 8 Jul 1641 in Boston, Mass. – d. 1675) Her parents were Richard Parker (1617 – 1673) and Ann [__?__] (1620 – 1651) John and Sarah had four children born between 1660 and 1664.

John was three years old when he accompanied his parents to America. He resided many years in Boston, and carried forward the enterprise begun by his father. He was active in promoting commerce, and received large grants of land for his service in seeking open navigation of the Hudson river and for other public services. These lands were on the Hudson river.

Fort Amsterdam is the large quadrangular structure towards the tip of the island.

Fort Amsterdam is the large quadrangular structure towards the tip of the island.

John’s service to the English government in rebuilding Fort James, at the foot of Manhattan Island, secured him great favor with the local governor and the powers at home, in expression of which he was made sole owner and governor for life of Prudence Island, in Naragansett Bay, with courts and other machinery of a free state, in which religion was made free.

Fort Amsterdam (subsequently named Fort JamesFort Willem Hendrick, Fort James (again), Fort WilliamFort Anne and Fort George) was a fort on the southern tip of Manhattan that was the administrative headquarters for the Dutch and then British rule of New York from 1625 until being torn down in 1790 after the Revolution.  Guns at the fort formed the original battery that is today called Battery Park (New York).

Prudence Island, shown in red, in the inner part of Narragansett Bay

Prudence Island, shown in red, in the inner part of Narragansett Bay

This grant was alleged to conflict with previous Indian grants, and he was arrested by the Rhode Island authorities and convicted of setting up a foreign government, but was allowed his liberty on giving up his claim. He died at sea in 1675. It is probable that he lost his property in litigation, as no record of an estate is found.

The Narragansetts originally offered Prudence Island for sale to John Oldham if he would settle there and set up a trading post. Oldham failed to meet the condition, so in 1637 the Narragansetts sold the island to Roger Williams and John Winthrop with each man retaining a one-half interest. Williams and Winthrop hoped to farm pigs on the island. Williams named the island “Prudence” and shortly afterwards purchased and named nearby Patience Island and Hope Island. Williams sold his half interest in Prudence Island while in England on behalf of the colony, and Winthrop willed his land to his son Stephen.

v. Daniel Paine b. 1635 in Suffolk, England; d. 10 Oct 1660  Mass

11. Robert Payne

Robert’s wife Ann Whiting was born in 1603 in Hadleigh, Suffolk, England.   Her parents were John Whiting (1577 – ) and Ruby Jolly (1581 – ) Anne died in 1641 in Ipswich, Essex, Mass.

Robert Payne emigrated to America with his wife, Ann, in 1640. He settled in Ipswich, and was one of the persons to whom the Legislature made a grant of land “with leave to settle a village there.” He was admitted freeman 2 June 1641, and continued to live there until his death. His wife Ann having died, he married a second wife, Dorcas______, whom he survived two or three years.

He was a man of much usefulness and importance in his day, and one who was almost constantly called to the performance of public and private trusts. Being a man of good estate, he was liberal in its use, and thus made himself to be regarded as a public benefactor as well as a useful citizen. To such an extent was this the case, that the local historial of the time wrote of him as a “right Godly man, and one whose estate hath helpen on well the work of this little Commonwealth.” He sustained the principal offices of the town, was one of its original corporators, and feoffee of the Free or Grammer school, towards the establishment and endowment of which he was a most liberal and active party. He was the ruling elder in the first church of the place, and as the historian of Ipswich relates, “his profession and office were adorned by a life of active, exemplary usefulness.”

In 1647, 48 and 49, he was deputy to the General Court, was on the committee of trade in 1655, and held the office of county treasurer from 1665 until he resigned just before his death in 1683

Children of Robert and Ann:

i. Robert Paine b. 1627 in Newton, Suffolk, England; d. Dec 1693 in Ipswich, Essex, Mass; m.  10 Jun 1666 to Elizabeth Reiner (b .1646 in Ipswich, Essex, Mass – ) Elizabeth’s parents were William Rayner (1615 – 1672) and Elizabeth Gilbert (1617 – 1676) Robert and Elizabeth had five children born between 1660 and 1684.

Robert Payne, Jr., graduated at Harvard University in the class of 1656, and studied for the ministry. Whether or not he actually practiced his profession does not certainly appear, but Felt speaks of him as “a preacher.”

Many genealogies state Mr. Payne was he foreman of the Grand Jury that found all the indictments for witchcraft at Salem, but as far as I can tell,  he became foreman in Jan 1693 and only returned findings of “Ignoramus   [The legal definition of this word is uninformed.   It is written on a bill by a grand jury, when they find that there is not sufficient evidence to authorize their finding it a true bill. Sometimes, instead of using this word, the grand jury endorse on the bill, "Not found."]  (See my post Witch Trials – Jury)

For an example see the Original Document from the University of Virginia Library (Indictment v. Sarah Cloyce , No. 1)

Robert Payne Signature to

Robert Payne’s finding of Ignoramus and Signature to Sarah Cloyes 1st indictment

Thee is reason to believe that he was not an active prosecutor of the accused, or if at any time he was so, he changed his mind before his death and took measures to allay the delusion.

An Aug 9 1692 letter  to  Jonathan Corwin, one of the trial judges, signaled the end of the Salem hysteria.  Most historians think the letter was written by Robert Pike, son-in-law of our ancestor Joseph MOYCE  (See my post Witch Trial Supporters

Robert Pike had a long history of opposing religious tyranny, for example, denouncing the law forbidding to preach if not Ordained in 1655, but the actual letter just contains the initials “RP” and the name Robert Payne was added later in a different hand, so an early record keeper thought this Robert wrote it.  Here is a detailed discussion of who wrote the letter and here is another.

The letter is a tightly reasoned attack upon the use of spectral evidence and the testimony of the ‘afflicted girls’ in general. While the author, like all Puritans, believed witches and witchcraft existed and were the work of Satan, he was questioning the current methods of the court in determining credibility and guilt.   The letter makes several points:

  • Citing 1st Samuel xxviii 13, 14: Any person, virtuous or not, may be in truth a witch.
  • A poor reputation does not suggest or substantiate guilt (as with Sarah Good).
  • Satan is capable of presenting anyone’s specter to a tormented person (not only a witch’s specter).
  • How can it be known if Satan acts with or without the permission of any specific (accused) person.
  • It is completely contrary to a witch’s well-being for them to practice witchcraft within a courtroom.
  • It is likewise contrary for witches to accuse others of witchcraft (as was the case), as “they are all part of Satan’s kingdom, which would fall, if divided against itself”.

It is not known just how the letter was received, since there is no written response, but with it he became one of the first of several prominent men to question the handling of the witchcraft crisis. Within a few weeks Thomas Brattle and Samuel Willard of Boston wrote their own manuscripts, using some of the same arguments Pike had documented. By October of 1692 the activity of the courts was greatly diminished, the executions had ended, and the witchcraft crisis was effectively over.

Payne House

Payne House

1694 –  Robert Jr. constructed a farm house along the salt marshes of Jeffery’s Neck on land his father received in a land grant in 1640.  Today, the house is a  a First Period museum, part of Greenwood Farm - an historic property and nature reserve located in Ipswich, Massachusetts, which is owned by The Trustees of Reservations and features the Paine House.  It’s one of 21 houses owned by our 1600’s relatives still in existance.  For details, see my post 17th Century Houses .

Payne House 2

ii. John Payne b. 1629 Suffolk, England; d. 13 Jul 1677 in Nantasket, Mass; m. 21 Sep 1657 to Elizabeth Cogswell (b. 1633)





Divided We Stand: Watertown, Massachusetts, 1630-1680 By Roger Thompson

The history and antiquities of Suffolk: Thingoe hundred By John Gage, John Gage Rokewode 1838

Paine family records: a journal of genealogical and biographical information Volume 1
edited by Henry D. Paine 1880


Genealogical and Family History of the State of Maine, Volume 1 By Henry Sweetser Burrage, Albert Roscoe Stubbs

About these ads
Posted in 14th Generation, Historical Church, Immigrant Coat of Arms, Line - Shaw | 9 Comments

Rev. John Howse

Rev. John  HOWSE (1570 – 1630) was Alex’s 11th Great Grandfather; one of 4,096 in this generation in the Shaw line through his grandson Barnabas Lothrop.  He was also Alex’s 10th Great Grandfather; one of 2,048 in this generation of the Miller line through his grandson Samuel Lothrop.

Howse Coat of Arms

Howse Coat of Arms

Rev, John Howse may have been born about 1570 Eastwell, Kent, England.  His parents may have been Thomas HOWSE and Alice HINTON. He married Alice LLOYD 30 Aug 1593 at Lavenham in County Suffolk.  John died 30 Aug 1630 – Eastwell Parish, Kent, England and was buried 2 Sep 1630.

Some researchers have associated Rev. John Howse with a minor noble family of the same name having estates at Besthorpe near Attleborough and Morningthorpe Manor near Long Stratton in County Norfolk. This geography would be favorable in support of his education at Cambridge, his marriage in nearby Suffolk, and his probable Puritan sympathies, since the general region of East Anglia was a stronghold of Puritan sentiment

The ruins of St Mary's Church, Eastwell

Rev. John Howse served as rector of the parish at Eastwell from 1603, until his death in 1630.

Alice Lloyd’s origins are unknown.  We only know  for sure is that John named his wife  “Alice” in his will.   Alice was born about 1572 in Kent, England.  Alice died  8 Nov 1653 in Kent, England.

Children of John and Alice

Name Born Married Departed
1. Elizabeth Howse bapt. unknown
John Champion of Little Chart
28 Sep 1607
2. Hannah HOWSE 1594 in Ashford, Kent, England. Rev. John LOTHROP
10 Oct 1610
16 Feb 1633 in London, England.
3. Peninnah (Jemima) Howse bapt.
11 Apr 1596
Kent, England
Robert Linnell
1632 – 1638
London, England
~1643 Barnstable, Barnstable, Mass.
4. Drusilla Howse ~1601
Simon Player
1623  or
17 Apr 1637
Eastwell Parish, Kent, England
5. John Howse bapt.
19 Jun 1603 Eastwell Parish, Kent, England
Mary Osborne
18 Sep 1623 Eastwell Parish
Eastwell Parish, Kent, England
6. Priscilla Howse bapt.
25 Aug 1605 Eastwell Parish
28 Nov 1618
Eastwell Parish, Kent, England
7. Thomas Howse bapt.
21 Aug 1607
Eastwell Parish, Kent, England
Elizabeth Osborne 23 Dec 1644 London, England
8. Samuel Howse bapt.
10 Jun 1610 Eastwell Parish, Kent, England
Elizabeth Hammond (daughter of William HAMMOND)
Apr 1636
Watertown, Mass Bay Colony
1661 Scituate, New Pymouth Colony
9. Henry Howse bapt.
28 Jun 1612 Eastwell Parish, Kent, England

Eastwell Parish

Rev. John Howse  served as rector of the parish at Eastwell from 1603, until his death in 1630.

St Mary’s Church, Eastwell, consists of the ruins of a former Anglican parish church in the hamlet of Eastwell, Kent, England. It has been designated by English Heritage as a Grade II listed building, and has been under the care of the charity, the Friends of Friendless Churches, since 1980, The charity holds the freehold with effect from 20 March 1980.   The ruins are a Scheduled Monument

Eastwell St Mary Church, Kent

Eastwell St Mary Church, Kent

In 1951 the roof of the nave collapsed, and the remaining shell of the church was demolished in 1956, leaving only the footings, the tower, and the 19th-century mortuary chapel.

All that now remains are the tower and the wall of the south aisle, dating from the 15th century, and a mortuary chapel from the 19th century. The ruins of the tower and aisle wall are constructed in flint and plaster with stone quoins. The tower is supported by three-stage buttresses and it has a doorway with a string course above. In the tower is a two-light Perpendicular window. The bell openings date from the 18th century and they also have two lights. The summit of the tower is battlemented.  On the lower stage of the tower is a mutilated consecration cross in knapped flint. The blocked arch to the former nave has octagonal piers. In the aisle wall are two two-light windows. The chapel is constructed in chalk with a tiled roof. It has lancet windows and its interior is vaulted.

Eastwell St Mary Church, Kent

Eastwell St Mary Church, Kent

The internal fittings and monuments have all been removed.  Most of the monuments are in the care of the Victoria and Albert Museum. These include two chest tombs, one to the memory of Sir Thomas Finch who died in 1580, and the other to Sir Moyle Finch who died in 1614.   Another memorial moved to the Victoria and Albert Museum is his wife Elizabeth Finch, 1st Countess of Winchilsea (1556 – 1634).

Monument to the Countess of Winchilsea sculpted by Nicolas Stone ca 1630

In the churchyard is a memorial to Richard Plantagenet (1469 – 1550),  who is rumored to have been the son of Richard III.   According to Francis Peck‘s Desiderata Curiosa, Richard boarded with a Latin schoolmaster until he was 15 or 16. He did not know who his real parents were, but was visited four times a year by a mysterious gentleman who paid for his upkeep. This person once took him to a “fine, great house” where Richard met a man in a “star and garter” who treated him kindly.

At the age of 16, the gentleman took the boy to see King Richard III at his encampment just before the battle of Bosworth. The King informed the boy that he was his son, and told him to watch the battle from a safe vantage point. The king told the boy that, if he won, he would acknowledge him as his son. If he lost, he told the boy to forever conceal his identity. King Richard was killed in the battle, and the boy fled to London. He was apprenticed to a bricklayer, but kept up the Latin he had learned by reading during his work.

Around 1546 the bricklayer, by then a very old man, was working on Eastwell Place for Sir Thomas Moyle. Moyle discovered Richard reading and, having been told his story, offered him stewardship of the house’s kitchens. Richard was used to seclusion and declined the offer. Instead, he asked to build a one-room house on Moyle’s estate and live there until he died. This request was granted. A building called “Plantagenet Cottage” just east of the church – now long since gone.

Tomb of Richard Plantagenet

Tomb of Richard Plantagenet

Howse Origins

The origin of the surname Howse is problematical at best and, moreover, its spelling was quite variable in English and colonial records in which it was commonly rendered Howse, Howes, or House. Indeed, the latter spelling seems to have become more predominant in later generations, perhaps, owing to its convergence with the common English noun house, which descends from the Old English form hús. Accordingly, one might suppose that the surname and the common noun share the same etymology, but this is probably not so, at least for this family.

Alternatively, the name may be derived from the antique word howe, denoting a hill or high place and remaining in current use only as an element of relatively few place names in the north of England. In this case, one might suppose that the surname descends from a grammatical construction such as so-and-so of the howes (hills) or something similar, which became fixed as a family name, perhaps, at the beginning of the fifteenth century when patrilineal surnames became adopted in England as common custom.

Rev. John Howes

It is commonly asserted that John Howse was born at Eastwell in County Kent and was the son of Thomas and Alice Hinton Howse. Although, this could be correct, there does not seem to be any documentary evidence in support of such a presumption. After 1603, he was, indeed, the rector of the parish church at Eastwell (St. Mary’s), but it may be reasonably supposed that like many clergymen of local parishes, he had originated somewhere else.

Reverend John Howes matriculated at St. John’s College,Cambridge in 1590. He is listed in the Alumni Cantabrigienes as such with the further note that he was rector at Eastwell, Kent in 1610.

It may be reasonably inferred that if he was rector at Eastwell, he had likely served previously as a lower ranking clergyman, e.g., a curate, in some other parish, which remains unknown. In support of this presumption, it appears that he had married and had several children prior to his service at Eastwell. Therefore, as a matter of chronology one may reasonably suppose that John Howse was born, perhaps, about 1570 and that he attended university in the late 1580’s.

Within this context, it has also been asserted without significant substantiation that John Howse and Alice Lloyd married August 30, 1593, at Lavenham in County Suffolk. Again, no documentary source affirming this date or his wife’s identity is known (although, her given name as Alice can be established from John’s will).

Some researchers have associated Rev. John Howse with a minor noble family of the same name having estates at Besthorpe near Attleborough and Morningthorpe Manor near Long Stratton in County Norfolk. This geography would be favorable in support of his education at Cambridge, his marriage in nearby Suffolk, and his probable Puritan sympathies, since the general region of East Anglia was a stronghold of Puritan sentiment. Moreover, due to the custom of primogenture it was common for younger sons of country gentlemen to enter the service of the Church, since they did not inherit land. Nevertheless, although these coincidences are suggestive, they remain entirely unsubstantiated and the origin of John Howse and his wife must be properly regarded as unknown.

While three of his children emigrated to New England, suggesting Puritan sentiments, it does not seem that Rev. Howse ever broke completely with the Church of England. St. Mary’s Church at Eastwell appears to have been an important parish to which curacies of smaller neighboring parishes, e.g., St. James’ at Egerton and St. Mary’s at Little Chart, were likely attached. Unfortunately, the historic church building at Eastwell collapsed due to decay in 1951 (and is now a ruin) and the church at Little Chart was destroyed by a in 1944  V-1 flying bomb in World War II (The new church, now within the village, was completed about ten years later). Only, St. James’ Church at Egerton remains intact. In the Bishop’s Transcripts for Canterbury John HAWSE is given as Curate for Egerton, 1592-96.

John Howse was curate at St James Church, Egerton, Kent from 1592 to 1596.

John Howse was curate at St James Church, Egerton, Kent from 1592 to 1596.

Dominating its sandstone ridge when viewed from the north, St James Church must always have attracted visitors. Its tower is fifteenth century but this is attached to an earlier building which may probably have been thirteenth century. There are some windows of this date but the stonework has been so renewed that it is impossible to tell if they are copies of the originals.

The Nuncupative [ Declared orally as opposed to in writing.] Will of John House, Clarke, parson of Eastwell [co. Kent], made a week before his death, which was 30 August 1630. To my wife Alice all my goods, and I make her my sole executrix. Witnesses: Elizabeth Champion, one of the testator’s daughters, Drusilla Howes, and Mris Joane Wallis. Proved 8 September 1630 by the executrix named. (Consistory Court of Canterbury, vol. 49, fo. 306)

Court of the High Commission

In 1632, Rev. John LOTHROP was arrested in the house of one of his congregants along with 42 of his congregation including three of John HAWSE children, Samuel Hawse, Perninnah Hawse and Hannah LATHROP.  They were  brought before the Court of the High Commission and were charged with sedition and holding conventicles. The political nature of the charge of sedition  , and the antique language of “conventicle’ [ a private meeting to hear illegal preaching] renders the charges unclear to modern ears. The charges were, however, deadly serious and the court proceedings unimaginable. The accused had none of the rights of modern citizens. The court was an inquisition, where the accused were forced to testify against themselves, with our counsel. The process was so intimidating that many people were driven to flee. It was one of the driving forces in the Great Migration to New England.  It was no dispute over prayer books and vestments. It was about life, death, and salvation.

First, what was the Court of the High Commission? It, along with the Court of the Star  Chamber, was a Royal Prerogative Court [King’s Rights], originally created in the time of Henry VII [1485-1509]. These courts were separate from the Civil Courts, or Common Law Courts, which operated on the basis of precedent, and the rights of English people under the Common Law. Originally, these courts were established under the King’s right to protect individuals from abuse in Common Law Courts. Under the Elizabeth I and the Stuart Kings [James I and Charles I], these courts were used by the Church of England to suppress those who sought to reform the church, or to seek a different path to salvation, using court rules that were in clear violation with the Common Law. They came down, with extreme severity, on Separatists in particular. Because of their covenant relationship, Separatists believed that every congregation could be a church unto itself, and could elect it’s own Ministers, by vote of it’s elders, based upon the model of the early Christian church [pre-Constantine]. To do so meant they had no need of the Church of England, and did not accept the authority of the Bishops. This was unacceptable to the Crown. As famously said by King James I, “ No Bishop, no King”. Since the King was the head of the Church of England, and appointed the Archbishop, he wanted one church with order and conformity. To the King, the Separatists position implied anarchy and chaos, and must be stopped. As James I said further, “ I will harry them out of the land”.

Under Charles I and his Archbishop, William Laud, the screws were tightened much more.  Laud was the Chief Judge of the High Commission. In his zeal to suppress nonconformists, he scrapped several principles of English Common Law, including:

  1. protection against self incrimination,
  2. the right to confront one’s accusers,
  3. the right to produce witnesses in one’s own defense,
  4. the right to a prompt hearing in court, so one did not languish in a dangerous jail without a trial, and
  5. protection from cruel and unusual punishments.

All of these rights were suspended for those, such as the members of Rev. Lothrop’s congregation, who were brought before the Court of the High Commission in May 1632.

The Ministers and there flock faced brutal treatment. For the high crime of publishing  tracts critical of the Bishops many ministers had their ears cut off, their faces branded and were confined to prison for life, which meant death within a few months or a few years at most. When one was brought before the court, the requirement was to sign an oath of Allegiance to the Church of England, to forswear any contrary belief or practice and to answer any question posed by the judges,consisting of Laud and five other Bishops. To do so meant to abandon their right to choose their own Minister, to hear preaching and to attend Bible study with a Minister of their choice. They believed their own souls to be at stake. They were not allowed any of the basics of a fair trial, and certainly faced cruel punishment. So what did they do? They refused to swear the oath and were jailed. Some died in prison, some were released and fled to America, and some fought for Parliament in the English Civil War.

(c) Henley Town Council; Supplied by The Public Catalogue Foundation

William Laud (1573–1645), Archbishop of Canterbury by Anthony van Dyck — Laud imprisoned members of the Lathrop and the Hawse families for their separatist faith

Now, hear the voices of Archbishop Laud, of Rev. John Lothrop and of the Howse and their friends [from the Proceedings of the Court of the High Commission]:

“ 5 May, 1632. This day were brought to the court out of prison diverse persons whixh were taken on Sunday last at a conventicler met at the House of Barnet, a brewer’s clerk, dwelling in the precinct of Black Friars: By name, John Lothrop, their Minister, Humphrey Barnard, Henry  Dod, Samuel Eaton, William Granger, Sara Jones, Sara Jacob, Peninah Howes, Sara Barbon, Susan  Wilson and diverse others”—

Statement by the Archbishop— “ You show your selves to be unthankful to God, to the King and to the Church of England, that when, God be praised, through his Majesties care and  ours that you have preaching in every church, and men have liberty to join in prayer and  participation in the sacrements and have catechizing to enlighten you, you in an unthankful  manner cast off all this yoke, and in private unlawfully assemble yourselves together making rents  and divisions in the church.—You are unlearned men that seek to make up a  religion of your own heads!”—“you are desperately heretical”

“Then came in Mr. Lothrop, who is asked by what authority he had to preach and keep  this conventicler.”

Laud,–“How many women sat cross legged upon the bed, while you sat on one side and preached and prayed most devoutly?”

Lothrop. “I keep no such evil company”

Laud,– “Will you lay  your hand upon the book and take your oath?’

Lothrop. “I refuse the oath.”

Peninah Howse “ I dare not swear this oath till I am better  informed of it, for which I desire  time”;;;”I will give an answer of my faith, if I be demanded, but not willingly forswear myself”

Sara Barbon “ I dare not swear, I do not understand it. I will tell the truth without  swearing”

Then they were then all taken to the New Prison.

“8 May, 1632. Laud to Sara Jones—“ This you are commanded to do of God who says you must obey your superiors.”

Sara Jones “That which is of God is according to God’s Word and the Lord will not hold him guiltless that takes His name in vain”

‘Lothrop. I do not know that that I have done anything which might cause me justly to be brought before the judgement seat of man, and for this oath, I do not know the nature of it”

Laud  – “You are accused of Schism”

Laud To Samuel Howse ‘Will you take your oath?’

Howse I am a young man and do not know  what this oath is”

Peninah Howse is then asked to take the oath, but she refused.

Laud  – “Will you trust Mr  Lothrop and believe him rather than the Church of England?

Samuel Howse – “I have served the King both by sea & by land, and I had been at sea if this restraint had not been made upon me. My conversation I thank God none can tax.”

They were jailed in The Clink prison. All were released on bail by the spring of 1634 except Lothrop, who was deemed too dangerous to be set at liberty. While he was in prison, his wife Hannah Howse became ill and died. His six surviving children were according to tradition left to fend for themselves begging for bread on the streets of London. Friends being unable to care for his children brought them to the Bishop who had charge of Lothrop. The bishop ultimately released him on bond in May of 1634 with the understanding that he would immediately remove to the New World.


Six children of Rev. John and Alice Howse can be confirmed from baptismal records of Eastwell and it seems evident that John Howse remained in this parish for the rest of his life.

1. Elizabeth Howse

Elizabeth’s husband John Champion was born about 1585.

2. Hannah HOWSE (See Rev. John LOTHROP‘s page)

John Howse  performed the marriage ceremony for his daughter  Hannah, in her marriage to Rev. John Lothrop  in Eastwell, 16 Oct 1610.

3. Peninnah (Jemima) Howse

Peninnah was second wife of Elkanah; bore him ten sons. She would frequently annoy her rival wife,Hannah, badgering her about her childlessness.

Peninnah was less favored than Elkanah’s other wife, Hannah; although she bore him more children, Peninnah also brought grief and disharmony to the household by her insolent mocking of infertile Hannah. “And because the Lord had closed her womb, her rival kept provoking her in order to irritate her. This went on year after year. Whenever Hannah went up to the house of the Lord, her rival provoked her till she wept and would not eat.”Every year, when Elkanah offered up a sacrifice at Shiloh, he would share out the portions of meat and give Hannah a double portion, which further incited the jealousy of Peninnah.  Eventually, in answer to her desperate prayer, Hannah’s womb was opened, and she bore Samuel, and later another three sons and two daughters.

I was wondering why John would name his daughter after such a b****, but then I read that some commentators suggest that Peninnah’s actions were in fact noble, and that Peninnah “mocked” the barren Hannah in order to further drive Hannah to pray even harder to God to give her children.

Peninnah’s brother-in-law Rev. John Lothrop led a congregation in London had refused to accept the King as head of the Church. This conflict had resulted in the imprisonment of the Rev. John Lothrop for two years. Upon his release, many members of the congregation made their move to America with him to be able to worship as they chose. Penninah was still single when she was questioned by the Ecclesiastical Court along with others in the congregation in 1632. There she stated that only God was Lord of her beliefs.    [In the High Commission proceedings  she is given as Peninah Howes].

Peninnah’s husband Robert Linnell was born in 1584 in London, England.  The name of his first wife is unknown.  They  had five children born between 1622 and 1631.  He married Peniiah in London between her 1632 deposition and their immigration in 1638.  Robert died 23 Jan 1661 in Barnstable, Barnstable, Mass

There has been great confusion in the American record to the effect that Robert Linnell’s first wife was a Jemimah Howes, presumably another daughter to Rev. John Howes. This has been compounded by an LDS record of the supposed marriage of a Jemimah Howes to Robert Linnell in 1621 in Ashford, Kent. Others say Robert married Perninnah 10 Aug 1610 – London, Middlesex.  There are no records to support this.

The First Independent Church of London, which was originally under the leadership of Henry Jacob, was taken over by John LOTHROP in 1623. This church was in Southwark, “situated on Union Street”.  Rev. Lothrop came to Scituate Massachusetts in 1634, gathering together other immigrants “as had been in congregation with us before”. Why Robert did not leave London with the remainder of the  congregation is not known. There may have been a connection with the death of his first wife.    In 1638, Lathrop wrote in his journal, ” My brother Robert Linnell and his wife, came to us with a letter of dismission from our church in London”.   The reunion of the Linnells with the Rev. John Lothrop and his flock in Scituate must indeed have been joyous, especially for Peninnah Linnell with her sister, Hannah Lothrop.

Robert Linnell was one of those who petitioned to be granted land in another area of the colony. They wanted to develop their own close knit group, observing their religious practices according to their interpretation. Land was granted to this group first at Sippican; but there seem to have been problems connected to this location and a new grant was given for removal to Mattacheese. On “June 26, 1639, a fast for the presence of God in mercy to go with us to Mattacheese” was held with a Thanksgiving celebration when they had all arrived in that place now known as Barnstable

By the time Robert Linnell move to Barnstable with John Lothrop there was already a saw mill in operation in Scituate and sawed lumber for building could be shipped from Scituate to Barnstable. This allowed for the design of building to which the people had been accustomed in England. And these homes, weathered by the blowing salt sand, were built to last for generations.

The list of 45 townsmen and voters in 1640 included Robert Linnet, and in 1643 those able to bear arms also included David Linnet, by this time 16 years old. Capt. Miles Standish was placed in charge of this militia. They were expecting trouble with the Indians.

At the town meeting in 1641 “Mr. Thomas Lothrop and Bernard Lombard were appointed measurers of land,” and authorized “to lay out all the lands that the several inhabitants are to have laid out, and to bound them with stakes.” The land thus measured to Mr.Linnell ranked him one of those with large holdings. “His house lot, Lot #9 of the original town plan, contained ten acres and was bounded northerly by the harbor, easterly by the lot of Thomas Lumbard, southerly by the highway, and westerly by the home lots of William and John Casely. He also owned three acres of planting land in the Common Field, three acres of meadow at Sandy Neck, nine at Scorton, a great lot containing sixty acres, and rights of commonage

View Map 2984 Main Street Barnstable

From another of Mr. Otis’ articles on Barnstable families [we learn that Robert and Peninah’s original house lot was the thrid lot east of present day Rendezvous Lane. This lot, today, contains a red colonial house (2006) at 2984 Main Street [Route 6A], known as Salt Acres

The current house was built around 1717 by the Davis Family.   The original Linnell house on the property would have been built around 1640. It was probably torn down to build this one. To get an idea of what the original house might have been like, visit the Lothrop Room in the Sturgis Library, down the street. This room is a preserved section of Reverend John Lothrop’s [Robert Linnell's brother-in-law] original house, so you can imagine the Linnell family standing in that very room.

Robert Linnell’s will reads as follows:

“The last Will of Robert Linell Deceased the 23 of January 1662 I give to my wife my house and home lott soe long as shee lives a widdow; alsoe…all my household stuffe and plow and Cart and two Cowes and a calfe for ever; I give my house and home lott to David and his heires after my wife either Dieth or marrieth alsoe my mersh att sandy necke I give to David and his heirs for ever and my lot by John Casleyes; I give my ground and mersh att the lower end of the pond att Mattakeessett to Abigail; I give to John Davis my two oxen to find my wife wood and to mow  my marsh and plow my ground for her for two yeare if she Remaine a widdow so longe; if she marryeth before the two yeares bee out then to bee free; I give to Bethya one Cow to have it when my Will; It is my will that the swamp I bought of Thomas Lewis to goe with my house lott; Robert Linell” “The tearme; and a Calfe in the third line in the originall was put in since the man Deceased.
Thomas Laythrop
Trustrum Hull “

The widow Peninnah petitioned the Court Oct 29 1669, to recover the house her husband had left her from the hands of their son David.

Robert Linnell Bio 1

Robert Linnell Bio Source: Genealogical notes of Barnstable Families (1888) by Amos Otis

Robert Linnell Bio 2

‘[Actually Sarah Learned was the daughter of William Learned ( - 1645) and Goodith Gillman (1581 - 1640)]

Robert Linnell Bio 3
Robert Linnell Bio 4
Robert Linnell Bio 5
Robert Linnell Bio 6Robert Linnell Bio 7a

Children of Robert and [__?__]

i. Sarah Linnell b. 1622 in Bermondsey, Surrey, England; d. 1652 in Barnstable, Barnstable, Massa

ii. Hannah Linnell b. 17 Apr 1625 in London, England; d. 1701 in Barnstable, Barnstable, Mass; m. 15 Mar 1648 in Barnstable to John Davis (b. 1626 in Kent, England – d. 1703 in Barnstable) John’s parents were Dolor Davis  (Wiki)  (b. 1593 Kent, England – d. 2 Jun 1673 Barnstable, Mass.) and Margery Willard (b. 6 Nov 1602 in Horsmonden, Kent, England – d.1656 in Barnstable, Mass.) Hannah and John had twelve children born between 1650 and 1673.

John immigrated with his parents on the Elizabeth, arriving April 17, 1635, and first living in Cambridge.  The family moved to Duxbury in 1638 and Barnstable in 1643.

John was a farmer and house carpenter. His name appears frequently in the Barnstable town records in real estate transactions and transactions with the Indians.  He owned considerable real estate at various locations and settled portions on his sons during his own lifetime.  His will is dated 10 May, 1701, and mentions his still living wife along with his sons and daughters.  The will was approved 09 April, 1703.

iii David Linnell b. 1627 in London, England; d. 14 Nov 1688 in Barnstable, Barnstable, Mass; m. 9 Mar 1653 in Barnstable to Hannah Shelley (b. 2 Jul 1637 in Scituate, Plymouth, Mass. – d. 1709 in Barnstable) Hannnah’s parents were Robert Shelley (b. 1612 England – d. 6 Sep 1692 Barnstable) and Judith Garnett (b. 1608 England – d. 1668 in Barnstable). David and Hannah had ten children born between 1655 and 1673.

“David Linnell & Hannah Shelley beeing questioned by the church uppon apublique ffame toutching carnall & uncleane carriages betwixt them tow, beeing in ye congregation confessed by them, they were both by the sentence & joynt consent of the church, pronounced to bee cutt off from that relation wch they hadd formerlye to the church, by virtue of their parents covenaunt, acted & done by ye church, May 30, 1652.”

David and Hannah had violated the law enacted by the Pilgrim fathers, “That if any shall make any motion of marriage to any man’s daughter, or maydeservant, not haveing first obtayned leave and consent of the parents or master so to doe, shall be punished either by fine of corporal punishment or both at the discretions of the bench.”

Under this law “They both were for their ffaults punished with Scourges [i.e., whips] here in Bernestable by the Sentence of Magestracye Jun. 8, 1652.”

David and Hannah were married a year later 9 Mar 1653 by Thomas Hinckley.

David and Hannah were whipped because they had no friends to take an active interest in their welfare. Perhaps the punishment was retribution for Hannah’s mother Judith refusal to admit fault and subsequent excommunicatation in 1649. (See Amos Otis account below for the full story of this miscarriage of justice). Six years afterward, a similar complaint was made against our ancestors Barnabas LOTHROP Esq. and Susanna CLARKE, afterwards his wife. Mr. Lothrop had influential friends and was able to defend himself. The compliant was dismissed and no record made.

David delayed joining the church until Jul 1, 1688, just months before his death, and 36 years after his   whipping. Hannah never joined and died at 71 years and 7 months, never reconciling with the authorities or the church.

The Story of David and Hannah from Amos Otis’ Genealogical Notes of Barnstable Families 1888

David Linnel and Hannah Shelley were “children of the Barnstable Church.” In consequence of some miscarriages between them, the particulars whereof are stated in the church records, they were cut off from the privileges of that relation May 30, 1652, and for the same offence, by order of the Conrt at Plymouth, both were “punished with scourges here in Barnstable June 8, 1062.” The town had then been settled thirteen years, and this was only the fourth case that had required the interposition of the authority of the magistrates. All of them were offences against good morals, but no magistrate at the present day would feel called upon to interpose his authority in similar cases. To judge rightly we must bear in mind that our ancestors allowed nothing that had the appearance of evil to pass unnoticed and unrebuked.

Mr. Robert Linnel was aged and had taken a second wife that “knew not David,” and cared little for his well-being. Robert Shelley was an easy, good-natured man, and cared little how the world moved. He was however an honest man, a good neighbor, and a sincere christian. His wife Judith Garnet was, before her marriage, a Boston woman — a member of the church there, proud, tenacious of her own opinions, and had very little control over her tongue, which ran like a whip-saw, cutting everything it came in contact with.

In 1648 some of the sisters of the church held a private meeting. Mrs. Judith was not called — she took umbrage, and vented her spite in slandering the members of the church. She said “Mrs. Dimmock was proud, and went about telling lies ;” that Mrs. Wells had done the same, that Mr. Lothrop and Elder Cobb “did talk of her” on a day when they went to visit Mr. Huckins, who was then sick at Mrs. Well’s house. She continued to affirm these things “as confidently as if she had a spirit of Revelation.” Mr. Lothrop in his record adds, “Wee had long patience towards her, and used all courteous intreatyes and persuations ; but the longer wee waited, the worse she was.”

Nothing like it had before happened in the settlement. The story was soon known to the old and the young — it was discussed in every circle — it was the standing topic of conversation for six months. The messengers of the church waited on Mrs. Judith — they could not persuade her to acknowledge her fault — she denounced Mr. Lothrop and all who were sent to her, in the most severe terms of abuse. She could find no one to sustain her — never could prove anything, and Mr. Lothrop adds, “was wondrous perremtorye in all her carriages.” She was excommunicated June 4, 1649.

Hannah was then only twelve years of age, a time of life when the sayings of the mother make a deep impression on the mind. She had heard her mother in a loud and peremptory tone of voice slander the best men and women in the settlement. The father was a good natured, easy man, and did not reprove his wife for speaking ill of her neighbors. Brought up under such influences, is it surprising that the daughter should sometimes speak inconsiderately, loosely, lasciviously? I think not. I think the mother more blameworthy, better meriting the scourges than the daughter.

David and Hannah were summoned to appear at a meeting of the church. They attended May 30, 1652, and there in the presence of the whole congregation confessed their fault. “They were both, by the sentence and joint consent of the church, pronounced to be cutt off from that relation which they hadd formerlye to the church by virtue of their parents covenaunt.” The action of the church was not objectionable ; but mark the date. May 30, 1652.

The Court was held in Plymouth June 3, 1652, only four days afterwards. Mr. Thomas DEXTER Sr. and John CHIPMAN were the grand jurors from Barnstable, and it was their duty’ to complain of every violation of law or of good morals that came to their knowledge. The facts were notorious for it is called “a publique fame” on the church records. They were probably present when the confession was made. There were also several others beside the jurors who knew the facts. Thus far the proceedings were in accordance with the customs of the times.

In the list of presentments made by the “Grand Enquest” dated June 2, 1652, neither David Linnel nor Hannah Shelley are indicted ; yet, on the next day, June 3, 1652, the Court condemn “both of them to be publicly whipt at Barnstable, where they live,” and the sentence was executed at Barnstable five days afterwards, that is on the 8th day of Juue, 1652.

These proceedings were in violation of the form of law ; the accused were not indicted by the grand jury — they were not heard in their defense, do not appear to have been at Court, and were condemned and punished for a crime of which they had not confessed themselves guilty.

The conduct of John Alden and Priscilla Mullins technically was not in violation of the law ; but it was a violation of its spirit and meaning. That they should be glorified and their praises sung by the poet, and that David and Hannah should be whipped at the post, seems not to be meting out equal and even handed justice to all. If the Court had ordered Mrs. Judith to have been scourged in public she would have enlisted but little sympathy in her behalf.

David Linnel inherited, the homestead of his father. That portion of it that adjoined the public highway he does not appear to have owned in 1686. He may have owned the north part of it, and the description of it in his will favors that presumption, and there he built his two story single house, with a leanto. He was not a prominent man, and little is known of him. He delayed joining the qhurch till July 1, 1688, the year before his death. His wife did not join. His will is dated Nov. 14, 1688, and was proved March 9th following. To his sons Samuel and Elisha, and his daughters Hannah Davis, Mary, Experience, Susanna and Abigail, he gives one shilling each. To his sons Jonathan and John his dwelling-house and housing and all his lands, both upland and marsh, the upland to be divided lengthwise, and his son Jonathan to have his house and to pay his brother John one-half as much as said house shall be judged to be worth by indifferent men ; and both upland and marsh to be equally divided for quantity and quality between them, and to be unto them, and their heirs forever.” He gave to his wife Hannah the improvement of one-third of his lands and the leanto room of his house during her widowhood, and appoints her sole executrix. His personal estate was apprised at £28,6,6. In the apprisement corn and barley are rated at 1 shilling 6 pence, or 25 cents per bushel.

The will of Wid. Hannah Linnel is dated 2 Feb 1708/09, and was proved on the 5 Apr 1709. She names her daughters Abigail Linnel, Mary Sergeant, wife of John, Experience, wife of Jabez Davis, Susanna, wife of Eben. Phinney, and her grand-daughter Hannah Davis, daughter of Dollar. She signs with her mark, and appoints John Phinney, Jr., her executor.

iv. Abigail Linnell b. 1630 in London, England; d. 1662 Barnstable, Barnstable, Mass; m. 27 May 1651 in Barnstable to Joshua Lombard (b 15 Oct 1620 in Thorncombe, Dorset,  England – d. 1691 in Barnstable, Barnstable, Mass.) Joshua’s parents were  our ancestors Thomas LUMBERT  and [__?__]. Abigail and Joshua had five children born between 1652 and 1663.

Joshua immigrated with his family: Lombard, Thomas 49 Thorncombe, Dorset Lombard wife 47 Lombard, Barnard son a. 22 Lombard, Thomas Jr. son 12 Lombard, Joshua son 9 Lombard, Margaret daughter 6.    “The Mary & John” left Plymouth, England March 20, 1630 with her unknown Master, arriving in Nantasket Point, now Dorchester, Mass., at the entrance of Boston Harbor on March 20, 1630, two weeks before the Winthrop Fleet arrived.

v. Mary Linnell b. 1631 in London, England; d 1662 in Barnstable, Barnstable, Mass; m. 15 Oct 1649 Barnstable to Richard Childs (b. 14 Jun 1624 in Wesminster, Middlesex, England – d. 15 Sep 1691 in Marshfield, Plymouth, Mass) Richard’s parents were Nathaniel Childe (1591 – 1627) and Isabell Tredway (1591 – 1649) Mary and Richard had three children born between 1651 and 1655.

Children of Robert and Peninnah

vi Shubael Linnell b. 1637 in London, England; killed 26 Mar 1676  ambushed in what is now Central Falls, Rhode Island.

Respecting Shubael Linnel little is known. He is named in 1667 as a guardian of the children of the second Thomas Ewer. A Samuel Linael of Barnstable was killed at the battle of Rehobeth, and as the only Samuel Linnel of Barnstable in 1776 was Samuel, son of David, and as he is named as living in 1688 he could not have been the man killed in 1676. To reconcile these conflicting statements Amos Otis supposed that there is an error in the records, that Shubael, the guardian, is the same person who is called Samuel in the returns of the killed March 26, 1676 during King Philip’s War.   See my post Nine Men’s Misery – 1676.

vii. Bethia Linnell b. 7 Feb 1640 in Barnstable, Barnstable, Mass.; m1. 25 Mar 1664 in Sandwich, Barnstable, Mass. to Henry Atkins (b. 1640 in Eastham, Barnstable, Mass. – d.  24 Aug 1700 in Chatham, Dukes, Mass)  His parents were Abraham Atkins and [__?__].  Henry’s first wife was Elizabeth Wells (1621 - 1661)

m2. 7 Apr 1701 in Eastham to Stephen Hopkins (b. Sep 1642 in Yarmouth, Barnstable, Mass – d. 10 Oct 1718 in Harwich, Barnstable, Mass.) His parents were Gyles Hopkins and Katherine Whelden.  All four of his grandparents were our ancestors:  Stephen HOPKINSMary [__?__] and Gabriel WHELDEN  & Jane [__?__].  Stephen first married  23 May 1667 Eastham to Mary Merrick (1650 – 1692); Stephen and Abigail Hopkins married Mary and William Merrick on the same day. The Merrick parents were William Merrick (1602 – 1688) and Rebecca Tracy (1625 – 1686) Stephen and Mary had tenchildren born between 1667 and 1692. Mary may well have died after giving birth;

m2. 7 Apr 1701 Eastham to Bethiah Linnell (b: 7 Feb 1641 in Barnstable – d.25 Mar 1726 Harwich) Bethiah’s parents were Robert Linnell and Penninah Howse. She first married 25 Mar 1664 Eastham to Henry Atkins (b. 1617, England – d. 24 Aug 1700 Eastham)

3. Drusilla Howse

Drusilla’s husband Simon Player was born about 1601 in Eastwell, Kent, England

4. John Howse

John’s wife Mary Osborne was born about 1603 in Ashford, Kent, England.  Her parents were Edward Osborne and [__?__].

“Canterbury Marriage License. John House, of Lenham, saddler, bachelor, about 21, at his own government, and Mary Osborne, of Ashford, maiden, about 20, daughter of Edward Osborne late of the same place, yeoman, deceased, and now under the government of her mother, ____ Osborne of the same place, widow, who consents. To be married at Eastwell by reason that Mr. John House [rector and] parson there, father of the said John House, intendeth to give them their wedding dinner. Dated 18 September 1623.”

Child of John and Mary

i. William House b. bef. 1636;  d. 1699 Virginia; Immigrated to  immigrated to Charles City CO.,Virginia in 1652 or 1657 I’ve seen both dates; Living in 1661 Surrey County, Virginia when he witnessed a wedding;  m. Alice Nelms (b. 1746 Westmoreland, Virginia – d. 1705 Virginia)  William and Alice had five children born between 1683 and 1695.

Many genealogies repeat that while William was the son of John and Mary, he was born in Germany. Many genealogies say William had a son Rev. Thomas House (b. ~1657 Brunswick, Virginia – d. 05 Jun 1735 Brunswick, Virginia who in 1679 married Hannah Lawrence. If so, William must have had a first wife because Alice was only 11 years old in 1657.

6. Thomas Howse

Thomas’ wife Elizabeth Osborne was born about 1600 in Ashford, Kent, England.

The will of Thomas Howse of St. Stephen in Coleman street, London, a Citizen and Brownbaker of London, was dated 18 Oct 1643.

St. Stephen’s Church, Coleman Street was a church in the City of London, at the corner of Coleman Street and what is now Gresham Street, first mentioned in the 13th century. Destroyed in the Great Fire of London of 1666, it was rebuilt by the office of Sir Christopher Wren. The church was destroyed again, by bombing in 1940, and was never rebuilt.

Early in the 17th century, St. Stephen’s became a Puritan stronghold.   John Davenport, the vicar appointed in 1624, later resigned to become a Nonconformist pastor. His successor, John Goodwin, was also a prominent Puritan preacher. Goodwin was ejected from St Stepehn’s in 1645 for setting up a covenanted community within his parish and was briefly imprisoned after the Restoration for his political views. The five Members of Parliament impeached by Charles I repaired to Coleman Street in early 1642 when his troops were searching for them, and during the Commonwealth, communion was only allowed to those passed by a committee comprising the vicar and 13 parishioners – 2 of whom had signed the death warrant of Charles I.

Thomas lists his wife Elizabeth, his brother Samuel [of Scituate and Barnstable, Mass., his sister “Pininna” Lynell, his sister Druscilla Player. He also lists as administrators, the famous Puritan Praise-God Barebon [Speaker of Parliament during the Commonwealth period, known as “Barebones Parliamant”, and William Granger, who was brought up before the High Commission along with Barebon’s wife Sara. All were members of Rev. Lothrop’s congregation in London]

Praise-God Barebone (c. 1598 –1679) administered Thomas' will.

Praise-God Barebone (c. 1598 –1679) administered Thomas’ will.

Thomas made a specific bequest in his will to Mr. John Goodwine, minister at St. Stephen’s Church in Coleman Street in London. A previous pastor of this church had been Rev. John Davenport, a prominent Puritan clergyman who had been persecuted by Archbishop Laud and emigrated to New Haven.

His will mentions wife Elizabeth; one third to son Samuel Howse; one third to “the child my wife now goeth withal;” and the other third to pay legacies to brother John Howes £20 and to each child he shall have living at my death 50s; to brother Samuell Howse £20 and to each child he shall have living at my death 50s apiece; to sister Pininna Lynnell £10, and to every child she shall have living at my death 50s; £10 to the needy poor at the discretion of my friends Praise Baron and William Grainter the elder; to Mr. John Goodwine, minister of the word of God in the parish of St. Stephens, Coleman Street, 50s.  And if I die in London and he make my funeral sermon, 20s more….  Will proved 23 Dec 1644 by Elizabeth Howes, relict of the deceased

7. Samuel Howse

Samuel’s wife Elizabeth Hammond was baptized 28 Oct 1620 in Lavenham, Suffolk, England.  Her parents were William HAMMOND and Elizabeth PAYNE.  Elizabeth died 1 Jul 1662 in Scituate, Plymouth, Mass.

Samuel was a ship carpenter which accounts for his frequent removals. Neither the records nor tradition furnish any evidence that any vessels were built in Barnstable before 1675. John Davis had a large boat, or small vessel, at the time of the settlement, which was used in the transporting of articles from Scituate and other places to Barnstable. The bark “Desire,” Capt. Samuel Mayo, appears to have been the first vessel of any considerable size that hailed from Barnstable. She is named in
1650. None appear to have been built at that early period, though there was an abundance of material, and many of the first settlers were mechanics

1632 – Samuel was imprisoned in London because of his participation in Separatist activities. See above for his interrogation at a Court of High Commission on May 8 1632.

Samuel  emigrated to America in 1634, joined Rev Lothrop’s church in Scituate then Barnstable, and returned to Scituate.

Samuel Howes, as he generally wrote his name, or House, as it is generally written on the records, and as his descendants spell their name, probably came over in 1634 with the Rev. John Lothrop. He first settled in Scituate, was a freeman Jan. 1, 1634/35, and was one of the founders of the church there Jan 8 1634/35. He built the 12th house in Scituate, situate between the houses of Richard Foxwell and Mr. Lothrop. This he afterwards sold to Nicholas Simpkins.

He was one of the first settlers in Barnstable, and probably came with his brother-in-law Rev. Mr. Lothrop in 1639. In regard to his residence in Barnstable, He did not remain long, for in 1642 he
was a resident in Cambridge.

13 Nov 1643 – In a deed dated at Cambridge, Mass. in which he conveys to Joseph Tilden fifty acres of upland and nine acres of marsh land situate near the North River in Scituate, he styles himself a shipcarpenter, and also in another deed to Thomas Rawlins, dated Jan. 22, 1646-7.

18 Oct 1643 – In his will “Thomas Howse of the parish of St Stephen in Coleman Street, London, a citizen and brownbaker,” included bequests to “my brother Samuell Howse” and “my sister Pininna Lynnell.”

18 Nov 1645 – “Samuel Howse of Barnstable” made a letter of attorney to “Hezekiah Usher of Boston to receive twenty pounds of the executor of Thomas [blank] given him by the last will of the said Thomas [blank].”

20 Jul 1649 – “Samuel Howse of Scituat shipwright” made a letter of attorney to “Tho[mas] Tarte of the same merchant … to ask &c. of the executor &c. of the last will & testament of Thomas House late of Lond[on] watchmaker, all such legacies as due unto the children of the said appearer by virtue of the said last will.”

In 1646 he had returned to Scituate, and was that year appointed to gather the excise in that town.

In 1652 and 3 he was a grand juryman, and though appointed to note the short comings of his neighbors, the following record shows that he, like many others, did not note his own.
“1659, June, Samuel House is enjoyned by the Court to take some speedy course with a dogg, that is troublesome and dangerous in biting folks as they go by the highwaies.”

Samuel House died in Scituate in 1661, leaving four children. Samuel and Elizabeth were appointed Oct. 1, administrators on their father’s estate. His estate in Scituate was apprised at £241,14, and in Barnstable, by John CHIPMAN and Tristram Hull at £249,17, a large estate in those times. William Paine, of Boston, a man of great wealth, who died in 1660, bequeathed “to my kinswoman Elizabeth, daughter of Samuel House, £10.” She was his grandniece

Children of Samuel and Elizabeth:

i. Elizabeth House b. 23 Oct 1636 Scituate, Plymouth, Mass.; d. 1679 Scituate, Plymouth, Mass; m. 1 Jan 1661 in Scituate to John Sutton (b. 1642 in Scituate, Plymouth, Mass. – d. 12 Nov 1691 in Scituate, Plymouth, Mass.) John’s parents were George Sutton (b. 12 Apr 1613 Sandwich, Kent, England – d. 12 Apr 1669 Perquimans, North Carolina) and Sarah Tilden (b. 13 Jun 1613 in Tenderden, Kent, England – d. 20 Mar 1677 in Perquimans, Perquimans, North Carolina) Elizabeth and John had four children born between 1662 and 1679.

Alternatively, John’s parents were John Sutton (b. 1593 in Attleborough, Norfolk, England – d. 01 Jun 1672 in Rehoboth, Bristol, Mass) and Lianna Little (1595 in England -1678 in Rehoboth) His grandparents were Henry Sutton (1567 – 1599) and Sarah Tilden (1589 – ). This version doesn’t require an explanation on how the Suttons got from Massachusetts to North Carolina which would be a unique trip among the thousands of 17th Century people I’ve researched.

ii. Samuel House b. ~1638 Scituate, Plymouth, Mass there is no record of his birth or baptism.; d 15 Jul 1702 Scituate, Plymouth, Mass; m. 15 Mar 1664 in Scituate to Rebecca Nichols (b. 1641 in Hingham, Plymouth, Mass. – d. 1709) Her parents were Thomas Nichols (b. 1616 in England – d. 8 Nov 1696 in Hingham, Mass.) and Rebecca Josselyn (b. 1617 in Lancaster, Lancasterhire, England – d. 22 Sep 1675 in Hingham). Samuel and Rebecca had eight children born between 1665 and 1685.

Samuel Jr. was also a ship carpenter. His ship yard, probably his father’s, was near Hobart’s Landing in Scituate

iii. Sarah House bapt. 1 Aug 1641 Barnstable, Barnstable, Mass.

iv. John House b. 6 Dec 1642 Cambridge, Mass; bapt. 18 May 1645 Barnstable,,

All these children it appears by the will of the grandfather Hammond, dated July 1, 1642, one year after the death of Samuel House, were then living and the widow Elizabeth.

According to the usages in the Old Colony, the widow Elizabeth was entitled to letters of administration, but for some reason that does not appear, administration was granted to the two elder children, Elizabeth and Samuel. The final settlement I do not find on record. It seems that some trouble arose ; for Aug. 4, 1663, the Court summoned John Sutton and Mr. Tilden, to give an account of the division and disposed of the estate before the next October term of the Court, if they “doe not end it in the interem,” as do record appears, the presumption is, that it was ended “in the interem.”


Genealogical notes of Barnstable families (1888) by Amos Otis





Posted in 12th Generation, 13th Generation, College Graduate, Dissenter, Double Ancestors, Line - Miller, Line - Shaw | 9 Comments

Thomas Hawes Sr.

Thomas HAWES Sr (1500 – 1574)  was Alex’s 13th Great Grandfather in the Shaw line.

I found it!  Hayes of Little Leigh  -- Arms: Sable, a chevron Argent between three leopards' faces Or (Harl 1424)(In Harl 1505 the leopards' faces are Argent)

I found it! Hayes of Little Leigh — Arms: Sable, a chevron Argent between three leopards’ faces Or (Harl 1424)
(In Harl 1505 the leopards’ faces are Argent)

Thomas Hawes was born about 1500 Solihull, Warwickshire.  His parents were  Thomas HAWES (b. ~1450) and Ann GREANWOLD or Johanna RENSFORD.   He married Elizabeth BROME in 1527 in Lichfield, Staffordshire, England.  Thomas died 1574 in Solihull.

Thomas Hawes Pedigree  -- 1563 Visitation of Warwickshire

Thomas Hawes Pedigree (Browne is a 19th C error, should be Brome)

Elizabeth Brome was born  1501 in Baddesley Clinton, Warwickshire.  Her parents were Nicholas BROME ( ~ 1450  at Baddesley Clinton, Warwick – 1516).  and  Katherine LAMPECK  ( –  aft. 1508)  Nicholas’ parents were  He was the son of Lord John Brome and Beatrix Shirley.  Elizabeth died 1566 in Baddesley Clinton.



Children of Thomas and Elizabeth

Name Born Married Departed
1. Willliam HAWES 1531
Solehull, Warwickshire, Englan
1562 in Leigh, Worcester, England
29 Oct 1611 Solihull.
2. Constance Hawes 1528
Solihull, Warwickshire, England
Thomas Shepard
1545 in Hockliffe, Bedfordshire
20 May 1574 Hockliffe, Bedfordshire, England.
3. Elizabeth Hawes Thomas Jackson
4. Margaret Hawes Walter Chamber
4. (Daughter) Hawes [__?__] Hatley

Baddesley Clinton Manor  – Map

Baddesley Clinton Manor (Wiki) was Elizabeth Brome’s childhood home.   It is a moated manor house, located just north of the historic town of Warwick; the house was probably established in the 13th century when large areas of the Forest of Arden were cleared and eventually converted to farmland. The site is a Scheduled Ancient Monument and the Hall is a Grade I listed building.

Baddesley Clinton

Baddesley Clinton

In 1438,  Elizabeth’s grandfather John Brome, the Under-Treasurer of England, bought the manor. It then passed to Elizabeth’s father Nicholas, who is thought to have built the east range, which is the main entrance. Nicholas is also responsible for the extensive rebuilding of the nearby parish church dedicated to St. Michael, done as penance for killing the parish priest, a murder reputed to have taken place in the great house itself.

The house from this period was equipped with gun-ports, and possibly a drawbridge. When Nicholas Brome died in 1517, the house passed to Elizabeth’s sister, who married Sir Edward Ferrers (High Sheriff of Warwickshire) in 1500. The house remained in the ownership of the Ferrers family until 1940 when it was purchased by Thomas Walker, a relative of the family who changed his name to Ferrers. His son, who inherited it in 1970, sold the estate in 1980 to the National Trust, who now manage it.

Baddesley Clinton 2

Elizabeth’s great nephew Henry Ferrers (Wiki) “The Antiquary” (1549–1633) made many additions to Baddesley Clinton, including starting the tradition of stained glass representing the family’s coat of arms. Such glass now appears in many of the public rooms in the house. It is thought that he was responsible for building the great hall. In the 18th century the great hall was rebuilt in brick, and the east range was extended, though with great care to continue the style of the original building.

Baddesley Clinton Stained Glass

Baddesley Clinton Stained Glass

The house was inhabited in the 1860s by the novelists Lady Chatterton (1806-1876) and her second husband Edward Heneage Dering(b. 1827), both of whom converted to Catholicism. The house’s Catholic chapel was rebuilt, along with a general refurbishment of the house. Major interior changes took place up until the 1940s, with the first floor outside the chapel being completely altered.

Baddesley Clinton Plan

Baddesley Clinton Plan

The Great Irish Famine in 1845–1851 deprived Laday Chatterton’s first husband of his rents. They retired to a small house at Bloxworth, Dorset, until 1852, when they moved to Rolls Park, Essex. and Sir William died there on 5 Aug 1855. On 1 Jun 1859 the widow married a fellow novelist Edward Heneage Dering, youngest son of John Dering, rector of Pluckley, Kent, and prebendary of St Paul’s Cathedral, who had retired from the army in 1851.  They took up residence in Baddesley Clinton Hall, where Dering took to wearing 17th-century costume. Twenty years her junior, he was the author of the novels Lethelier and A Great Sensation (1862). Within six years of their marriage Dering entered the Roman Catholic Church. She herself wavered, but after a correspondence with William Bernard Ullathorne, bishop of Birmingham, she also converted in August 1875.

The house as it now exists has extensive formal gardens and ponds, with many of the farm buildings dating back to the 18th century. St. Michael’s church, which shares much history with the house is just a few hundred yards up a lane. Inside the house are a beautiful great hall, parlor and library, among other rooms, and there is a great deal of 16th century carving and furniture,  as well as the 19th century accessories the later inhabitants used.

The Ferrers remained Catholic Recusants after the Reformation, along with many other members of the Warwickshire gentry. They sheltered Catholic priests, who were under the threat of a death sentence if discovered, and made special provision to hide and protect them. Several priest holes were built, secret passages to hide people in the event of a search. One hole is off the Moat Room, and is simply a small room with a door hidden in the wood paneling. A second leads into the ceiling, and though not visible to visitors, is reputed to hold six people. A third is hidden in an old toilet. Fugitives could slide down a rope from the first floor through the old garderobe shaft into the house’s former sewers, which run the length of the building, and could thus probably hold at least a dozen people.

These priest holes are said to have been built by Saint Nicholas Owen, a lay-brother of the Jesuits who made many masterful hides, notably at nearby Harvington Hall. He was eventually caught and tortured to death by the Protestant English government. The hides came into use at least once, in 1591 when a conference of Jesuit priests was raided by local authorities. They did their job, as no-one was caught.

Thomas Hawes

Edmund Hawes Bio 20b

Thomas Hawes Bio – From Edmond Hawes of Yarmouth, Massachusetts 1914

Edmund Hawes Bio 21
Edmund Hawes Bio 22
Edmund Hawes Bio 23
Edmund Hawes Bio 24
Edmund Hawes Bio 25
Edmund Hawes Bio 26
Edmund Hawes Bio 27
Edmund Hawes Bio 28
Edmund Hawes Bio 29

Will of Elizabeth’s brother Rauffe Brome

Will of Rauffe Brome

Will of Thomas Hawes

Will of Thomas Hawes 1
Will of Thomas Hawes 2
Will of Thomas Hawes 3
Will of Thomas Hawes 4
Will of Thomas Hawes 5
Will of Thomas Hawes 6
Will of Thomas Hawes 7
Will of Thomas Hawes 8
Will of Thomas Hawes 9
Will of Thomas Hawes 10

Thomas Hawes Inventory

Thomas Hawes Inventory 1
Thomas Hawes Inventory 2
Thomas Hawes Inventory 3.
Thomas Hawes Inventory 4.
Thomas Hawes Inventory 5.
Thomas Hawes Inventory 6.
Thomas Hawes Inventory 7.


1. Willliam HAWES (See his page)

2. Constance Hawes

Constance’s husband Thomas Shepherd was born 1515 in Stewkley, Buckinghamshire, England.    Thomas died 1563 in Hockliffe, Bedfordshire, England

Children of Constance and William

i. William Shepherd b. 1546 in Hockliffe, Bedfordshire, England'; d. 4 May 1623 Great Rollright, Oxfordshire, England; m. Ann Moore  (b. Whitechurch)  William and Anne had seven children

ii.  Thomas Shepherd b. 1557 in Normand-On-Soar, Nottinghamshire, England; d. 17 Dec 1607 Maulden, Bedfordshire, England

3. Elizabeth Hawes

Elizabeth’s husband Thomas Jackson

Children of Elizabeth and Thomas

i. Thomas Jackson

ii. Others

4. Margaret Hawes

Margaret’s husband Walter Chamber

5. Daughter Hawes

She and [__?__] Hatley had issue




Posted in Line - Shaw | 4 Comments

William Hawes

William HAWES (1531 – 1611)  was Alex’s 12th Great Grandfather; one of 8,192 in this generation of the Shaw line.

I found it!  Hayes of Little Leigh  -- Arms: Sable, a chevron Argent between three leopards' faces Or (Harl 1424)(In Harl 1505 the leopards' faces are Argent)

I found it! Hayes of Little Leigh — Arms: Sable, a chevron Argent between three leopards’ faces Or (Harl 1424)
(In Harl 1505 the leopards’ faces are Argent)

William Hawes was born 1531 in Solehull, Warwickshire, England.  His parents were Thomas HAWES   and Elizabeth BROME.  He married Ursula COLLES in 1562 in Leigh, Worcester, England. William died 29 Oct 1611 Solihull.

Copy of William Hawes Brass from a copy in the Solihull library that was easier to read, primarily because we could get closer to it!

Copy of William Hawes Brass from a copy in the Solihull library that was easier to read, primarily because we could get closer to it!

Ursula Colles was born 1545 in Leigh, Worcestershire, England. Her parents were William COLLES (b. 1500 Leigh – d. 1558 Leigh) and Margaret HITCH (b.1505 in Leigh – d. 1511 in Leigh) Ursula died 26 Oct 1611 in Solihull, Warwickshire, England

St. Alphege Church, Solihull

Edmund was baptized in St. Alphege Church, Solihull

St. Alphege Church is medieval. The previous spire was 59m and collapsed in 1757: the current spire is 57.34m The Church, dedicated to St. Alphege, is a large cruciform structure. The tracery mouldings and corbels in the interior are extremely elegant; there are also some fine specimens of screen work: it consists of nave, chancel, side aisles, and an embattled tower, surmounted by an octagonal spire, and contains a peal of thirteen good bells.

Children of William and Ursula Given in Order of the Visitation of Warwickshire:

Name Born Married Departed
1. Thomas Hawes bef. 1611
2. William Hawes bef. 1611
3. Edmund HAWES Sr 1567 in Hillfield Solihull, Warwickshire, England Jane PORTER
1599 in Bayham, Sussex, England.
1653 in Solihull, Warwickshire, England
4. Ursula Hawes Young
5. Elizabeth Hawes William Sheldon
16 Oct 1588
6. Ursula Hawes Raphael Hunt
8 Nov 1595
7. Constance Hawes George Dalby
btw. 1615 – 1619
8. Thomas Hawes bef. 1653
Hillfield Hall

Hillfield Hall was built for William and Ursula Hawes in 1576. It remained in the family until the 1660s, at which time it was owned first by the Feildings, and later by the Greswolds.

More recently, it became a nightclub (1964) and then a restaurant (1974), and now it has been converted into apartments. The main house was divided into 3 units with a total asking price of 2 million pounds. To the left, with a side entrance, is The Tower.

Above the main doorway remains the Latin inscription Hic Hospites in Caelo Cives (Here we are guests, in Heaven citizens), along with the initials of William and Ursula Hawes, and 1576.

Above the main doorway remains the Latin inscription Hic Hospites in Caelo Cives (Here we are guests, in Heaven citizens), along with the initials of William and Ursula Hawes, and 1576.

Perpendicular to the main house, these existing buildings were also converted into 3 residences. Back when the house was a restaurant, at least some of this property was a bar called The Stable, so you can probably guess its original use.

Hillfield Hall Site Plan

New housing was built on the rest of the land, for a grand total of 19 units. It would be fun to live there now, but it would be even more exciting to go back in time and see Hillfield Hall in 1576!

William HAWES

Hillfield Hall in 1904

Hillfield Hall in 1904

The present house was built by William Hawes in 1576 and descended through the Hawes Family to the Fieldings and then the Greswoldes.  The south front of the Hall was destroyed by fire in 1867 but was rebuilt.  The Hall became a restaurant in 1974 and was recently converted into three apartments.

Edmund Hawes Bio 41

Hillfield Hall

Edmund Hawes Bio 30
Edmund Hawes Bio 31
Edmund Hawes Bio 32
Edmund Hawes Bio 33
Edmund Hawes Bio 34
Edmund Hawes Bio 35
Edmund Hawes Bio 36
Edmund Hawes Bio 37
Edmund Hawes Bio 38
Edmund Hawes Bio 39
Edmund Hawes Bio 40

Hillfield Hall

Hillfield Hall 1911

Edmund Hawes Bio 42
Edmund Hawes Bio 43jpg
Edmund Hawes Bio 44
Edmund Hawes Bio 45
Edmund Hawes Bio 46
Edmund Hawes Bio 47
Edmund Hawes Bio 48
Edmund Hawes Bio 49
Edmund Hawes Bio 50
Edmund Hawes Bio 51

Martydom of St Thomas Becket, Solihull

Martydom of St Thomas Becket, Solihull

St Alphege Church - Between the north porch (right) and the north transept (left), you can see 2 nave windows. The one on the left looks into St Thomas a Becket's Chapel (below). This used to be the location of the Hawes' family pew. It was not the ideal place to view a service - the stained glass panel on the right was formerly a small opening through which to look. However, it was the ideal place - in front of all the other pews - to emphasize your wealth and status.

St Alphege Church – Between the north porch (right) and the north transept (left), you can see 2 nave windows. The one on the left looks into St Thomas a Becket’s Chapel (below). This used to be the location of the Hawes’ family pew. It was not the ideal place to view a service – the stained glass panel on the right was formerly a small opening through which to look. However, it was the ideal place – in front of all the other pews – to emphasize your wealth and status.

Above the stained glass panel is a Jacobean monument containing a brass, dated 1610, to William and Ursula Hawes. It was restored in the 1990s by American relatives.

Above the stained glass panel is a Jacobean monument containing a brass, dated 1610, to William and Ursula Hawes. It was restored in the 1990s by American relatives.

Copy of William Hawes Brass from a copy in the Solihull library that was easier to read, primarily because we could get closer to it!

Copy of William Hawes Ursual Colles Brass from the Solihull library. The Hawes’ coat of arms is on the left, and the Colles’ coat of arms is on the right.

William Hawes Will

Will of Thomas Hawes 1
William Hawes Will 2
William Hawes Will 3
William Hawes Will 4
William Hawes Will 5
William Hawes Will 6
William Hawes Will 7
William Hawes Will 8
William Hawes Will 9

Ursula Colles’ Ancestors 

Ursula’a great grandfather 1. Richard COLLES( – 1440) of Powick m.  Margaret, daughter of Thomas HALL, Esq. of Suckley

Ursula’s grandfather 2.  William COLLES of Bransford in Leigh m1. Isabell, duaghter of Richard TUBERVILLE; m2. Alice, daughter of William Romney

Ursula’s father 3. William COLLES (1500 Leigh – 1558 Leigh) m, Margaret HITCH (b.1505 in Leigh – d. 1511 in Leigh) sister and co-heiress of John Hitch of Gloustershire.

Colles 1
Colles 2
Colles 3
Colles 4
Colles 5
Colles 6

Ursual (Coles) Hawes Will

Ursula Hawes Will 1
Ursula Hawes Will 2
Ursula Hawes Will 3
Ursula Hawes Will 4

Children Given in Order of the Visitation of Warwickshire

1. Thomas Hawes

Died without issue before his father

2. William Hawes

Died without issue before his father

3. Edmund HAWES Sr. (See his page)

5. Elizabeth Hawes

Elizabeth’s husband William Sheldon was born in Bromsgrove, Warwickshire

6. Ursula Hawes

Ursula’s husband Raphael Hunt was born in Stoke Green, Hambury Parish, Warwickshire

7. Constance Hawes

Constance’s husband George Dalby was born in Milcombe, Boxham Parish, Oxford


Edmond Hawes of Yarmouth, Massachusetts: an emigrant to America in 1635, his ancestors, including the allied families of Brome, Colles, Greswold, Porter, Rody, Shirley and Whitfield; and some of his descendants  By James William Hawes  1914   –
A genealogy of this  immigrant and his descendants, with extensive information on the English origin, including the apprenticeship in London, and with full transcripts of many important documents




Posted in 14th Generation, Artistic Representation, Historical Church, Historical Monument, Line - Shaw | 4 Comments

Edmund Hawes Sr.

Edmund HAWES Sr. (1567 – 1653)  was Alex’s 11th Great Grandfather; one of 4,096 in this generation of the Shaw line.

I found it!  Hayes of Little Leigh  -- Arms: Sable, a chevron Argent between three leopards' faces Or (Harl 1424)(In Harl 1505 the leopards' faces are Argent)

I found it! Hayes of Little Leigh — Arms: Sable, a chevron Argent between three leopards’ faces Or (Harl 1424)
(In Harl 1505 the leopards’ faces are Argent)

Edmond Hawes was born in 1567 in Hillfield Solihull, Warwickshire, England. His parents were William HAWES and Ursula COLLES. He married Jane PORTER 1599 in Bayham, Sussex, England. Edmund died 1653 in Solihull, Warwickshire, England.

Edmund Hawes Sr Signature

Edmund Hawes Sr Signature

Jane Porter was born 1582 in Bayham, Sussex, England. Her parents were Richard PORTER and Jane WHITFIELD Jane died 1643 in Solihull, Warwickshire, England

St. Alphege Church, Solihull

Edmund was baptized in St. Alphege Church, Solihull

St. Alphege Church is medieval. The previous spire was 59m and collapsed in 1757: the current spire is 57.34m The Church, dedicated to St. Alphege, is a large cruciform structure. The tracery mouldings and corbels in the interior are extremely elegant; there are also some fine specimens of screen work: it consists of nave, chancel, side aisles, and an embattled tower, surmounted by an octagonal spire, and contains a peal of thirteen good bells.

Children of Edmund and Jane:

Name Born Married Departed
1. Jane Hawes bapt.
5 Oct 1600
2. Lucy Hawes  bapt.
12 Jan 1602/03
3. Ursula Hawes bapt.
19 Jan 1601/02
16 Apr 1602
4. William Hawes bapt.
30 Dec 1604
5. Ursula Hawes bapt.
26 Oct 1606
6. Mary Hawes bapt.
25 Oct 1607
Shelly, Solihull, Warwick, England
7. Ann Hawes  5 Sep 1609
8.  John Hawes bapt.
23 Apr 1611
9. Edmund HAWES bapt.
15 Oct 1612
Hillfield,  Solihull, Warwick, England
Lucy PENECOT 10 Jun 1693 in Yarmouth, Barnstable, Mass.
10. Elizabeth Hawes bapt.
18 Aug 1616
11. Ruth Hawes bapt.
28 Jun 1618
12. Thomas Hawes died without issue

Edmund Hawes 1619 Visitation

Jane Porter’s Ancestors

Jane’s 3rd great grandfather 1 William PORTER was of Markham, Nottingham

Jane’s 2nd great grandfather 2. Stephen PORTER lived in Sussex

Jane’s great grandfather 3. Richard PORTER m. Joane, daughter of John WILDEGOSE

Jane’s grandfather 4. John PORTER ( – 1574) of Bayham in Sussex married Anne, daughter of Richard ISTED, of Moat House in Mayfield, Sussex.

Jane’s father 5. Richard PORTER ( – 1584) m. Jane, daughter of Robert WHITFIELD of Wadhurst in Sussex.  Richard had ironworks

Porter 1
Porter 2
Porter 3
Porter 4
Porter 5

Edmund Hawes Sr.

Edmund Hawes Sr Bio -

Edmund Hawes Sr Bio – From Edmond Hawes of Yarmouth, Massachusett 1914

Edmund Hawes Bio 53
Edmund Hawes Bio 54
Edmund Hawes Bio 55
Edmund Hawes Bio 56
Edmund Hawes Bio 57
Edmund Hawes Bio 58
Edmund Hawes Bio 59
Edmund Hawes Bio 60
Edmund Hawes Bio 61
Edmund Hawes Bio 62
Edmund Hawes Bio 63
Edmund Hawes Bio 64

Children of Edmund and Jane:

Hawes English Origins

The Hawes family in Solihull goes back 700 years to a  1313 deed in which Robert Hawes agrees with his brother Richard to dig, enclose and maintain two hedges and ditches for the manner of Solihull and in which mention is made of land which Richard had bought of Dame Ela de Odingsells, widow of Sir. William de Odingsells, Lord of the Manor

Sir William de Odingsells was knighted in 1283. Like his father he was an active soldier, He was Sheriff of Shropshire and achieved the high position of Chief Justiciar of Ireland.

He married Ela, daughter of the Earl of Salisbury and great grand-daughter of Henry II.
The extensions which he made to his moated home, set within the medieval park, witnessed to his rank and status. So too did his great scheme to rebuild St Alphege church. First to be built c. 1277 were the fine chancel and the chantry chapels but progress was interrupted by Sir William’s death in 1295. The manor was sold and the rebuilding continued slowly, not reaching its completion until 1535.

Solihull Map

Metropolitan Borough of Solihull

Solihull  is a town in the West Midlands of England with a population of 94,753.  It is a part of the West Midlands conurbation and is located 9 miles  southeast of Birmingham city centre. It is the largest town in, and administrative centre of, the larger Metropolitan Borough of Solihull, which itself has a population of 200,400.

Richard Hammond – Top Gear presenter and radio personality was born in Solihull.

Historically part of Warwickshire, Solihull is one of the most prosperous towns in the English Midlands.  Residents of Solihull and those born in the town are referred to as Silhillians The motto of Solihull is Urbs in Rure (Town in Country)

Solihull’s name is commonly thought to have derived from the position of its parish church, St Alphege, on a ‘soily’ hill. The church was built on a hill of stiff red marl, which turned to sticky mud in wet weather.

Solihull probably came into being about a thousand years ago, as a clearing in the forest to which people would come to trade.  The town is noted for its historic architecture, which includes surviving examples of timber framed Tudor style houses and shops. The historic Solihull School dates from 1560 (although not on its present site). The red sandstone parish church of St. Alphege dates from a similar period and is a large and handsome example of English Gothic church architecture, with a traditional spire 168 feet high, making it visible from a great distance.   It was founded in about 1220 by Hugh de Oddingsell. A chantry chapel was also founded there by Sir William de Oddingsell in 1277 and the upper chapel in St Alphege was built for a chantry.

Edmund Hawes Bio 2
Edmund Hawes Bio 3
Edmund Hawes Bio 4
Edmund Hawes Bio 5
Edmund Hawes Bio 6
Edmund Hawes Bio 7
Edmund Hawes Bio 8
Edmund Hawes Bio 9
Edmund Hawes Bio10
Edmund Hawes Bio 11,jpg
Edmund Hawes Bio 12
Edmund Hawes Bio 13
Edmund Hawes Bio 14
Edmund Hawes Bio 15
Edmund Hawes Bio 16
Edmund Hawes Bio 17
Edmund Hawes Bio 18
Edmund Hawes Bio 19
Edmund Hawes Bio 20a
For the biographies of  Edmund’s grandparents (7. Thomas Hawes & Elizabeth Brome), and  parents (8. William Hawes & Ursula Colles) see the page of Edmund’s father  William HAWES.


Edmond Hawes of Yarmouth, Massachusetts: an emigrant to America in 1635, his ancestors, including the allied families of Brome, Colles, Greswold, Porter, Rody, Shirley and Whitfield; and some of his descendants  By James William Hawes  1914   –
A genealogy of this  immigrant and his descendants, with extensive information on the English origin, including the apprenticeship in London, and with full transcripts of many important documents

Posted in 13th Generation, Historical Church, Line - Shaw | 2 Comments

Genealogical Resources


Steve Condarcure’s New England Genealogy Index – The purpose of these pages is to help beginners gather raw data for their genealogy project.  This database does NOT have any sources on the names here.  Steve guesses that 98% of the information here is accurate, but there is some that he has put here with the idea that questionable data is better than nothing.



Great Migration Begins: Biographies of immigrants to New England, 1620-33


http://www.capecodgravestones.com/index.html -

Gravestone Records from the 15 Towns of Cape Cod  A major goal is to photograph and display the most interesting old gravestones in Barnstable County before they are lost to the ravages of time. A related goal is to provide reasonably complete gravestone records from the earliest in 1683 up to 1900 for all Barnstable County cemeteries. The web site is complete to 1880 for most cemeteries and many cemeteries are complete to 1900. Work continues for the time period 1880 – 1900.



Since the earliest days of settlement, the town clerk of the community has been responsible for vital records. He or she is usually the best person to approach for advice about how to access the records.

GenForum –  Genealogy Message Board organized by surname

PlymouthColony.net –  holds a variety of resources for those whose research involves families of New Plymouth Colony (1620-1685) and the Massachusetts counties that sprang from it – Plymouth, Barnstable and Bristol. That includes sites for Plymouth and Barnstable Counties, twenty-eight sites for cities and towns in the Old Colony, and one for Town Records of Barnstable County.  It also hosts three sites for towns in other Massachusetts counties, a set of forums for online genealogical and historical discussions, and four sites holding other genealogical resources

RootsWeb.com  –  Resources to connect people so that they can help each other and share genealogical research.

USGenWeb Project – A group of volunteers working together to provide free genealogy websites for genealogical research in every county and every state of the United States. This Project is non-commercial and fully committed to free genealogy access for everyone.

Organization is by county and state, and this website provides you with links to all the state genealogy websites which, in turn, provide gateways to the counties. The USGenWeb Project also sponsors important Special Projects at the national level and this website provides an entry point to all of those pages, as well.

World Connect Project –  The WorldConnect Project is a set of tools, which allow users to upload, modify, link, and display their family trees as a means to share their genealogy with other researchers.  More than 640 million names on file

English Ancestors

Medieval source material on the internet: Heralds’ Visitations and the College of Arms -

At first sight, the heralds’ visitations are an ideal source of information for the medieval genealogist. The visitations produced a collection of pedigrees of families with the right to bear arms, recorded between the early 16th and the late 17th century, but in many cases extending much further back. Though they are indeed a valuable source, they must be used with great care, and confirmed from contemporary records wherever possible.

From the early 16th century to the late 17th century the heralds carried out visitations, county by county, in order to regulate the use of arms. Most counties were visited several times during this period. Those who were allowed arms had them recorded, including the quarterings to which they were entitled. Most importantly to the genealogist, supporting pedigrees were recorded. These could include, in addition to the main line of descent, offshoots giving the ancestry of wives who were heraldic heirs, in order to illustrate the route by which the quartered arms had been acquired. In these pedigrees, dates are given only occasionally, and presumably reflect the dates of documents which mention the people concerned. Often the ages of those in the final generation are given, which can allow the chronology of the later part of the pedigree to be estimated.

Sometimes the heralds also recorded some of the evidence on which the pedigree was based, such as transcripts of medieval charters, drawings of seals, coats of arms copied from churches or private houses and so on. Other information may also have been recorded at visitations, such as lists of those using arms to which they could not prove any right. This may sound too good to be true and sadly, in many cases, it is not true. While some of the heralds were pioneers in the systematic application of record evidence to genealogy, others were far less skilful and far less scrupulous.

Posted in Research | Leave a comment

Oyster River Massacre – 1694

Most genealogies say Ensign John DAVIS (1621 – 1686) was killed at the Oyster River Massacre,  he actually died a few years earlier, but the actual toll to his family is bad enough; daughter Sarah, son John Jr, daughter-in-law Elizabeth, grandson James and grandson Samuel all killed, two to four grandchildren carried off to Canada, one to live for fifty years as a French nun. Another son and grandson were killed by Indians in 1720 and 1724.

Yesterday, I found out that one of his granddaughters, Mary Smith, later married Thomas Freeman Jr, , son of our ancestor Deacon Thomas FREEMAN (1653 – 1716) who lived 150 miles away in Cape Cod.  Did Mary escape or was she captured and taken to Canada?   How did she get  from New Hampshire to Harwich?   Was the attack a treacherous massacre or justified act of war?  I decided to make this post to share what I found out.

Navigate this Report
1. Overview
2.Background – King William’s War
3. French Perspective
4. Indian Perspective
5. English Perspective
6. Family Perspective
7. Aftermath


1. Overview

The Oyster River Massacre (known to the French and Indians as the Raid on Oyster River)  happened during King William’s War, on July 18, 1694 at present-day Durham, New Hampshire.

Durham, Strafford, New Hampshire

Durham, Strafford, New Hampshire

Strictly speaking, this place formed part of the township of Dover until the year 1732, but it was five or six miles, from Dover proper, and was always a distinct settlement, and had a separate history from the first.

Oyster River Detail

Oyster River Detail — Circa 1667 Map of The Piscataqua by John Scott (See full map below)

The name of “Oyster river” was given by the early pioneers to the Indian Shankhassick, a branch of the Piscataqua, on the banks of which they had found a bed of oysters. This stream has a channel broad and deep enough for shipping as far as the head of tide-water—that is, to the falls in Durham village, which is about two miles from its mouth and ten miles from Portsmouth harbor. There was no village here, however, in 1694. At that time there was a cordon of twelve garrisons along both sides of the river below, in which, at the least signal of danger from the Indians, those scattered settlers took refuge whose houses were without means of defense. But the meeting-house, the parsonage, the licensed tavern, and the center of local affairs were then on the south side of the river, more than a mile below the falls, on the tongue of land between the Oyster and Piscataqua rivers, now known as Durham Point.

151 Durham Point Road

151 Durham Point Road

This point is a rough, hilly tract of land, whose heights afford some delightful views across the tidal streams that enclose it.   At that time Durham Point was alive with the activity of the early colonists, who were engaged in fisheries and in supplying lumber for a foreign market, as well as in agriculture.

View from 151 Durham Point Road

View from 151 Durham Point Road

A force of about 250 Indians under command of the French soldier, Claude-Sébastien de Villieu, and “the fighting priest” Fr. Louis-Pierre Thury attacked settlements in this area on both sides of the Oyster River, killing or capturing approximately 100 settlers, destroying five garrison houses and numerous dwellings. It was the most devastating French and Indian raid on New England during King William’s war.

I’ve seen different estimates on the casualties

Reverend John Pike wrote in his diary:

The Indians fell suddenly & unexpectedly upon Oyster River about break of Day. Took 3 Garrisons (being deserted or not defended) killed & Carried away 94 persons, & burnt 13 houses- this was the f[i]r[st] act of hostility Committed by [them] after ye peace Concluded at Pemmaqd.

Wikipedia based on Acadia at the End of the Seventeenth Century by John Clarence Webster, Saint John, NB, The New Brunswick Museum, 1979 says

In all, 104 inhabitants were killed and 27 taken captive,[2] with half the dwellings, including the garrisons, pillaged and burned to the ground. Crops were destroyed and livestock killed, causing famine and destitution for survivors.

Jeremy Belknap, The History of New Hampshire, ed. John Farmer (Dover, N.H.: S.C. Stevens and Ela & Wadleigh, 1831)

94 killed and carried away

Another account says

In all, 45 inhabitants were killed and 49 taken captive, with half the dwellings, including 5 garrisons, burned to the ground. Crops were destroyed and livestock killed, causing famine and destitution for survivors.

2. Background – King William’s War

King William’s War  was the North American theater of the Nine Years’ War (1688–97). It was the first of six colonial wars fought between New France and New England along with their respective Native allies before Britain eventually defeated France in North America in 1763.

England’s Catholic King James II was deposed at the end of 1688 in the Glorious Revolution, after which Protestants William and Mary took the throne. William joined the League of Augsburg in its war against France  where James had fled.

In North America, there was significant tension between New France and the northern English colonies, which had in 1686 been united in the Dominion of New England.   New England and the Iroquois Confederacy fought New France and the  Wabanaki Confederacy,

The Wabanaki Confederacy was created by the five Indian tribes in the Acadia region  in response to King Philip’s War. It was a political and military alliance with New France to stop the New England expansion.

The Iroquois dominated the economically important Great Lakes fur trade and had been in conflict with New France since 1680. At the urging of New England, the Iroquois interrupted the trade between New France and the western tribes. In retaliation, New France raided Seneca lands of western New York. In turn, New England supported the Iroquois in attacking New France, which they did by raiding Lachine.

There were similar tensions on the border between New England and Acadia, which New France defined as the Kennebec River in southern Maine. English settlers from Massachusetts (whose charter included the Maine area) had expanded their settlements into Acadia. To secure New France’s claim to present-day Maine, New France established Catholic missions among the three largest native villages in the region: one on the Kennebec River (Norridgewock); one further north on the Penobscot River (Penobscot) and one on the St. John River (Medoctec)

King William's War

King William’s War

Supplies were in short supply. For King William’s War, neither England nor France considered weakening their position in Europe to support the war effort in North America.

Many of our ancestors were involved in other parts of King William’s War: 1689 attacks of Dover NH, Saco ME, and the Siege of Pemaquid;  Benjamin Church‘s   raids on Acadia; the 1690  Battle of Fort Loyal; the 1690  Battle of Port Royal.; the 1690Battle of Quebec; and the 1691 attack on Wells, Me. It was a dangerous time t live in Maine and New Hampshire.    I’ll have to make a post tying all these actions together.

3. French Perspective

In 1688  Sir Edmund Andros, Governor of the Dominion of New England, sailed the H.M.S. Rose into the harbor at the mouth of the Penobscot River. Once anchored, Andros sent his lieutenant ashore at Pentagoet to summon the Baron de St. Castin.  St. Castin was a French army officer, who had established a trading post at Pentagoet near the mouth of the Penobscot.   While he became the third Baron de Saint-Castin on the death of his elder brother in 1675, he appears to have devoted his time to becoming an Abenaki.  He married a daughter of Madockawando, the highly respected principal chief of the Indians living along the Penobscot River.  As the son-in-law of  Madokawando.  St. Castin enjoyed considerable influence among the Indians. The English, not wholly without merit, blamed the current Indian troubles on St. Castin. When the lieutenant returned with word that St. Castin had fled, Andros promptly seized the trading post. All movable goods were conveyed to the Rose, leaving behind only the vestments in St. Castin’s chapel.  Many historians point to this raid as the beginning of King William’s War in the colonies.

Baron De St Castin ((1652–1707)   by Will H Lowe 1881

Baron De St Castin 1881 by Will H Lowe

During King William’s War, after Benjamin Church successfully defended a group of English settlers at Falmouth, Maine in the fall of 1689, Castin returned to the village in May 1690 with over 400 soldiers and destroyed the village. xxx

News of  The Treaty of Pemaquid  stunned the French command. From his base of operations at Fort Nashwaak on the St. John’s River, Joseph Robineau de Villebon understood full well the implications of this treaty. Except for a few regulars and Canadian militia, the Abenaki warriors constituted his entire military force. Their neutrality, or worse yet, their allegiance to the English, put all of Acadia in a very vulnerable position. Villebon moved immediately to counter the effects of the treaty. On September 6, 1693, he dispatched Manidoubtik, a St. John’s chief, to see the Penobscot chief, Taxous, on his behalf. Madockawando’s chief rival, Taxous refused to take part in the peace talks and opposed any accommodation with the English. Manidoubtik was to implore Taxous to raise a faction to end the peace pact.

On September 11, Father Louis-Pierre Thury, Jesuit missionary and the orchestrator of a 1692 raid on York (Maine), arrived at Fort Nashwaak. In this man of God, the English encountered their most dangerous enemy. Thury had established himself at Pentagoet in 1687 at the invitation of St. Castin. Thury regarded the English as heretics and accompanied the Indians on many of their raids. He had lately been at Quebec, but left for the fort at St. John’s as soon as news of the treaty became known. Thury reported to Villebon and the two agreed on a plan of action. Two days later, Thury departed for Pentagoet with the intention of fostering disapproval of Madockawando’s treaty.

Governor General Frontenac  of New France  sent Claude-Sébastien de Villieu in the fall of 1693 into present-day Maine, with orders to “place himself at the head of the Acadian Indians and lead them against the English.” Villieu spent the winter at Fort Nashwaak. The Indian bands of the region were in general disagreement whether to attack the English or not, but after discussions by Villieu and cajoling by the Indians’ priest Fr. Thury (and with support from Fr. Bigot), they went on the offensive.

Louis de Buade de Frontenac

Louis de Buade de Frontenac (1622 – 1698)

Claude-Sébastien de Villieu (1674–1705) was a French military officer best known for his service in New France. In addition to service during King William’s War, he served for a time as military governor of Acadia.

Villieu was a career soldier, having entered the French army in 1648 at the age of fifteen. Villieu fought well against the Iroquois in 1666 and was granted a tract of land on the St. Lawrence River. Despite having done little to develop his grant, Villieu sought loftier appointments. In 1690, he had command of a company of volunteers and acquitted himself favorably during Phips’ siege of Quebec. However, Villieu possessed little real experience in dealing with the problems of a frontier command. He was used to the harsh discipline and regimentation of the regular army. Except for the 1666 campaign, Villieu had spent little time away from the European settlements. At the age of sixty, he was completely unprepared for the undisciplined rigors of frontier life.

According to his own statement, he served for fifteen years on the battlefields of Europe, beginning in 1674, before coming to New France. He participated in the defense of Quebec when it was attacked by New England colonists in 1690. In 1692 he married Judith Leneuf, the daughter of Michel Leneuf de La Vallière de Beaubassin.

Villieu was  n opportunist. Once out of Frontenac’s sight, Villieu sought to better his position in life. Neglecting his duties to Fort Nashwaak, he began a profitable business at the expense of the soldiers he was supposed to be commanding. He began appropriating supplies intended for his men to use in illegal trade with the Indians.  Frontenac later commended Villieu for his efforts; at the same time, however, he summoned him to answer charges related to this trading.

Desiring nothing less than the governorship of Acadia, Villieu took advantage of every opportunity to discredit his commanding officer, Villebon.   Villieu detested having to answer to a man twenty-two years his junior. He acted with insubordination and disregard for Villebon’s authority. It was clear upon Villieu’s arrival at Fort Nashwaak in November 1693 that he had no intention of carrying out his orders with regard to the treaty. Villieu’s arrival on the fifteenth coincided with the loss of a shipment of provisions intended for Villebon’s winter use.  This contributed to the overall supply shortage, rendering many of the troops at the fort unfit for duty. This shortage of supplies remained a source of contention between the two men.

After the Raid on Oyster River  he was rewarded with command of Fort Nashwaak (at present-day Fredericton, New Brunswick). He participated with Jean-Vincent d’Abbadie de Saint-Castin in Pierre Le Moyne d’Iberville‘s successful Siege of Pemaquid in 1696. The ship carrying him from Pemaquid (in present-day Bristol, Maine) was captured, and he was imprisoned in Boston. Eventually released back to France, he returned to Acadia, where he served as the temporary governor from July 1700 to December 1701 after the death of governor Robineau de Villebon.

Little is known of the rest of his life. He was known to have difficult relations with his superiors, but was popular with the people in Acadia.

Louis-Pierre Thury (c. 1644, Notre Dame de Breuil, Normandy,  France-  3 Jun  1699, Halifax, Nova Scotia), known to the English as “The Fighting Priest” was a French missionary who was a liaison between the French and their native American allies during King William’s War.

Thury had probably begun his theological studies in France. He arrived in Canada about 1675, where he finished his theological studies, and was ordained by Bishop Laval  21 Dec. 1677. He first served some parishes on both shores of the St. Lawrence and became busar of the seminary of Quebec.

In 1684, as the institution was planning to found a mission in Acadia, Bishop François de Laval sent Fr. Thury on an observation tour from Percé to Port-Royal (Annapolis Royal, N.S.). The missionary sent the bishop a long account and chose to settle at Miramichi, where Richard Denys  offered a piece of ground for a mission. He remained there three years, receiving the visit of Bishop  Saint- Valllier La Croix, and occasionally went to the Saint John River and Port-Royal.

On Abbé Petit’s advice, he then went to settle at Pentagouet (Castine, Maine), near Jean-Vincent d’Abbadie de Saint-Castin, where he remained eight years. He acquired great influence over the Abenakis and took part in their expeditions. In 1689 he accompanied Saint-Castin on the raid which resulted in the destruction of Pemaquid,; of this he left a detailed account. In 1692 he went along with a war party against York (Maine). Two years later he applied himself to thwarting the endeavors of Phips, who wanted to keep the Abenakis neutral; Thury played an important role in retaining them under French influence. He took part in the attack against Oyster Bay, and was present with  Joseph Robineau de Villebon and a party of Abenakis at the capture of Pemaquid by Pierre Le Moyne d’Iberville  in 1696.

The bishop of Quebec made him his vicar general in 1698 and appointed him to be the superior of the missions in Acadia. About the same time Fr. Thury founded a new mission at Pigiguit (on Minas Basin) and planned to group the Micmac people, in one huge settlement between Shubenacadie and Chibouctou. The court looked with favor upon this plan and granted him a sum of 2,000 livres. His death prevented him from carrying out this undertaking.

Fr. Thury died 3 June 1699 at Chibouctou and was buried by the Indians under a stone monument. Dièreville saw this monument and heard the hymns which the missionary had translated into Micmac.

Fr. Thury had a full career and was a successful missionary. His political role is more open to discussion and has been variously judged. The French officers praised his activity and Charlevoix represented him as a “true apostle,” whereas Parkman considered him merely an “apostle of carnage.”

In 1668, Father Bigot erected a chapel at Narantsouac, now Norridgewock, restoring the mission.

Where were theses Catholic missionaries during the carnage at Oyster River? Belknap only speaks of one; but according to the Durham tradition there were two priests in the expedition. They are said to have taken refuge in the meeting-house, and, without doubt, saved that building from destruction when the neighboring houses, including the parsonage, were burnt to the ground. No credit has been given them for this protection, and a poor return was made when our troops afterward pillaged and then burnt more than one Catholic church among the Indian missions of Maine. In view of this the priests in the Oyster River meeting-house may certainly be pardoned for the trifling act that has been made almost a matter of accusation against them. The local accounts say that while there they “amused themselves” in writing on the pulpit.

The Catholic missionaries seem to have done their utmost to rescue the women and children, at least, from the hands of the savages and place them in good families in Canada, where they were treated with invariable kindness and Christian charity, as is manifest from the accounts given at their return, several of which have been published. Most of the children, at least the girls, were sent to the schools at Quebec and Montreal to be educated, and some of these it is difficult to identify, for they generally received new Christian names in baptism, instead of the Old Testament names in vogue among the Puritans, and their surnames, uncouth to French ears, were phonetically recorded, and thereby transformed almost beyond recognition. Otis, for instance, was written Autes, Hotesse, and even Thys; Hubbard was changed to Ouabard; Willey to Ouilli, Houellet, and Willis; Wheeler to Huiller; Bracket to Bracquil, etc. These are all Oyster River or Dover names. One pupil was registered at Quebec as “Nimbe II.” Her real name was Naomi Hill. Many of the surnames were dropped in despair, and “Auglaise” substituted. Among tle captives at the Ursuline school in Quebec, about the year 1700, were Marie Elisabeth Anglaise, Marie Francoise Anglaise, Anne Marie Anglaise, and so on, to the number of eight or more, with no other -surname.

4. Indian Perspective

In western Maine, the years of 1687 and 1688 brought with them a heightening of tensions between the Abenaki and their English neighbors. Increased settlement, especially near the mouth of the Saco River, triggered a series of conflicts over fishing rights, livestock, and land ownership.  The English placed nets across the Saco River, blocking migrating fish, a major Abenaki food source in the spring. English cattle continually damaged the local tribe’s unfenced corn fields.  The leaders of the Saco Indians approached the English complaining, “that the corn, [the English had]promised by the last treaty, had not been paid, and yet their own was destroyed by the cattle of the English; and that they, being deprived of their hunting and fishing berths, and their lands, were liable to perish of hunger.”  

The Abenaki complaints fell on deaf ears. English failure to address these complaints violated a 1685 treaty that established mechanisms for resolving such difficulties. Frustrated in their attempts at diplomacy, the Saco killed the offending cattle during the summer of 1688. In August, a dispute between settlers and Indians at North Yarmouth ended violently with casualties on both sides. Prompted by this Indian uprising, Benjamin Blackman, justice of the peace at Saco, ordered the seizure of twenty Indians that he suspected of causing the unrest. The Abenaki responded in kind, capturing several settlers during a raid on New Dartmouth in September 1688.

The Abenaki enjoyed considerable success at the start of the war. In June of 1689, several of the Eastern Indians joined with Kancamagus’ Pennacooks in an attack on Cocheco (Dover). That August, the English fort at Pemaquid Point (Maine) was destroyed.  Later that same month, a party of sixty Indians returned to New Hampshire, burning the Huckins garrison at Oyster River.

After initial successes in King William’s War (1689-98), French and Native aggression waned. Little more that a side show in the Nine Year War, supplies to Canada, especially to Acadia, were often low. Native groups desiring trade goods in exchange for furs (and needing guns, powder, and lead) were at times forced to deal with the treacherously undependable English. With French supply shortages, a desire for trade goods, and the continued gains by the English military, some Penobscot and Kennebec factions felt compelled to sign a treaty with the Governor of Massachusetts, William Phips, at the newly rebuilt Fort William Henry at Pemaquid, Maine in 1693.

Replica of Fort William Henry in 1909

Replica of Fort William Henry in 1909

The reverses of 1692 and 1693 eroded the Abenaki willingness to continue the war. During the summer of 1693, a group of ten to thirteen chiefs, led by Madockawando, began to explore the possibility of peace. The humiliating failures at Wells and Pemaquid exposed the ineffectiveness of the French military alliance.  The Abenaki  found themselves deceived in the expectation of receiving assistance from the French. The cost of the war and lack of French support crippled the Abenaki economy. Continual war-parties interrupted traditional patterns of food gathering and fur production.

Late in July, Madockawando and his peace envoy approached the commander at Fort William Henry. Lamenting “the distress they have been reduced unto,” they expressed “their desires to be at peace with the English.” The chiefs sought to reopen their trade with the English, Boston being their nearest and best market. The English traded at rates that were much more advantageous than the French would agree to. The chiefs hoped that with improved relations they would be able to recover kinsmen captured by the English since the outbreak of King William’s War. The two parties entered into council and by August 11 th, reached an agreement. As proof of their fidelity, the sagamores gave four of their number into Governor Phips’ custody to be held as hostages.

The Treaty of Pemaquid was a  one-sided document, reflecting English pretensions of innocence. The English either ignored or failed to see how their own actions contributed to the opening hostilities at Saco in 1687 and 1688. The treaty made the Abenaki the sole aggressors stating, “whereas a bloody war has for some years now past been made and carried on by the Indians.” The English wrongly attributed the war to the "instigation and influences of the French."

While the English gained Madockawando consent to a treaty of peace, he was unable to persuade the chiefs who were under the influence of French Jesuit emissaries, and was compelled to recommence hostilities.

The English assumed that the thirteen signers of the treaty represented all the Indians "from the Merrimack River unto the most easterly bounds of said Province. " This belief reflected a dangerous lack of understanding of Indian politics and social structure. While each tribe had a principal chief, there were several minor chiefs at the head of each village group. Abenaki politics relied on the "vagaries of social consensus." Those chiefs who had not signed the treaty would not necessarily feel themselves bound by it. Not understanding this subtlety, the English assumed that the Indian peace envoy's promises to "forbear all acts of hostility" and to "abandon the French interest" applied to all the Indians.  

The treaty imposed humiliating conditions on the Indians, who conceded perhaps more than they realized. The very trade they were so desirous of now came under the strict control of the Governor and General Assembly of Massachusetts. They gave up their very freedom, "herby submitting ourselves to be ruled and governed by their Majesties' laws." ]In doing so, their only recourse in the event of a dispute lay in the English courts, which allowed the Indians no representation. In all likelihood, the Abenaki resented the treaty’s terms. Even the notoriously pro-French historian Charlevoix concluded that “these Indians often beheld themselves abandoned by the French, who counted a little too much on their attachment, and the influence of those who had gained their confidence.”  ]Yet the Abenaki could not bear the cost of the war alone.

After being tipped off that Madockawando (a Penobscot), Edjeuemit (a Kennebec) and approximately ten others had signed this treaty, Villebon, Governor of Acadia, considered the 1694 spring war declarations of Taxous Madockawando’s Penobscot rival) all the more urgent and important.

Chief Madockawando

Chief Madockawando

As an international war party organized at the usual French and Native staging area of Pentegoet (Castine, Maine) French imperial interests were represented by Marine Captain Villeu, and the “Fighting Priest,” Thury.

Other parties from Nari Comagou (Canton Point, Maine) Ameseconti (Farmington Falls, Maine), and Norridgewock (Madison, Maine) started forming at Panawamske (the largest Penobscot village now in Old Town, Maine), and deliberated on a military target.

The name Old Town derives from “Indian Old Town”, which was the English name for the largest Penobscot Indian village, now known as Indian Island.  Located within the city limits but on its own island, the reservation is the current and historical home of the Penobscot Nation

Oyster River Raid War Party Route Map

Oyster River Raid War Party Route Map

Now also joined by Maliseets from Meductic (Woodstock, New Brunswick) and Penobscots, the mobilized parties finally convinced the neutral “Madockawando faction” to take up the hatchet against the English. Fearing for the safety of clan relatives taken hostage by the English in Boston, the treaty group resisted until at last convinced by Madockawando’s son (recently returned from meeting Louis XIV in France), admonitions from Taxous, and arguments from Thury and Villeu. The French also claimed that past English “lies and betrayals” sealed the fate of the hostages and were said to now be slaves in England. Now on board, the peace faction joined the invasion force; all they needed was a target.

Maliseet Territory

Maliseet Territory

After an almost botched probe at Pemaquid, Villeu, who engaged in illicit fur trading throughout this part of the campaign, embezzled almost half of the French supplies. Therefore, as the army moved west towards the English settlements, through the river and portage routes, shortages started causing distress on the war trail. Picking up more warriors along the way, the group crossed over to the Merrimac River to Penacook (Concord, NH) by canoe, over the Ossippee/ Winnepesauke/ Merrimac River route. Now apparently near starvation, largely because of Villeu’s corruption, the war party decided upon Oyster River Plantation as a destination. A lucrative and easy enough target, it was also close, with a quick escape.

Bomazeen, a  young, minor chief of the Kennebecs, played a significant role in the formation of the war-party and in the attack itself. Bomazeen had signed the Treaty of Pemaquid in 1693. Acting as an emissary of goodwill, he had traveled to Boston several times during the winter of 1693 to 1694. In late November, Bomazeen was thrown in prison by the order of the Lt. Governor of Massachusetts, where he stayed until midDecember. He was eventually released, but was committed twice more in January and March.  Angered by this treatment, Bomazeen became a major proponent of an attack on the English. During the feast at Amasaquonte, the young chief was honored by being given command of a contingent of warriors for the coming attack.

Leaving the canoes at Penacook, and walking overland to  Oyster River, the war party divided into smaller groups and moved down both sides of the river. The plan was to surround all the dwellings and garrisons and attack simultaneously by an agreed signal near dawn. Not completely in position, shooting broke out prematurely. Even in the chaos, the invaders “harvested” 104 dead and 27 prisoners.

From the start, the Indians were acting independently and not under the direction of Villieu.  Although Villieu accompanied them and provided input, he did not lead them. Secondly, the Indians discussed among themselves where exactly to attack.  It seems that Villieu’s  only real contribution to the attack was to apprise his companions of the possible danger that they would be in if they stayed much longer. Villieu was leery of being surprised by a pursuing force bent on revenge. Thury conducted a brief mass, asking God to reward his charges for their valiant efforts. The war-party then withdrew to a nearby hill where they could safely sleep until the next day.

The following morning, fearing  pursuit from the militia, the group returned to Penacook. Not at all satisfied with their uneven winning, the Penobscots under Taxous and Madockawando, along with some other of the “bravest”Kennebecs under Bomazeen, continued on the war trail down the Merrimac River to Groton, perhaps intending to attack Col. Johnathin Tyng in Dunstable, MA, taking an additional 22 dead and 13 more prisoners.

The Indian war continued for more than a year after the Peace of Ryswick had been concluded between France and England, until by the Treaty of Casco of 7 January 1699 the Penobscots acknowledged subjection to the crown of England. In the later operations Castin was their leader, Madockawando having been, perhaps, one of the chiefs treacherously slain by Capt. Pascho Chubb at a conference at Pemaquid in February 1696.

The Wabanaki Confederacy (translated roughly as ‘People of the First Light’ or ‘Dawnland’) comprises five principal Nations: the Mi’kmaqMaliseetPassamaquoddyAbenaki and Penobscot First Nations.

The  Wabanaki peoples — are located in the area generally known to European settlers as Acadia. It is now most of Maine, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, plus some of Quebec south of the St. Lawrence River. The Western Abenaki are located in New Hampshire, Vermont, and into Massachusetts

The Wabanaki ancestral homeland stretches from Newfoundland, Canada, to the Merrimack Rivervalley in New Hampshire and Massachusetts. Following the European invasion in the early 17th century, this became a hotly contested borderland between colonial New England and French Acadia. Beginning with King William’s War in 1688, members of the Wabanaki Confederacy of Acadia participated in six major wars before the British defeated the French in North America:

During this period, their population was not only radically decimated due to many decades of warfare, but also because of famines and devastating epidemics.

Wabanaki people freely intermarried with French Catholics in Acadia starting in 1610 after the conversion of Membertou. After 1783 Black settlers, refugees from the US, began to settle in the historical territory and many intermarriages between these peoples occurred, especially in southwest Nova Scotia from Yarmouth to Halifax. Suppression of Acadian, Black, Mi’kmaq and Irish people under British rule tended to force these peoples together as allies of necessity. Mixed-race children were commonly abandoned on reserves to be raised in Wabanaki tradition, as late as the 1970s.

The Wabanaki Confederacy was forcibly disbanded in 1862, but the five Wabanaki nations still exist, and they remain friends and allies – in part because all peoples claiming Wabanaki heritage have forebears from multiple Wabanaki and colonial ancestries.

The Penobscot main settlement is now Penobscot Indian Island Reservation.

5. English Perspective

1667 Map of The Piscataqua by John Scott

1667 Map of The Piscataqua by John Scott (See Oyster River Detail above)

Good Hearts, Stout Men – “The war party of 250 Abenaki Indians that moved through the darkness of the night, concealed within forests, was out for blood. Besides their own chiefs, at the head of the party was Sebastien de Villieu, a 60-year-old French military career officer, and Father Louis-Pierre Thury, a Jesuit priest. Father Thury had previously incited other Abenaki massacres of English Protestants whom he had hatefully considered to be heretics. The Abenakis were determined to slaughter or capture all the English colonists of the New Hampshire Oyster River Plantation, then butcher their livestock and set all their dwellings on fire.

When thirteen of the Abenaki chiefs signed the 1693 Treaty of Pemaquid the previous year, the French were alarmed that they might be losing their native allies for further prosecution of their war against the English. Father Thury and other Frenchmen insidiously influenced the younger chiefs to reject what the thirteen older chiefs had decided, suggesting that they were weak-willed cowards who planned to sell tribal land to the encroaching English. The best way to insure future Abenaki loyalty, the French knew, was to induce the disaffected chiefs to mount a treaty-breaking raid against an English settlement. After that, there could be no turning back until the French made peace with the English. Initial war councils of the young chiefs in 1694 had favored Boston as the target of their intended terror, but the Abenakis changed the site of battle to the Oyster River Plantation.

[For the English, the Treaty of Pemaquid was a master stroke. Many of the frontier settlements lay in ruins. Settlers confined to garrisons could not harvest crops. Food shortages were common. Commerce and trade were at a standstill. But now, with the Eastern Tribes under control, New England was free to muster her forces for a second attempt on Quebec.  Flushed with success, Phips sent runners to the frontier settlements to proclaim the peace. To a war-weary region this was welcome news indeed. As fall gave way to winter, and no new outbreaks occurred, the settlers began to leave the garrisons, returning to their homes. ]

Only two days before the slaughter, the Oyster River settlers  had gathered to belatedly hear — and to cheer — news of the Treaty of Pemaquid. Feeling safe from attack, the  neighbors let their guard down, ending the long-held night watches along both sides of the Oyster River.”

The Indian war party approached from the west after sunset, and divided their forces into two divisions, one attacking along the river’s south side and the other on the north side. Detachments of eight to ten Indians were then tasked to strike each of the 12 fortified garrisons and other strong-houses.   The Indians believed that settlers in unfortified houses would rush to the garrisons for protection, only to find the Indians waiting to kill them down outside the already-besieged garrisons.”

Jeremy Belknap, continues the story in The History of New Hampshire, ed. John Farmer (Dover, N.H.: S.C. Stevens and Ela & Wadleigh, 1831)

The towns of Dover and Exeter being more exposed than Portsmouth or Hampton, suffered the greatest share in the common calamity.

The engagements made by the Indians in the treaty of Pemaquid, might have been performed if they had been left to their own choice. But the French missionaries had been for some years very assiduous in propagating their tenets among them, one of which was ‘ that to break faith with heretics was no sin.’ The Sieur de Villieu, who had distinguished himself in the defence of Quebec when Phips was before it, and had contracted a strong antipathy to the New-Englanders, being then in command at Penobscot, he with M. Thury, the missionary, diverted Madokawando and the other Sachems from complying with their engagements; so that pretences were found for detaining the English captives, who were more in number, and of more consequence than the hostages whom the Indians had given.

The settlement at Oyster river, within the town of Dover, was pitched upon as the most likely place; and it is said that the design of surprising it was publicly talked of at Quebec two months before it was put in execution.

Rumors of Indians lurking in the woods thereabout made some of the people apprehend danger; but no mischief being attempted, they imagined them to be hunting parties, and returned to their security. At length, the necessary preparations being made, Villieu, with a body of two hundred and fifty Indians, collected from the tribes of St. John, Penobscot and Norridgewog, attended by a French Priest, marched for the devoted place.

The enemy approached the place undiscovered, and halted near the falls on Tuesday evening, the seventeenth of July. Here they formed two divisions, one of which was to go on each side of the river and plant themselves in ambush, in small parties, near every house, so as to be ready for the attack at the rising of the sun; and the first gun was to be the signal.

John Dean, whose house stood by the saw-mill at the falls, intending to go from home very early, arose before the dawn of day, and was shot as he came out of his door. This firing, in part, disconcerted their plan; several parties who had some distance to go, had not then arrived at their stations; the people in general were immediately alarmed, some of them had time to make their escape, and others to prepare for their defence. The signal being given, the attack began in all parts where the enemy was ready.

Map of Dover Garrison Houses

Map of Dover Garrison Houses

Of the twelve garrisoned houses five were destroyed, viz. (11.) Adams’s, Drew’s, (13.) Edgerly’s, (1.) Medar’s and (6.) Beard’s. They entered (11.) Adams’s without resistance, where they killed fourteen persons ; one of them, being a woman with child, they ripped open. The grave is still to be seen in which they were all buried. Drew surrendered his garrison on the promise of security, but was murdered when he fell into their hands. One of his children, a boy of nine years old, was made to run through a lane of Indians as a mark for them to throw their hatchets at, till they had dispatched him. Edgerly’s was evacuated. The people took to their boat, and one of them was mortally wounded before they got out of reach of the enemy’s shot. Beard’s and Medar’s were also evacuated and the people escaped.

The defenceless houses were nearly all set on fire, the inhabitants being either lulled or taken in them, or else in endeavoring to fly to the garrisons. Some escaped by hiding in the bushes and other secret places. Thomas Edgerly, by concealing himself in his cellar, preserved his house, though twice set on fire. The house of John Buss, the minister, was destroyed, with a valuable library. He was absent; his wife and family fled to the woods and escaped. The wife of John Dean, at whom the first gun was fired, was taken with her daughter, and carried about two miles up the river, where they were left under the care of an old Indian, while the others returned to their bloody work. The Indian complained of a pain in his head, and asked the woman what would be a proper remedy : she answered, occapee, which is the Indian word for rum, of which she knew he had taken a bottle from her house. The remedy being agreeable, he took a large dose and fell asleep ; and she took that opportunity to make her escape, with her child, into the woods, and kept herself concealed till they were gone.

Bunker Garrison

James Bunker built a fortified home in 1652 known as Bunker’s Garrison (4. on map above) in the Oyster River Plantation area. Two soldiers were assigned to his garrison and he was paid £5/6/0 for their upkeep between 25 Jul 1693 and 24 Nov 1694.

The other seven garrisons, viz. (9.) Burnham’s, (12.) Bickford’s, (3.) Smith’s, (4.) Bunker’s, (2.) Davis’s, (5.) Jones’s and (7.) Woodman’s were resolutely and successfully defended. At Burnham’s, the gate was left open : The Indians, ten in number, who were appointed to surprise it, were asleep under the bank of the river, at the time that the alarm was given. A man within, who had been kept awake by the toothache, hearing the first gun, roused the people and secured the gate, just as the Indians, who were awakened by the same noise, were entering. Finding themselves disappointed, they ran to Pitman’s defenceless house, and forced the door at the moment, that he had burst a way through that end of the house which was next to the garrison, to which he with his family, taking advantage of the shade of some trees, it being moonlight, happily escaped.

Bunker Garrison Plan -- The walls, except the gable ends, were of hewn hemlock logs, nine inches in thickness. There were loopholes for defence which were afterward enlarged into windows.

Bunker Garrison Plan — The walls, except the gable ends, were of hewn hemlock logs, nine inches in thickness. There were loopholes for defence which were afterward enlarged into windows.

Still defeated, they attacked the house of John Davis, which after some resistance, he surrendered on terms; but the terms were violated, and the whole family was either killed or made captives.

Thomas Bickford preserved his house (12.)  in a singular manner. It was situated near the river, and surrounded with a palisade. Being alarmed before the enemy had reached the house, he sent off his family in a boat, and then shutting his gate, betook himself alone to the defense of his fortress. Despising alike the promises and threats by which the Indians would have persuaded him to surrender, he kept up a constant fire at them, changing his dress as often as he could, shewing himself with a different cap, hat or coat, and sometimes without either, and giving directions aloud as if he had a number of men with him. Finding their attempt vain, the enemy withdrew, and left him sole master of the house, which he had defended with such admirable address.

Davis-Smith Garrison

Davis-Smith Garrison – The drawing of the Davis-Smith garrison in what today is Newmarket is shown in its latter days just before being torn down in 1880. Probably built ca. 1694 by David Davis, it was taken over (and perhaps rebuilt) by John Smith around 1701, after Davis had been killed by Indians.

Smith’s, Bunker’s and Davis’s garrisons, being seasonably apprised of the danger, were resolutely defended. One Indian was supposed to be killed and another wounded by a shot from Davis’s. Jones’s garrison was beset before day; Captain Jones hearing his dogs bark, and imagining wolves might be near, went out to secure some swine and returned unmolested. He then went up into the flankart and sat on the wall. Discerning the flash of a gun, he dropped backward; the ball entered the place from whence he had withdrawn his legs. The enemy from behind a rock kept firing on the house for some time, and then quitted it. During these transactions, the French priest took possession of the meeting-house, and employed himself in writing on the pulpit with chalk; but the house received no damage.

Those parties of the enemy who were on the south side of the river having completed their destructive work, collected in a field adjoining to Burnham’s garrison, where they insultingly showed their prisoners, and derided the people, thinking themselves out of reach of their shot. A young man from the sentry-box fired at one who was making some indecent signs of defiance, and wounded him in the heel: Him they placed on a horse and carried away. Both divisions then met at the falls, where they had parted the evening before, and proceeded together to Capt. Woodman’s garrison. The ground being uneven, they approached without danger, and from behind a hill kept up a long and severe fire at the hats and caps which the people within held up on sticks above the walls, without any other damage than galling the roof of the house.

At length, apprehending it was time for the people in the neighboring settlements to be collected in pursuit of them, they finally withdrew; having killed and captivated between ninety and an hundred persons, and burned about twenty houses, of which five were garrisons. The main body of them retreated over Winnipiseogee lake, where they divided their prisoners separating those in particular who were most intimately related.

Belkap 1

Belkap 2

Belkap 3.

Belkap 4.

Belkap 5.

Belkap 6.

Belkap 7.

Belkap 8.

Belkap 9.

Belkap 10.

Belkap 11.

Belkap 12.

6. Family Perspective

Mary Smith Freeman

Mary Smith was born  24 May 1685 in Oyster River, Stafford,  New Hampshire.  Her parents were James Smith and Sarah Davis.   Her parents were killed in King William’s War,  her father in 1690 and her mother and two brothers in the Oyster  River Massacre  18 Jul 1694 in Durham, New Hampshire. Her grandparents were our ancestors Ensign John DAVIS and Jane PEASLEE.

She married 13 Nov 1707 Eastham, Barnstable, Mass to Thomas Freeman Jr. (b. 12 Oct 1676 Harwich, Barnstable, Mass – d. 22 Mar 1715/16 Orleans, Barnstable, Mass) His parents were our ancestors Thomas FREEMAN and Rebecca SPARROW.  Thomas had married first Bathsheba Mayo, but she died four months after their marriage.  After Thomas died, Mary married again aft. Mar 1717 in Eastham, Barnstable, Mass. to Hezekiah Doane (1672 – 1752) Mary died in  1732 in Eastham, Barnstable, Mass.

I wonder how Mary came the 150 miles from New Hampshire to marry and live in Eastham on Cape Cod. Around 1700, most marriages were within the same towns.

Here’s a romanticized version I found where Thomas was a mariner who had business at Oyster River where he met Mary, fell in love and brought her home to the Cape to be married.  I’m not sure of the author,but,  I’ve updated a little of the florid 19th Century language and omitted incorrect details like their mother scooping babes Samuel and James into her arms since they were actually 11 and 13 years old.

In the days of the French and Indian Wars, the  town of Durham,  [today home to the University of New Hampshire], was called Oyster River. The scattered farmhouses were guarded by six or eight garrison houses. Nothing lay between the settlements and Quebec, but the unbroken wilderness known only to the Indians, the fur traders and the marauding war parties which were sent out against each other by Catholic Canada and Protestant New England.

Mary Smith lived at the Inn which was kept by her father James Smith and her mother Sarah Davis in Oyster River N.H.  The people lived in constant terror of attack. Mary’s father was killed by the Indians, and Mary’s mother took her five children and moved into the garrison house near by with her brother Ensign John Davis.

July 18, 1694 some 200 Indians led by 20 French Canadians and 2 Catholic Priests burst, without warning, on the sleeping village.  The garrison house of Ensign Davis, Mary’s Uncle, was quickly surrounded. One of the French leaders and a Catholic priest promised safety for him and his household if he surrendered. He took them at their word, realizing all too well, that alone he could not hold out long. The instant he unbolted the door, he was rushed upon by the Indians, tomahawked and scalped, together with is wife and two of their children while the two older girls were seized as captives. When Mary’s mother saw what was happening, she  shouted for her  children to run for their lives out the back door. Somehow, Mary, her sister Sarah, and brother John made their escape and hid in the woods.  [Mary’s brothers James (1681 - 1694) and Samuel (1683 - 1694) were not so lucky.]

Twenty-eight of Mary’s closest relatives met death that morning.  In all, 104 inhabitants were killed and 27 taken captive,  with half the dwellings, including the garrisons, pillaged and burned to the ground. But Mary was not to be taken captive. In a few days Captain Tom Freeman from Cape Cod was heading his lumber schooner in toward Oyster River for a load of sawn boards. He found several frightened, bewildered people who told him of the massacre. He loaded no lumber that trip but began to search along the bank and in the woods for all those he could possibly save.

Among this group was our ancestor Mary Smith. She was taken to Tom Freeman’s father’s home which was in Harwich, Mass. Mary was reared and educated by those fine people and when she grew up she married the youthful sea captain who had rescued her – Captain John Freeman _ Mary Smith Freeman.

From the family Bible – we read in Mary’s own precise handwriting –

Mary Smith born May 24, 1685 Md Tom Freeman November 13, 1707

In a short ten years her husband was dead and she a widow at thirty-three with four little children. The final line of the record reads – My husband Thomas Freeman deceased March 22, 1718.

Mary’s sister Sarah came to Eastham to marry Joshua Harding in 1702. So a more likely scenario is that Mary came to visit, or even live, with Sarah and met Thomas then.

Judith Davis

Ensign John DAVIS‘ daughter  Judith, wife of Captain Samuel Emerson, was also taken by the Indians and remained in captivity five years.

Judah Emerson -- From - New England Captives Carried to Canada Between 1677 and 1760  By Emma Lewis Coleman

Judah Emerson — From – New England Captives Carried to Canada Between 1677 and 1760
By Emma Lewis Coleman

Mary Ann Davis

Ensign John DAVIS”s granddaughter, daughter of John Davis is one the most interesting of the captives taken at Oyster River, July 18, 1694.  According to a constant tradition in Durham, became a nun in Canada and refused to return home at the redemption of captives in 1699. This was Sister St. Benedict, of the Ursuline convent, Quebec, the first native of New Hampshire, if not of New England, to embrace the conventional life.

Mary Anne Davis was seven years old when the Indians, on the above-mentioned day, burnt her father’s house and killed him and his wife and several children, as well as his widowed sister and two of her sons. They spared, however, his two young daughters,- whom they carried into captivity, but who, unfortunately, were separated.

One of them, named Sarah, was afterwards redeemed, and was living at Oyster River October 16, 1702, on which day her maternal uncle, Jeremiah Burnham, was appointed her guardian and the administrator of her father’s estate. She afterwards married Peter Mason, but was left a widow before 1747.  Sarah inherited her father’s land at Turtle Pond and also his homestead on the south side of the Oyster River.  With true Davis tenacity to life she was still living in 1771, when she sold part of her homestead lands to John Sullivan (afterwards General  in the Revolutionary army, delegate in the Continental Congress, Federal judge,  and Governor of New Hampshire). How much longer she lived does not appear. She left one daughter, at least, whose descendants can still be traced.

Though John Davis was killed in 1694 no attempt was made to administer on his estate till after his daughter Mary Anne’s religious profession, September 25, 1701, when all hope of her return home was renounced.

But to return to her sister, who chose the better part. Mary Anne was carried away by the Abenaki Indians, but was rescued not long after by Father Rale, who instructed and baptized her and conveyed her to Canada. In 1698 she entered the boarding-school at the Ursuline convent, Quebec. At her entrance into this “Maison des Vierges” of which she had heard among the Abenakis, she was transported with joy. “This is the house of the Lord,” she cried; “it is here I will henceforth live; it is here I will die.” She entered the novitiate of that house on St. Joseph’s day, March 19, 1699; and received the religious habit and white veil, with the name of Sister St. Benedict, the fourteenth of September following—the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross. She took the black veil and made her vows September 25, 1701. Mademoiselle de Varennes, whose father was governor of Trois Rivieres for twenty-two years, took the white veil with her and made her vows at the same time. The latter was only fourteen years of age when she entered the novitiate.

Sister St. Benedict is said not to have known her own age, but was supposed to be a few years older. The trials she had undergone, however, must have given her an air of maturity beyond her years The Durham tradition does not mention her age, but speaks of her as “young” when taken captive. She died March 2, 1749. Her death is entered in the convent records as follows:

“The Lord has just taken from us our dear Mother Marie Anne Davis de St. Benoit after five months’ illness, during which she manifested great patience. She was of English origin and carried away by a band of savages, who killed her father before her very eyes. Fortunately she fell into the hands of the chief of a village who was a good Christian, and did not allow her to be treated as a slave, according to the usual practice of the savages towards their captives. She was about fifteen years old when redeemed by the French, and lived in several good families successively in order to acquire the habits of civilized life and the use of the French language. She everywhere manifested excellent traits of character, and appreciated so fully the gift of Faith that she would never listen to any proposal of returning to her own country, and constantly refused the solicitations of the English commissioners, who at different times came to treat for the exchange of prisoners. Her desire to enter our boarding-school in order to be more fully instructed in our holy religion was granted, and she soon formed the resolution to consecrate herself wholly to Him who had so mercifully led her out of the darkness of heresy. Several charitable persons aided in paying the expenses of her entrance, but the greater part of her dowry was given by the community [i.e., by the Ursulines themselves] in view of her decided vocation and the sacrifice she made of her country in order to preserve her faith.

Her monastic obligations she perfectly fulfilled, and she acquitted herself with exactness of the employments assigned her by holy obedience. Her zeal for the decoration of the altar made her particularly partial to the office of sacristan. Her love of industry, her ability, her spirit of order and economy, rendered her still very useful to the community, though she was at least seventy years of age.

“She had great devotion to the Blessed Virgin and daily said the rosary. Her confidence in St. Joseph made her desire his special protection at the hour of death—a desire that was granted, for she died on the second of March of this year 1749, after receiving the sacraments with great fervor, in the fiftieth year of her religious life.”

Sarah Davis 1

New England Captives Carried to Canada Between 1677 and 1760 During the …
By Emma Lewis Coleman 1926

Sarah Davis 2
Sarah Davis 3
Sarah Davis 4

There was another Mary Ann Davis who became a nun in Canada in early times. She was, likewise, a captive from New England. She became a nun at the Hotel Dieu, Quebec, in 1710, under the name of Sister St. Cecilia. She was taken to Canada by the Rev. Father Vincent Bigot, S.J., who had ransomed her from the Indians at St. Francis. She is mentioned as leading ” a holy life” for more than fifty years in the religious state. She died in 1761, at the age of seventy-three. There is no record of her birthplace or parentage. She may have been the daughter mentioned by the Rev. John Pike, of Dover, N. H., in his journal:

“August 9, 1704, The wife, son, and daughter of John Davis, of Jemaico, taken by ye Indians in yr house or in yr field.” [Jemaico was part of Scarborough, Maine.]

7. Aftermath

The people of Oyster River Plantation were not sacrificed on the altar of fate. Their deaths reflected the accomplishment of a very real strategic objective.  The Abenaki went to war in order to protect their land and their way of life. The signing of the Treaty of Pemaquid, by a small group of disaffected chiefs, demanded action from both the French and Native Americans. The attack on Oyster River was the successful culmination of their joint action.

Immediately following the 1694 massacre, the British assigned 20 soldiers to protect
the remaining Oyster River residents. Records show that at least three soldiers were
posted “at Bunker’s” and note payments “James Buncker” made to the soldiers before the first inter-colonial war ended in 1697 — which is also the year that James Bunker died.

The sacrifice and valor of the Oyster River settlers was eloquently heralded by the leading Puritan intellectual and firebrand preacher Cotton Mather in his 1699 history, Decennium Luctuosum, or “Sorrowful Decade.”

New France and the Wabanaki Confederacy were able to thwart New England expansion into Acadia, whose border New France defined as the Kennebec River in southern Maine.

In the North American  theatre the French had been on the ascendant; all the English assaults on French possessions had been repulsedFort Penobscot on the border of Acadia had been destroyed; the frontiers of both New England and New York had been ravaged and forced back; the English outposts in Newfoundland had been destroyed and the island virtually conquered. In addition, throughout the war England’s claims to the Hudson Bay had been severely contested in a series of French expeditions culminating in Pierre Le Moyne d’Iberville‘s capture of York Factory shortly before the signing of the treaty.

In spite of this the  Treaty of Ryswick,signed on Sep 1697 returned the territorial borders to where they had been before the war (status quo ante bellum). The Iroquois nation, deserted by their English allies, continued to make war on the French colonies until the Great Peace of Montreal of 1701.

Site of Oyster River Massacre

Site of Oyster River Massacre

The Oyster River Environs Archaeology Project (OREAP) is a multidisciplinary study bringing professionals from the fields of archaeology, history, geology, geography, and the environmental sciences together with interested members of the public to reconstruct the cultural history and land use patterns of the prehistoric and historic peoples who have lived within the Oyster River and Lamprey River watersheds.

Field-Bickford Garrison Site.2008

Field-Bickford Garrison Site.2008

Goals of the OREAP:
1. Site Chronology and Settlement Patterns – Radio carbon dating, the historical record, and artifact typology will be used to establish occupational sequences and settlement layouts. This will provide a framework for studying cultural change/ continuity and land use patterns.

2. Reconstruction of Economies – Economies of subsistence, manufacture, and trade will be reconstructed as a means to understanding how people made their living and interacted with other cultural groups.

3. Social Hierarchies, Politics, and Religion – The above provides a framework for assessing social structure within the community, relations with other communities, and the role of religion in everyday life.

4. Cultural Continuity/ Change – All of the above will provide a framework for the reconstruction of a cultural history for the region. Change and continuity will be assessed in relation to the larger Piscataqua Region and New England as a whole.


 The History of New Hampshire, by Jeremy Belknap,  ed. John Farmer Dover, N.H.: S.C. Stevens and Ela & Wadleigh, 1831







Posted in History | Tagged , , | 7 Comments