JONAS PRESCOTT & MARY LOKER

 

 ((This was first posted on 7Jul 2008. It's a nice story with probably a

little truth to it, but true or not it makes a good Valentine's Day story)).


I mentioned in my previous post about John Prescott that
there is a romantic (and probably romanticized) story about
his son Jonas Prescott's courtship of Mary Loker. I've found it
recounted in several different books on Google Books, and
while I'm not entirely sure it's true, it does make for another
interesting family tale.

The story is that Jonas and Mary fell in love but her parents
John Loker and Mary Draper had other plans for their
daughter. They wanted her to marry a lawyer, a man of
prospects, not the son of a blacksmith who was following his
father in the family trade and they forbade Mary from any
more contact with Jonas. One version told by Caleb Butler in
"The History of the Town of Groton" says the Lokers even
went so far as to install gratings on the windows of her room
and would lock her inside if Jonas was nearby. But even this
drastic measure didn't stand in the way of love:

"He (Jonas) took opportunities when the cold wind blew
and the pelting storm raged when no listener could overhear
the soft whispering of true lovers to place himself beneath
her grated window and there enjoy sweet communion
with his dearly beloved ."

But eventually Mary's parents found out about this trickery.
Perhaps Jonas' idea of a whisper in a storm was a bit too loud?
At any rate, Mary's parents next decided to send her away to
a secluded village so Jonas could not find her while they looked
for a more suitable prospect for Mary's hand in marriage.
They sent her off to the small frontier town of Chockset which
is now Sterling, Massachusetts.


Jonas searched for Mary until one day while traveling near
Chockset he met some men of his own age and asked if they
knew of any pretty girls in the area. They told him there was
a quilting and a dance that night in Chockset and invited him
to come along.

You can see where this is going, I bet!

Jonas found Mary Loker and they continued to meet in secret
for some time until her parents once more found them out.
Mary's stubborn insistence that she would never marry any
man but Jonas Prescott at last forced her parents to give in,
although they did so with the angry condition that they would
provide no dowry for the bride. Legend says that the young
couple set up their household with so few essentials that
Mary used a large hollowed out pumpkin shell for a washpot!

I'm a bit skeptical about that pumpkin part but I think the
opposition of the Lokers to Jonas Prescott pressing his suit for
their daughter might have some truth to it. After all, although
Jonas' father John was well off, he was not exactly in the good
graces of the Puritan government, and the Lokers might have
had their hearts set on young Mary marrying someone who
could eventually rise to a position of power. Ironically, the
Prescotts eventually became one of Massachusetts' most
distinguished families.

I am descended from Elizabeth Prescott b 23Jan 1676,
d. 18Mar 1744.

She married Eleazer Green about 1694 or 1695. Their daughter
Elizabeth married John Ames(Eames), and their descendant
Arvilla Ames married my ancestor John Cutter West

JONAS PRESCOTT & MARY LOKER

((This was first posted on 7Jul 2008. It's a nice story with probably a
little truth to it, but true or not it makes a good Valentine's Day story)).


I mentioned in my previous post about John Prescott that
there is a romantic (and probably romanticized) story about
his son Jonas Prescott's courtship of Mary Loker. I've found it
recounted in several different books on Google Books, and
while I'm not entirely sure it's true, it does make for another
interesting family tale.

The story is that Jonas and Mary fell in love but her parents
John Loker and Mary Draper had other plans for their
daughter. They wanted her to marry a lawyer, a man of
prospects, not the son of a blacksmith who was following his
father in the family trade and they forbade Mary from any
more contact with Jonas. One version told by Caleb Butler in
"The History of the Town of Groton" says the Lokers even
went so far as to install gratings on the windows of her room
and would lock her inside if Jonas was nearby. But even this
drastic measure didn't stand in the way of love:

"He (Jonas) took opportunities when the cold wind blew
and the pelting storm raged when no listener could overhear
the soft whispering of true lovers to place himself beneath
her grated window and there enjoy sweet communion
with his dearly beloved ."

But eventually Mary's parents found out about this trickery.
Perhaps Jonas' idea of a whisper in a storm was a bit too loud?
At any rate, Mary's parents next decided to send her away to
a secluded village so Jonas could not find her while they looked
for a more suitable prospect for Mary's hand in marriage.
They sent her off to the small frontier town of Chockset which
is now Sterling, Massachusetts.


Jonas searched for Mary until one day while traveling near
Chockset he met some men of his own age and asked if they
knew of any pretty girls in the area. They told him there was
a quilting and a dance that night in Chockset and invited him
to come along.

You can see where this is going, I bet!

Jonas found Mary Loker and they continued to meet in secret
for some time until her parents once more found them out.
Mary's stubborn insistence that she would never marry any
man but Jonas Prescott at last forced her parents to give in,
although they did so with the angry condition that they would
provide no dowry for the bride. Legend says that the young
couple set up their household with so few essentials that
Mary used a large hollowed out pumpkin shell for a washpot!

I'm a bit skeptical about that pumpkin part but I think the
opposition of the Lokers to Jonas Prescott pressing his suit for
their daughter might have some truth to it. After all, although
Jonas' father John was well off, he was not exactly in the good
graces of the Puritan government, and the Lokers might have
had their hearts set on young Mary marrying someone who
could eventually rise to a position of power. Ironically, the
Prescotts eventually became one of Massachusetts' most
distinguished families.

I am descended from Elizabeth Prescott b 23Jan 1676,
d. 18Mar 1744.

She married Eleazer Green about 1694 or 1695. Their daughter
Elizabeth married John Ames(Eames), and their descendant
Arvilla Ames married my ancestor John Cutter West

52 ANCESTORS IN 52 WEEKS 2019 WEEK 30: JOHN PRESCOTT. OF LANCASTER, MA.

((Edited from a post I wrote in 2008))

Mary (Prescott)Sawyer's father was my 9x great grandfather and
immigrant ancestor John Prescott, one of my favorite ancestors.

 John Prescott was born in Lancashire, England and came to
the Massachusetts Bay colony in 1640 after trying his hand
as a landholder in Barbadoes. He was married to Mary
Gawkrogers Platt with whom he had a total of seven children,
and he initially lived in Watertown close by Boston. But John
soon found himself embroiled in a dispute between the Puritan
leaders of the colony and a man named Robert Childe.

Robert Childe was a man of learning, a medical doctor as well
as an alchemist, of all things, in Puritan Massachusetts. But it
wasn't his learning that set him in a collision course with the
colony leaders so much as his protests that the only people
allowed to enjoy religious and political rights were members
of the Puritan Congregationalist establishment. If you weren't
admitted as a freemen, you couldn't vote or hold office and if
you were an Anglican it was difficult to be admitted. Childe
and six others (including my ancestor Samuel Maverick)
petitioned about this injustice to the General Court of
Massachusetts and sent a copy of the petition off to England
where his brother published it. The Puritan reaction was
swift. Dr Childe was arrested and exiled back to England.

John Prescott hadn't signed the petition but he was known
to agree with Dr Childe so he wasn't too popular with the
government. He'd been one of three men to purchase land to
the west from the Indians and while the other two men never
settled there, Prescott took his family and some others and
traveled there to start over. Along the way he nearly lost his
family while crossing the Sudbury River but they finally
arrived safely at their new home. Prescott started a farm
and built a mill as well as a blacksmith shop. At one point the
settlement had to be abandoned after an Indian attack but
Prescott returned and rebuilt it.

When it became a town the inhabitants named it Prescott in
his honor but the colonial government forced it to be changed
and after a few more changes it became Lancaster in memory
of the home he'd left in England.

I mentioned that Prescott was one of my favorite ancestors
and the reason is he's the only recorded early settler of New
England with a set of armor. The full story is told here in this
quote from The Military Annals of Lancaster, Massachusetts.
1740-1865 Including Lists of Soldiers Serving in the Colonial
and Revolutionary Wars, for the Lancastrian Towns: Berlin,
Bolton, Harvard, Leominster, and Sterling By Henry Stedman
Nourse: (W. J. Coulter, Lancaster, Ma. 1889 pp360-361)
which is also the source of most of this article:


"It is related that at his first coming he soon won the respect
of the savages not only by his fearlessness and great strength
but by the power of his eye and his dignity of mien. They soon
learned to stand in awe of his long musket and unerring skill
as a marksman. He had no doubt seen some military service
in England for he came of a soldierly race his great grandfather
having been knighted for gallantry in battle. He had brought
with him from England a suit of mail helmet and cuirass
probably such as were worn by the soldiers of Cromwell"

"Clothed with these his stately figure seemed to the sons of
the forest something almost superhuman. One day some
Indians having taken away a horse of his he put on his armor,
pursued them alone, and soon overtook them. The chief of the
party seeing him approach unsupported met him menacingly
with uplifted tomahawk. Prescott dared him to strike and was
immediately taken at his word but the rude weapon glanced
harmless from the helmet to the amazement of the red men.
Naturally the Indian desired to try upon his own head so
wonderful a hat and the owner obligingly gratified him
claiming the privilege however of using the tomahawk in
return. The helmet proving a scant fit or its wearer
neglecting to bring it down to its proper bearings Prescott's
vengeful blow not only astounded him but left very little
cuticle on either side of his head and nearly deprived him of
ears. Prescott was permitted to jog home in peace upon his
horse.

After hostilities began it is said that at one time the savages
set fire to his barn but fled when he sallied out clad in armor
with his dreaded gun and thus he was enabled to save his
stock though the building was consumed. More than once
attempts were made to destroy the mill but a sight of the
man in mail with the far reaching gun was enough to send
them to a safe distance and rescue the property.

Many stories have been told of Prescott's prowess but some
bear so close a resemblance to those credibly historic in other
places and of other heroes that there attaches to them some
suspicion of adaptation at least Such undoubtedly is the story
that in the assault upon the town he had several muskets but
no one in the house save his wife to assist him. She loaded the
guns and he discharged them with fatal effect. The contest
continued for nearly half an hour Mr Prescott all the while
giving orders as if to soldiers so loud that the Indians could
hear him to load their muskets though he had no soldiers but
his wife. At length they withdrew carrying off several of their
dead and wounded."

I'm not sure how much of all that is true but it is fun to read.
In 1664 the General court opened the way for admission of
non Puritan believers as freedmen and John took the oath
in 1669. John Prescott died in 1681 a well respected man
and among his descendants are William Prescott the historian
and Col. William Prescott of Bunker Hill fame.

I'm descended from three  children of John Prescott: Lydia Prescott
and Jonas Prescott on my Barker side of Dad's family and Mary Prescott
on the West side

CYPRIAN STEVENS' LETTER TO THE GOVERNOR AND COUNCIL REVISITED

((UPDATE: It's been ten years since I posted this and since then I've discovered that
I have Moore, Whitcomb, Wilder, and Fairbanks ancestors. So only three names listed below  
are not those of a direct ancestor or a cousin. First posted in  February 2009))


I found a few more things during my research on Simon Willard that
touched on some of my ancestors. One of them is this transcription at
Genealogy.com by Janice Farnsworth of "Lancaster in Philip's War:
The Early Records of Lancaster, Massachusetts 1643 - 1725 Edited by
Henry S. Nourse, A.M. Lancaster, 1884 (page 107)




"Lancaster March 11, 1675/6 - Letter to the Governor and Counsell -"A
humble Petition of the poor distressed people of Lancaster (excerpt)
"...many of us heare in this prison, have not bread to last us one month &
our other provisions spent & gon, for the genrallyty, our Town is drawn
into two garisons - sixteen soulders....we areseartaynly a bayt (bait) for
the enemy. We are sorrowful to leave the place but hoplesse to keep it
unlesse mayntayed by the Cuntrey....our women cris dus daily...which dus
not only fill our ears but our hearts full of Greefe and makes us humbly
Request yo'r Hon'rs to send a Gard of men & that if you please so comand
we may have Carts about fourteen will re-move the whool eight of which has
presed long at Sudbury but never came for want of a small gard of men, the
whooll that is, all that are in the Garison, Kept in Major Willards house
which is all from y're Hon'rs most humble servants & suplyants -
Lancast'r March 11, 1675/6 Jacob FFarrar
John Houghton Sen'r
John Moore
John Whittcomb
Job Whittcomb
Jonathan Whittcomb
John Houghton Jun'r
Cyprian Steevens


The other garrison are in like distresse & soe humbly desire yo'r like
pitty & ffatherly care, having widows & many fatherless children - the
number of carts to Carey away this garison is twenty carts. Yo'r Hon'rs
Humble pettisioners
John Prescott Sen'r
Tho. Sawyer Sen'r
Tho. Sawyer Jun'r
Jonathan Prescott
Tho Willder
John willder
Sarah Wheeler, Wid.
Widow Ffarbanks
John Rigby
Nathaniell Wilder
John Rooper
Widow Rooper

The whole is in the handwriting of Cyprian Steevens.
[Massachusetts Archives, LXVII, 156.] "

Transcribed by Janice Farnsworth

What struck me reading this was the names of those in the garrison. They include my
direct ancestors John Prescott, Thomas Sawyer, Senior and Thomas Sawyer, Junior
in the second garrison two of my Houghton relatives in the first. It reminded me again
of how many of my ancestors were so close to a violent death during the Indian wars
of New England. Some, as I've mentioned in earlier posts, did not escape it. One of
those things that historians sometimes ponder is "What If?" If more of my colonist
ancestors had died, I and many more of their descendants wouldn't be around to
trace our ancestry.


Thank you to Janice Farnsworth for granting me permission to use her transcription!

JONAS PRESCOTT & MARY LOKER

((This was first posted on 7Jul 2008. It's a nice story with probably a
little truth to it, but true or not it makes a good Valentine's Day story)).


I mentioned in my previous post about John Prescott that
there is a romantic (and probably romanticized) story about
his son Jonas Prescott's courtship of Mary Loker. I've found it
recounted in several different books on Google Books, and
while I'm not entirely sure it's true, it does make for another
interesting family tale.

The story is that Jonas and Mary fell in love but her parents
John Loker and Mary Draper had other plans for their
daughter. They wanted her to marry a lawyer, a man of
prospects, not the son of a blacksmith who was following his
father in the family trade and they forbade Mary from any
more contact with Jonas. One version told by Caleb Butler in
"The History of the Town of Groton" says the Lokers even
went so far as to install gratings on the windows of her room
and would lock her inside if Jonas was nearby. But even this
drastic measure didn't stand in the way of love:

"He (Jonas) took opportunities when the cold wind blew
and the pelting storm raged when no listener could overhear
the soft whispering of true lovers to place himself beneath
her grated window and there enjoy sweet communion
with his dearly beloved ."

But eventually Mary's parents found out about this trickery.
Perhaps Jonas' idea of a whisper in a storm was a bit too loud?
At any rate, Mary's parents next decided to send her away to
a secluded village so Jonas could not find her while they looked
for a more suitable prospect for Mary's hand in marriage.
They sent her off to the small frontier town of Chockset which
is now Sterling, Massachusetts.


Jonas searched for Mary until one day while traveling near
Chockset he met some men of his own age and asked if they
knew of any pretty girls in the area. They told him there was
a quilting and a dance that night in Chockset and invited him
to come along.

You can see where this is going, I bet!

Jonas found Mary Loker and they continued to meet in secret
for some time until her parents once more found them out.
Mary's stubborn insistence that she would never marry any
man but Jonas Prescott at last forced her parents to give in,
although they did so with the angry condition that they would
provide no dowry for the bride. Legend says that the young
couple set up their household with so few essentials that
Mary used a large hollowed out pumpkin shell for a washpot!

I'm a bit skeptical about that pumpkin part but I think the
opposition of the Lokers to Jonas Prescott pressing his suit for
their daughter might have some truth to it. After all, although
Jonas' father John was well off, he was not exactly in the good
graces of the Puritan government, and the Lokers might have
had their hearts set on young Mary marrying someone who
could eventually rise to a position of power. Ironically, the
Prescotts eventually became one of Massachusetts' most
distinguished families.

I am descended from Elizabeth Prescott b 23Jan 1676,
d. 18Mar 1744.

She married Eleazer Green about 1694 or 1695. Their daughter
Elizabeth married John Ames(Eames), and their descendant
Arvilla Ames married my ancestor John Cutter West

CYPRIAN STEVENS' LETTER TO THE GOVERNOR AND COUNCIL REVISITED

((UPDATE: It's been seven years since I posted this and since then I've discovered that
I have Moore, Whitcomb, Wilder, and Fairbanks ancestors. So only three names listed below  
are not those of a direct ancestor or a cousin. First posted in  February 2009))


I found a few more things during my research on Simon Willard that
touched on some of my ancestors. One of them is this transcription at
Genealogy.com by Janice Farnsworth of "Lancaster in Philip's War:
The Early Records of Lancaster, Massachusetts 1643 - 1725 Edited by
Henry S. Nourse, A.M. Lancaster, 1884 (page 107)





"Lancaster March 11, 1675/6 - Letter to the Governor and Counsell -"A
humble Petition of the poor distressed people of Lancaster (excerpt)
"...many of us heare in this prison, have not bread to last us one month &
our other provisions spent & gon, for the genrallyty, our Town is drawn
into two garisons - sixteen soulders....we areseartaynly a bayt (bait) for
the enemy. We are sorrowful to leave the place but hoplesse to keep it
unlesse mayntayed by the Cuntrey....our women cris dus daily...which dus
not only fill our ears but our hearts full of Greefe and makes us humbly
Request yo'r Hon'rs to send a Gard of men & that if you please so comand
we may have Carts about fourteen will re-move the whool eight of which has
presed long at Sudbury but never came for want of a small gard of men, the
whooll that is, all that are in the Garison, Kept in Major Willards house
which is all from y're Hon'rs most humble servants & suplyants -
Lancast'r March 11, 1675/6 Jacob FFarrar
John Houghton Sen'r
John Moore
John Whittcomb
Job Whittcomb
Jonathan Whittcomb
John Houghton Jun'r
Cyprian Steevens


The other garrison are in like distresse & soe humbly desire yo'r like
pitty & ffatherly care, having widows & many fatherless children - the
number of carts to Carey away this garison is twenty carts. Yo'r Hon'rs
Humble pettisioners
John Prescott Sen'r
Tho. Sawyer Sen'r
Tho. Sawyer Jun'r
Jonathan Prescott
Tho Willder
John willder
Sarah Wheeler, Wid.
Widow Ffarbanks
John Rigby
Nathaniell Wilder
John Rooper
Widow Rooper

The whole is in the handwriting of Cyprian Steevens.
[Massachusetts Archives, LXVII, 156.] "

Transcribed by Janice Farnsworth

What struck me reading this was the names of those in the garrison. They include my
direct ancestors John Prescott, Thomas Sawyer, Senior and Thomas Sawyer, Junior
in the second garrison two of my Houghton relatives in the first. It reminded me again
of how many of my ancestors were so close to a violent death during the Indian wars
of New England. Some, as I've mentioned in earlier posts, did not escape it. One of
those things that historians sometimes ponder is "What If?" If more of my colonist
ancestors had died, I and many more of their descendants wouldn't be around to
trace our ancestry.

As it was, Thomas Sawyer Junior was to have another encounter with Indians
some years later, and I'll be telling that story soon.

Thank you to Janice Farnsworth for granting me permission to use her transcription!

JONAS PRESCOTT & MARY LOKER

((This was first posted on 7Jul 2008. It's a nice story with probably a
little truth to it, but true or not it makes a good Valentine's Day story)).


I mentioned in my previous post about John Prescott that
there is a romantic (and probably romanticized) story about
his son Jonas Prescott's courtship of Mary Loker. I've found it
recounted in several different books on Google Books, and
while I'm not entirely sure it's true, it does make for another
interesting family tale.

The story is that Jonas and Mary fell in love but her parents
John Loker and Mary Draper had other plans for their
daughter. They wanted her to marry a lawyer, a man of
prospects, not the son of a blacksmith who was following his
father in the family trade and they forbade Mary from any
more contact with Jonas. One version told by Caleb Butler in
"The History of the Town of Groton" says the Lokers even
went so far as to install gratings on the windows of her room
and would lock her inside if Jonas was nearby. But even this
drastic measure didn't stand in the way of love:

"He (Jonas) took opportunities when the cold wind blew
and the pelting storm raged when no listener could overhear
the soft whispering of true lovers to place himself beneath
her grated window and there enjoy sweet communion
with his dearly beloved ."

But eventually Mary's parents found out about this trickery.
Perhaps Jonas' idea of a whisper in a storm was a bit too loud?
At any rate, Mary's parents next decided to send her away to
a secluded village so Jonas could not find her while they looked
for a more suitable prospect for Mary's hand in marriage.
They sent her off to the small frontier town of Chockset which
is now Sterling, Massachusetts.


Jonas searched for Mary until one day while traveling near
Chockset he met some men of his own age and asked if they
knew of any pretty girls in the area. They told him there was
a quilting and a dance that night in Chockset and invited him
to come along.

You can see where this is going, I bet!

Jonas found Mary Loker and they continued to meet in secret
for some time until her parents once more found them out.
Mary's stubborn insistence that she would never marry any
man but Jonas Prescott at last forced her parents to give in,
although they did so with the angry condition that they would
provide no dowry for the bride. Legend says that the young
couple set up their household with so few essentials that
Mary used a large hollowed out pumpkin shell!

I'm a bit skeptical about that pumpkin part but I think the
opposition of the Lokers to Jonas Prescott pressing his suit for
their daughter might have some truth to it. After all, although
Jonas' father John was well off, he was not exactly in the good
graces of the Puritan government, and the Lokers might have
had their hearts set on young Mary marrying someone who
could eventually rise to a position of power. Ironically, the
Prescotts eventually became one of Massachusetts' most
distinguished families.

I am descended from Elizabeth Prescott b 23Jan 1676,
d. 18Mar 1744.

She married Eleazer Green about 1694 or 1695. Their daughter
Elizabeth married John Ames(Eames), and their descendant
Arvilla Ames married my ancestor John Cutter West

JONAS PRESCOTT & MARY LOKER

((This was first posted on 7Jul 2008. It's a nice story with probably a
little truth to it, but true or not it makes a good Valentine's Day story)).


I mentioned in my previous post about John Prescott that
there is a romantic (and probably romanticized) story about
his son Jonas Prescott's courtship of Mary Loker. I've found it
recounted in several different books on Google Books, and
while I'm not entirely sure it's true, it does make for another
interesting family tale.

The story is that Jonas and Mary fell in love but her parents
John Loker and Mary Draper had other plans for their
daughter. They wanted her to marry a lawyer, a man of
prospects, not the son of a blacksmith who was following his
father in the family trade and they forbade Mary from any
more contact with Jonas. One version told by Caleb Butler in
"The History of the Town of Groton" says the Lokers even
went so far as to install gratings on the windows of her room
and would lock her inside if Jonas was nearby. But even this
drastic measure didn't stand in the way of love:

"He (Jonas) took opportunities when the cold wind blew
and the pelting storm raged when no listener could overhear
the soft whispering of true lovers to place himself beneath
her grated window and there enjoy sweet communion
with his dearly beloved ."

But eventually Mary's parents found out about this trickery.
Perhaps Jonas' idea of a whisper in a storm was a bit too loud?
At any rate, Mary's parents next decided to send her away to
a secluded village so Jonas could not find her while they looked
for a more suitable prospect for Mary's hand in marriage.
They sent her off to the small frontier town of Chockset which
is now Sterling, Massachusetts.


Jonas searched for Mary until one day while traveling near
Chockset he met some men of his own age and asked if they
knew of any pretty girls in the area. They told him there was
a quilting and a dance that night in Chockset and invited him
to come along.

You can see where this is going, I bet!

Jonas found Mary Loker and they continued to meet in secret
for some time until her parents once more found them out.
Mary's stubborn insistence that she would never marry any
man but Jonas Prescott at last forced her parents to give in,
although they did so with the angry condition that they would
provide no dowry for the bride. Legend says that the young
couple set up their household with so few essentials that
Mary used a large hollowed out pumpkin shell!

I'm a bit skeptical about that pumpkin part but I think the
opposition of the Lokers to Jonas Prescott pressing his suit for
their daughter might have some truth to it. After all, although
Jonas' father John was well off, he was not exactly in the good
graces of the Puritan government, and the Lokers might have
had their hearts set on young Mary marrying someone who
could eventually rise to a position of power. Ironically, the
Prescotts eventually became one of Massachusetts' most
distinguished families.

I am descended from Elizabeth Prescott b 23Jan 1676,
d. 18Mar 1644.

She married Eleazer Green about 1694 or 1695. Their daughter
Elizabeth married John Ames(Eames), and their descendant
Arvilla Ames married my ancestor John Cutter West

HOUGHTON: HERE'S A WHO, WHAT, WHEN AND ...2

Having downloadrd The Houghton Genealogy I set out to see what I could find
out about Lt. Jonathan Houghton's part in the West India Expedition and found
this in the family of Jacob Houghton and Rebecca Whitcomb  on page 307:
"Jonathan, b. in 1708; d. in 1740: m.1, 20, 1725 Mary Houghton, who died in
Bolton in 1791. He was lieut. in Captain John Prescott's Company, which was
sent  out to aid Admiral Vernon's disastrous expedition against the Spanish
West Indies, whence not more than fifty of the five hundred from Massachusetts
returned. His wife was appointed administratix of her husband's estate  4,2,1744".

Right away I knew this was not the right Lt Jonathan Houghton because his
wife was a Mary Houghton, not the Sarah Houghton I was researching, and he
had died in the Spanish West Indies before Sarah Houghton had even been born.
 

On the next page (p308) I found him as one of the children of  a Jonathan
Houghton and Thankful White:
"Lieut. Jonathan, b. 3,28, 1719; m. 2 ,22, 1742, Sarah Houghton, b.5, 2, 1742;
dau. of James and Sarah Houghton. Jonathan came from Bolton, Mass., and
settled on the farm where A.D. Kerr now lives. He was a farmer and a noted
hewer of timber. He was a Revolutionary soldier and wounded at the Battle
of Bennington."

So there was my correct Lt. Jonathan Houghton. As it turns out,  Jonathan was
not a close cousin of his wife, at least not through her ancestor Ralph Houghton.
Jonathan was descended from a John Houghton who may or may not have been
Ralph's brother. But now I had another intersting question. I have Prescott
ancestors from the same area; what relation was this Captain John Prescott to
my Prescott line and had perished in the West Indies as well?

I found the following in Dr William Prescott's  Prescott Memorial (Boston, 1870)
on page 50:  
"John Prescott graduated Harvard College 1727. He settled in Concord, Mass.,
as a physician, with his father, where he was highly esteemed for his professional
skill and excellent character. He enlisted one hundred men, which he commanded
 in the unfortunate expedition to Cuba in 1740. Upon its failure, in 1743, he returned
 to this country, and soon after was sent by the Government to England, where he
was treated with great respect. But, being seized with the small-pox, he died of
that disease in London, Dec 30, 1743, in his thirty-seventh year. In testimony of the
esteem in which his services were held, the British Government conferred upon
his widow, an annual pension during her life. She died May 12, 1795, aged 88.
They had three sons and two daughters."

Captain John Presscott is a distant cousin as he was descended from the older
brother of my ancestor Jonas Prescott.

Even though neither Jonathan Houghton nor John Prescott are direct
relations to me, it was an interesting exercise for me. It was a preview
of some of the difficulties I'm going to have researching the Houghtons,
Prescotts and other lines where there are more than one family member
with the same name who are contemporaries.living in the same area.
And it brought home to me how much more I need to learn about
colonial history. I knew that the colonists served in local militias in campaigns
against the French in Canada; I hadn't know about them being used against the
Spanish in the Carribean!

There's always some new to learn in genealogy and family history!

A SHOT IN THE DARK PT2

I haven't been able to find a description of Andrew Gardner's garrison house
but from what I've found about the circumstances of his death there was a wall
with some sort of watchtower around the house. During times of heightened
of Indian activities in the area Rev. Garner's garrison was manned by his neighbors
and likewise sheltered their families. Since his house had originally been part of
John Prescott's lands, it's unsurprising to find Prescott relations among the 9 men
in the garrison list:

"on ye west side of Nashuway River
Mr, Andrew Gardner & Thomas Sawyer Jur a Garison
Thomas Sawyer Comander -3
Mr. Gardner -1
Jabez Fairbank -1
Nathl. Sawyer -1
John Harris -1
Daniell Rugg -1
Saml Prescott -1--9"

So on that October night in 1704 there were nine men and their families within the
garrison. The men would have taken shifts on sentry duty, and it was this which led to
the circumstances of Rev. Gardner's death:

"I now return to the westward, where, on the 25th of October the enemy did some mischief. Lancaster was alarmed, and the alarm was the means of the untimely death of the Rev. Mr Gardiner their worthy pastor. Several of the inhabitants who belonged to the garrison, were wearied by hard travelling the day before, in pursuit of the enemy. This caused this good
man out of pity and compassion to watch that night himself: accordingly he went into the
box which lay over the flanker, where he staid till late in the night; but being cold (as was supposed) he was coming down to warm himself, when one between sleeping and waking,
or surprised through excess of fear fired upon him as he was coming out of the watch house where no man could rationally expect the coming of an enemy. Mr Gardner, although he
was shot through the back came to the door and bid them open it for he was wounded. No sooner did he enter, but he fainted away: As he came to himself, he asked who it was that
shot him, and when they told him, he prayed God to forgive him, and forgave him himself, believing that he did it not on purpose; and with a composed frame of spirit, desired them
that bewailed him not to weep, but pray for him and his flock. He comforted his sorrowful spouse, and expired within an hour.

[Samuel Penhallow's History of the Indian Wars.]"


The name of the man who shot Rev. Andrew Gardner was Samuel Prescott.

An account in the November 30th 1704 issue of the Boston News Letter added
that three of the defenders were away. The Early Records of Lancaster tells how
a coroner's inquest was held and that contrary to the accounts above, Samuel Prescott
stated he was the sentinel on duty. When he saw someone climbing down from the
sentry box, he challenged the person twice but receiving no reply fired.

The jury exonerated Samuel Prescott but apparently he was unable to forgive himself.
He left Lancaster and moved to Concord, Ma.

As I said in the first part this article, life under such circumstances had to have been
extremely stressful for our ancestors. The story of Andrew Gardner's death is just one
instance we know about in which those circumstances led to tragic mistakes. I wonder
how many more there might have been that were never recorded.

A SHOT IN THE DARK PT1

By the time John Prescott died in 1681 he owned over 700 acres of land in and
around Lancaster, Ma. which passed into the hands of his various children and
grandchildren. But as I've shown in a series of posts last year his descendants
didn't have an easy time of it due to the constant clashes with the Native American
of New England. Lancaster was still very much a frontier town with its garrison-houses
and sentries. And despite their vigilance the citizens occasionally still fell victim to
sudden attacks.

Here is one instance that took place on 11Sept 1697::

"In Massachusetts Archives, n, 257, is a letter from Governor William Stoughton to
the Governor and Council of Connecticut, from which this is an extract:

"Boston Sept. 14, 1697.

Upon ye it"' instant a party of Indians to y* number of about Forty as was judged,
about twelve o clock the same day, Surprized and kild about 26 persons at Lancaster,
of which the minister of the Town was one, burnt two Garrison houses and two Barnes,
the Garrisons being left open and y* Inhabitants surprized in their Fields: there is a
party of men out in pursuit of y* Enemy"
-Early Records of Lancaster, Massachusetts 1643-1725 (page 133)

Among the dead were Jonathan Fairbank and his children Grace and Jonas. Jonathan
was a grandson of John Prescott and the son of Jonas Fairbanks who'd been killed in
the siege of Lancaster in 1676.

By the beginning of the period known as Queen Anne's War there were eleven
garrison-houses in Lancaster. One of these belonged to Lancaster's minister
Andrew Gardner and was manned by his neighbors during times of Indian
activity in the area. I can't imagine living under the constant tension the families of
Lancaster endured. Nearly thirty years of warfare that must have touched nearly
everyone, with homes destroyed, relatives killed, and loved ones carried off as captives.

On 30Jul 1704, Lancaster was once more attacked, its meetinghouse burned and
three people killed. Then in October a colonist was killed in the woods near Groton
and Lancaster went on alert. The expected force of Indians did eventually appear,
but they were preceded by a tragic death caused in part by their approach:

"On Thursday night the Reverend Mr Gardner Minister of Lancaster was unfortunately
shot by the Sentinel on the Watch, supposing him to be an Indian climbing over the
Walls of the Fortification: of which wound he died in an hours space or little more.

[Boston News Letter, October 30, 1704.]"
-(p 149)

I'll discuss the details in the next post.

"HEE SAID SHEE SAID": A LITTLE BUTTERY CONVERSATION

As much as Mary Gates' outburst at Sunday meeting must have been the subject of
much conversation, I think it must have paled in comparison to the following
incident. It's a classic case of "he said she said" on a subject that might outrage
people even in 21st century America. And there were my ancestors John and
Mary Prescott as witnesses right in the middle of it.

A few notes: Lancaster was known by the Indian name Nashaway originally and
the buttery referred to in Cambridge was a store room for kegs and caskets of
wine and liquor, not dairy products.

And I've boldfaced the statement Goodwife Hall was accused of making:


"1651. Declaration of Elizabeth the wife of John Hall of Nashaway against George Whaley of Cambridge. [MS. torn] Sheweth vnto this honored Court that about foure moneths since
George [Whaley] Steuen Day & Samuell Rayner of Cambridge were at Nashaway and
[MS. torn] the house of John Prescott there fell out a discourse betweene John Prescott & Steuen Day in W* discourse John Prescott did speake against John & his wife Steuen Day
did vindicate the cause of Goodwife Hall in her absence against John Prescott till at length George Whaley bade Steuen Day that he should not goe about to justify the woman for
Whaley [MS. torn] that when Sr Phillips came from Nashaway he came into the buttery at
the College in Cambridge where the said George Whaley demanded of Sr. Phillips how all
their friends at Nashaway did, to wch Sr Phillips answered they were all well. Mr Whaley
further demanded how he liked the place, he answered uery well. It is a desirable place as
any was in the country as he conceaved. Mr Whaley further asked how he liked the people,
he answered he liked them uery well only there were some that held this opinion, that all
things were common & said he came one morninge to goodwife halls house & as soon as he
was come goodwife hall demanded of him whether all things were not common now as in the apostles tyme, & before that Sr. Phillips could give answer she did further say that this is my judgment, that all things are common, mens wiues alsoe, at wch speech Steuen Day was much troubled and grieued & had not one word more to say, & in the morning after, the said Day & Reynor [went] to goodwife halls house & being sad at the report he there expressed his in these words. I feare there is an (word illegible} amongst you, I wish he may be found out, to wch' goodwyfe hall answered if any of them gave any thinge against me if they will tell mee of it I will give them satisfaction, Steuen Day said he was glad to heare it for out of thy owne mouthe they will judge thee, for thus Mr Whaley [says] that Sr. Phillips hath reported of thee as is before expressed goodwife hall denyed that euer she spake any such thinge, nor did she hold any such opinion, herevpon Steuen Day demanded of Samuel
Rayner whether Mr Whaley did not speake as he had then related, to wch Samuel Rayner answered yt was soe & he would take his oath of it, This relation of Steuen Day in goodwife halls house & Samuell Rayners [relation] of it was in goodwife halls house Richard Smith present. Goodwife hall much greived at it that such a scandall should be raysed against her, knowinge herself free & cleare, desired to speake with Mr Whaley & on the next day after, in the morninge did take Richard Smith and Lawrence Waters with her wch sd Smith & Waters cominge to Mr Whaley desiringe to speake w"' him he bade them take heed how they did
speake anything for the woman, yet promised to speake wth her after breakfast at wch
tyme Steuen Day, Richard Smith & Lawrence Waters & goodwife hall came to Mr Whaley; goodwife hall demanded of Mr Whaley what he had against her Whaley answered that
Sr Phillips in the buttery at the College had spoken as before expressed, only he did then
leaue out _ mens wiues. this testified Richard Smith Lawrence Waters & Steuen Day"

Goodwife Hall apparently was not going to take this lying down and brought George
Whaley to court:

"To Steuen Day & Samuel Reyner of Cambridge. You are hereby required to appeare at the
next Court held at Cambridge the 7"' day of y' eight moneth next to wittnes for the wife of
John Hall of Nashaway in a case in difference betweene her & George Whaley of Cambridge
— & hereof you are not to fayle at your perill."

dated the 12th day of the 7th mo 1651. By the Court
Hugh Griffyn C."

First to testify were my Prescott ancestors:

"The testimony of Goodman Prescot & his wife After that Mr Phillips came from Goodwife
Halls hee told mee and my wife that goodwife Hall did aske him what he thought by y
judgment of those that hold that all things are common. Mr Phillips asked her how shee
[meant] all things common whether as it was in ye' Apostles tyme, her answer was all
things without any exception, and Mr Phillips said it was a damnable opinion; yea indeed
(shee said) I have knowne sad effects come of it, and in further discourse hee said shee
said shee kept one in her house which was of that opinion.

Attested uppon oath by John Prescot in Court
John Prescott
The mark X of Mary Prescott
Th . Danforth Record"

Next came the statements of Smith and Waters:

"The Testimony of Richard Smith & Lawrence Waters concerning the speeches of George
Whaley against hall.

Cominge to Mr Whaley in the next morninge after the relation of Steuen day at goodwife
halls the said Smith & Waters desired to speake with Mr Whaley, he bade them take heed
how they did speake any thing for the woman, yet promised to speake with her after
breakefast at wch time. Steuen day beinge alls'oe present goodwife hall demanded of Mr
Whaley what he had against her, to wch Mr Whaley made this answer that Sr Phillips in the buttery at the College in Cambridge cominge into the buttery answered to him as
followeth . Mr Whaley demanded first how did all freinds at Nashaway. Sr. Phillips answered they are well. Whaley further demanded how he liked the place, he answered very well,
it was a desirable place as any was in the country, as he conceived . Mr Whaley further demanded how he liked the people, he answered he liked them well only there was some
that held this opinion that all thinges were common, Mr Whaley demanded who they were,
he answered John Hall's wife."

Finally Samuel Raner and Stephen Day added their testimony:

"The Testimony of Samuel Raner is that he heard Lieft. George Whaley say yt Sr Phillips
told him yt Goodwife Hall asked whether all things were comon. Attested uppon oath in
Court.
Tho Danforth Rec.

The Testimony of Stephen Day is that he heard Lieft George Whaley say y' he received by report of Sr Phillips that Goodwife Hall had proposed a question of this import whether all
things wr common. Attested"

So now would come Goodwife Elizabeth Hall's chance to refute what she claimed were
slanderous statements by George Whaley. Or would it?


"The foregoing documents in the case of Elizabeth, wife of John Hall, vs. Lieut. George Whaley,
for slander, are in the Court files of Middlesex County. Lawrence Waters had sold his first house-lot of about seventeen acres, and the house upon it, to John Hall. Elizabeth Hall was
living there, while her husband at this time was in England. He soon sent for her to come to
him, and the estate was sold to Richard Smith. The suit against Whaley never came to
judgment."

So Goodwife Hall left Massachusetts under a bit of a cloud of scandal. She never had the
opportunity to question George Whaley or this Mr Phillips who supposedly was Whaley's
source. (And why hadn't his testimony been taken as the others had been?). On the other
hand, the townsfolk of Nashaway had more important things than a minor scandal to
keep their minds busy, such as simply surviving!

JONAS PRESCOTT & MARY LOKER

I mentioned in my previous post about John Prescott that
there is a romantic (and probably romanticized) story about
his son Jonas Prescott's courtship of Mary Loker. I've found it
recounted in several different books on Google Books, and
while I'm not entirely sure it's true, it does make for another
interesting family tale.

The story is that Jonas and Mary fell in love but her parents
John Loker and Mary Draper had other plans for their
daughter. They wanted her to marry a lawyer, a man of
prospects, not the son of a blacksmith who was following his
father in the family trade and they forbade Mary from any
more contact with Jonas. One version told by Caleb Butler in
"The History of the Town of Groton" says the Lokers even
went so far as to install gratings on the windows of her room
and would lock her inside if Jonas was nearby. But even this
drastic measure didn't stand in the way of love:

"He (Jonas) took opportunities when the cold wind blew
and the pelting storm raged when no listener could overhear
the soft whispering of true lovers to place himself beneath
her grated window and there enjoy sweet communion
with his dearly beloved ."

But eventually Mary's parents found out about this trickery.
Perhaps Jonas' idea of a whisper in a storm was a bit too loud?
At any rate, Mary's parents next decided to send her away to
a secluded village so Jonas could not find her while they looked
for a more suitable prospect for Mary's hand in marriage.
They sent her off to the small frontier town of Chockset which
is now Sterling, Massachusetts.


Jonas searched for Mary until one day while traveling near
Chockset he met some men of his own age and asked if they
knew of any pretty girls in the area. They told him there was
a quilting and a dance that night in Chockset and invited him
to come along.

You can see where this is going, I bet!

Jonas found Mary Loker and they continued to meet in secret
for some time until her parents once more found them out.
Mary's stubborn insistence that she would never marry any
man but Jonas Prescott at last forced her parents to give in,
although they did so with the angry condition that they would
provide no dowry for the bride. Legend says that the young
couple set up their household with so few essentials that
Mary used a large hollowed out pumpkin shell!

I'm a bit skeptical about that pumpkin part but I think the
opposition of the Lokers to Jonas Prescott pressing his suit for
their daughter might have some truth to it. After all, although
Jonas' father John was well off, he was not exactly in the good
graces of the Puritan government, and the Lokers might have
had their hearts set on young Mary marrying someone who
could eventually rise to a position of power. Ironically, the
Prescotts eventually became one of Massachusetts' most
distinguished families.

I am descended from Elizabeth Prescott b 23Jan 1676,
d. 18Mar 1644.

She married Eleazer Green about 1694 or 1695. Their daughter
Elizabeth married John Ames(Eames), and their descendant
Arvilla Ames married my ancestor John Cutter West

JOHN PRESCOTT

I was having trouble thinking of free spirits and independent
thinkers in my family tree. It's not that there aren't any, it's
just that I really didn't know that any of them have been the
type to stand out.

So I started looking further up the family tree and John
Prescott's name caught my eye. John's already one of my
favorite remote ancestors for reasons I'll talk about later, so
I did a little more Googling on him and found that he fits the
bill for this edition of the Carnival of Genealogy.

John Prescott was born in Lancashire, England and came to
the Massachusetts Bay colony in 1640 after trying his hand
as a landholder in Barbadoes. He was married to Mary
Gawkrogers Platt with whom he had a total of seven children,
and he initially lived in Watertown close by Boston. But John
soon found himself embroiled in a dispute between the Puritan
leaders of the colonyand a man named Robert Childe.

Robert Childe was a man of learning, a medical doctor as well
as an alchemist, of all things, in Puritan Massachusetts. But it
wasn't his learning that set him in a collision course with the
colony leaders so much as his protests that the only people
allowed to enjoy religious and political rights were members
of the Puritan Congregationalist establishment. If you weren't
admitted as a freemen, you couldn't vote or hold office and if
you were an Anglican it was difficult to be admitted. Childe
and six others (including my ancestor Samuel Maverick)
petitioned about this injustice to the General Court of
Massachusetts and sent a copy of the petition off to England
where his brother published it. The Puritan reaction was
swift. Dr Childe was arrested and exiled back to England.

John Prescott hadn't signed the petition but he was known
to agree with Dr Childe so he wasn't too popular with the
government. He'd been one of three men to purchase land to
the west from the Indians and while the other two men never
settled there, Prescott took his family and some others and
traveled there to start over. Along the way he nearly lost his
family while crossing the Sudbury River but they finally
arrived safely at their new home. Prescott started a farm
and built a mill as well as a blacksmith shop. At one point the
settlement had to be abandoned after an Indian attack but
Prescott returned and rebuilt it.

When it became a town the inhabitants named it Prescott in
his honor but the colonial government forced it to be changed
and after a few more changes it became Lancaster in memory
of the home he'd left in England.

I mentioned that Prescott was one of my favorite ancestors
and the reason is he's the only recorded early settler of New
England with a set of armor. The full story is told here in this
quote from The Military Annals of Lancaster, Massachusetts.
1740-1865 Including Lists of Soldiers Serving in the Colonial
and Revolutionary Wars, for the Lancastrian Towns: Berlin,
Bolton, Harvard, Leominster, and Sterling By Henry Stedman
Nourse: (W. J. Coulter, Lancaster, Ma. 1889 pp360-361)
which is also the source of most of this article:


"It is related that at his first coming he soon won the respect
of the savages not only by his fearlessness and great strength
but by the power of his eye and his dignity of mien. They soon
learned to stand in awe of his long musket and unerring skill
as a marksman. He had no doubt seen some military service
in England for he came of a soldierly race his great grandfather
having been knighted for gallantry in battle. He had brought
with him from England a suit of mail helmet and cuirass
probably such as were worn by the soldiers of Cromwell"

"Clothed with these his stately figure seemed to the sons of
the forest something almost superhuman. One day some
Indians having taken away a horse of his he put on his armor,
pursued them alone, and soon overtook them. The chief of the
party seeing him approach unsupported met him menacingly
with uplifted tomahawk. Prescott dared him to strike and was
immediately taken at his word but the rude weapon glanced
harmless from the helmet to the amazement of the red men.
Naturally the Indian desired to try upon his own head so
wonderful a hat and the owner obligingly gratified him
claiming the privilege however of using the tomahawk in
return. The helmet proving a scant fit or its wearer
neglecting to bring it down to its proper bearings Prescott's
vengeful blow not only astounded him but left very little
cuticle on either side of his head and nearly deprived him of
ears. Prescott was permitted to jog home in peace upon his
horse.

After hostilities began it is said that at one time the savages
set fire to his barn but fled when he sallied out clad in armor
with his dreaded gun and thus he was enabled to save his
stock though the building was consumed. More than once
attempts were made to destroy the mill but a sight of the
man in mail with the far reaching gun was enough to send
them to a safe distance and rescue the property.

Many stories have been told of Prescott's prowess but some
bear so close a resemblance to those credibly historic in other
places and of other heroes that there attaches to them some
suspicion of adaptation at least Such undoubtedly is the story
that in the assault upon the town he had several muskets but
no one in the house save his wife to assist him. She loaded the
guns and he discharged them with fatal effect. The contest
continued for nearly half an hour Mr Prescott all the while
giving orders as if to soldiers so loud that the Indians could
hear him to load their muskets though he had no soldiers but
his wife. At length they withdrew carrying off several of their
dead and wounded."

I'm not sure how much of all that is true but it is fun to read.

In 1664 the General court opened the way for admission of
non Puritan believers as freedmen and John took the oath
in 1669. John Prescott died in 1681 a well respected man
and among his descendants are William Prescott the historian
and Col. William Prescott of Bunker Hill fame. I'm decended
from John's son Jonas Prescott, who himself is the subject
of another story, this one of a romantic nature, and which I'll
share in a future post.

This post is written for the 51st edition of the Carnival of
Genealogy.