((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
Showing posts with label Prescott John. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Prescott John. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 23, 2019
Thursday, February 11, 2010
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.
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.
Sunday, February 07, 2010
"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!
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!
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
THE CASE OF MARY GATES
Back before the holidays and before I had computer problems I added some books
to my Google Books library that dealt with some of my family lines or that were
histories of the towns where my ancestors lived. I had great success finding information
about my ancestors from Google Books that also provided me with plenty of material
for my blog and I'm hoping my luck with that will hold in 2010.
First up is a series of documents from a book about Lancaster, Ma. where my
ancestors John Prescott and Simon Willard(among others) lived. These pertain
to a young lady named Mary Gates who got herself into a bit of trouble when
she impulsively came to the defense of her mother during a church assembly.
John Prescott and Simon Willard have prominent roles in this affair:
"To Mary Gates of Lancaster.
By virtue heerof you are to apeere at the next Countie Court at Cambridge, to answer the complaint of John Prescott & James Atherton, for your sinfull cariage in the assembly one
the lord's daye — heerof you are not to faille at your perill.
Datted this 27th: of the IIth: mo 1656.
Simon Willard."
Next is the testimony about the outburst:
"The deposition of John Prescott & James Atherton both of Lancaster.
Vpon a lords day att after exercise in the afternoone goodwife gats being called forth to
giue satisfaction for sum ofence done against Master Rowlandson, and she justifying
herself, saying that she had formerly giuen him satisfacion, and in after Master
Rowlandson replved by sum arguments proving that she had not formerly giuen him satisfacion, her daughter Marie gats stood vp vncalled uerie boldly in the publique
asembly contradicting our minister, when he denyed that goodwife gats had giuen him satisfacion. the said marie gats said yes and shee would take her oath of it.
This was taken vpon oath the 27th of the 11th mo. 1656, before me.
Simon Willard."
Two other young women of the congregation had given their depositions earlier:
"Lancaster the 6th of the 11th mon 1656.
The deposition of Lidia Cibie Aged about 19 years. Vpon the Last Lord's daye goodwife
gats being called forth in the publique Congregacion to acknowledge an ofence don
against Master Rowlandson, 1 heard mary gats speake to Sergant Kerly that he would
goe and speake, he said noe for it will giue ofence. Ofence—said shee, Lett those take
ofence and be hanged all, If they will.
Sara Waters Aged 20 years witneseth, That shee heard mary gats at the same time
speaking to Sargant Kerly. She said Lett them take ofence and be hanged all. If they will.
these weare both taken vpon oath the 27th of the 11th mon 1656 before me.
Simon Willard."
Finally, Mary Gates confesses and apologizes:
"I Mary gates doe acknoleg that whearas I have spoke sumthing not long sence at this
place that was mater of joste offence and uery sinfull, I am hertely sory for it and doe
desire the Congregtion to pas it by, and I shall endever by the helpe of god not to alowe
myself in any such practes. this was acknoledged in publick in our hearing.
William Kerly Juner
William Kerly Sener
Henry Kerly."
But Mary Gates wasn't quite out of trouble yet. There was a little matter
of court costs to settle and her failure to appear in court:
"April 7 1657. This Court grants an Attachment agst Mary Gates of Lanchaster, and to
Jno. Prescott a bill of costs for himselfe & witnesses being 24s to be pd by the said Gates
and shee is to appeare at y* next Court to Answr ye Complt of the said Prescott & James Atherton for her sinfull Cariage in the assembly on y* Lords day."
"To the honoured Governour, Deputy Governour with the rest of the honoured magistrats assembled at the County Court holden at Charlestown the 16 of this instant Iune 1657,
In most humble wise sheweth and complaineth, and . . [a line worn orf in fold] . . petitioner Mary Gats of Sudbury lat of Lancaster was summoned to appeare at the County Court
held at Cambridge the seaventh of A prill last past and did not, your petitioner thought
that full satisfaction had been giuen befor the honoured Maior Willard for the offence,
also acknoledgement and satisfaction was farther rendered by your petitioner to all or
any persons at lancaster, whom it might concern, further your petitioner was informed
that if shee did appeare by an agent it might be exepted, hence what your petitioner did
was out of ignorance and not of any contempt of athoryty or aversnes farther to
acknoledge the euill of my rash spech and shall be at your mercy, submitting to your
fauorable sensur, allways praying for you.
Mary Gats."
"23 ,, 4 ,, 1657. Mary the daughter of Steuen Gates of Lanchaster being complained of
to this Court for bold and vnbeseeming speeches vsed in the Pubiique Assembly on the
Lords Day. and especially agst Mr Rowlason minister of Gods word there the evidence thereof appeareth by the testimony of Jno. Prescott & James Atherton Lidea Kibbie &
Sarah Waters wch are on file with y* records of this Court. the sd Mary Gates appearing
in Court freely, acknowledged her great evil therein, the Court admonished her. & ordered
that she should pay the Witnesses their charges & costs of Court."
And so ended an expensive lesson for Mary Gates about arguing in the church assembly
with the minister, even if it was in defense of her mother!
((Source :The early records of Lancaster, Massachusetts. 1643-1725, Parts 0-2322
By Lancaster (Mass.), 1884 Henry Stedman Nourse ed., pp46-48))
to my Google Books library that dealt with some of my family lines or that were
histories of the towns where my ancestors lived. I had great success finding information
about my ancestors from Google Books that also provided me with plenty of material
for my blog and I'm hoping my luck with that will hold in 2010.
First up is a series of documents from a book about Lancaster, Ma. where my
ancestors John Prescott and Simon Willard(among others) lived. These pertain
to a young lady named Mary Gates who got herself into a bit of trouble when
she impulsively came to the defense of her mother during a church assembly.
John Prescott and Simon Willard have prominent roles in this affair:
"To Mary Gates of Lancaster.
By virtue heerof you are to apeere at the next Countie Court at Cambridge, to answer the complaint of John Prescott & James Atherton, for your sinfull cariage in the assembly one
the lord's daye — heerof you are not to faille at your perill.
Datted this 27th: of the IIth: mo 1656.
Simon Willard."
Next is the testimony about the outburst:
"The deposition of John Prescott & James Atherton both of Lancaster.
Vpon a lords day att after exercise in the afternoone goodwife gats being called forth to
giue satisfaction for sum ofence done against Master Rowlandson, and she justifying
herself, saying that she had formerly giuen him satisfacion, and in after Master
Rowlandson replved by sum arguments proving that she had not formerly giuen him satisfacion, her daughter Marie gats stood vp vncalled uerie boldly in the publique
asembly contradicting our minister, when he denyed that goodwife gats had giuen him satisfacion. the said marie gats said yes and shee would take her oath of it.
This was taken vpon oath the 27th of the 11th mo. 1656, before me.
Simon Willard."
Two other young women of the congregation had given their depositions earlier:
"Lancaster the 6th of the 11th mon 1656.
The deposition of Lidia Cibie Aged about 19 years. Vpon the Last Lord's daye goodwife
gats being called forth in the publique Congregacion to acknowledge an ofence don
against Master Rowlandson, 1 heard mary gats speake to Sergant Kerly that he would
goe and speake, he said noe for it will giue ofence. Ofence—said shee, Lett those take
ofence and be hanged all, If they will.
Sara Waters Aged 20 years witneseth, That shee heard mary gats at the same time
speaking to Sargant Kerly. She said Lett them take ofence and be hanged all. If they will.
these weare both taken vpon oath the 27th of the 11th mon 1656 before me.
Simon Willard."
Finally, Mary Gates confesses and apologizes:
"I Mary gates doe acknoleg that whearas I have spoke sumthing not long sence at this
place that was mater of joste offence and uery sinfull, I am hertely sory for it and doe
desire the Congregtion to pas it by, and I shall endever by the helpe of god not to alowe
myself in any such practes. this was acknoledged in publick in our hearing.
William Kerly Juner
William Kerly Sener
Henry Kerly."
But Mary Gates wasn't quite out of trouble yet. There was a little matter
of court costs to settle and her failure to appear in court:
"April 7 1657. This Court grants an Attachment agst Mary Gates of Lanchaster, and to
Jno. Prescott a bill of costs for himselfe & witnesses being 24s to be pd by the said Gates
and shee is to appeare at y* next Court to Answr ye Complt of the said Prescott & James Atherton for her sinfull Cariage in the assembly on y* Lords day."
"To the honoured Governour, Deputy Governour with the rest of the honoured magistrats assembled at the County Court holden at Charlestown the 16 of this instant Iune 1657,
In most humble wise sheweth and complaineth, and . . [a line worn orf in fold] . . petitioner Mary Gats of Sudbury lat of Lancaster was summoned to appeare at the County Court
held at Cambridge the seaventh of A prill last past and did not, your petitioner thought
that full satisfaction had been giuen befor the honoured Maior Willard for the offence,
also acknoledgement and satisfaction was farther rendered by your petitioner to all or
any persons at lancaster, whom it might concern, further your petitioner was informed
that if shee did appeare by an agent it might be exepted, hence what your petitioner did
was out of ignorance and not of any contempt of athoryty or aversnes farther to
acknoledge the euill of my rash spech and shall be at your mercy, submitting to your
fauorable sensur, allways praying for you.
Mary Gats."
"23 ,, 4 ,, 1657. Mary the daughter of Steuen Gates of Lanchaster being complained of
to this Court for bold and vnbeseeming speeches vsed in the Pubiique Assembly on the
Lords Day. and especially agst Mr Rowlason minister of Gods word there the evidence thereof appeareth by the testimony of Jno. Prescott & James Atherton Lidea Kibbie &
Sarah Waters wch are on file with y* records of this Court. the sd Mary Gates appearing
in Court freely, acknowledged her great evil therein, the Court admonished her. & ordered
that she should pay the Witnesses their charges & costs of Court."
And so ended an expensive lesson for Mary Gates about arguing in the church assembly
with the minister, even if it was in defense of her mother!
((Source :The early records of Lancaster, Massachusetts. 1643-1725, Parts 0-2322
By Lancaster (Mass.), 1884 Henry Stedman Nourse ed., pp46-48))
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
SIMON WILLARD PART 1
Simon Willard is one of those figures in American history that played an important
part in the foundation of the colonies but who are largely unknown today. He
was born in 1605 in Horsmonden, Kent, England and emigrated to the Massachusetts
Bay Colony with his family in May, 1634 and became a fur trader. A year later he
and several other settlers purchased land from Indians that eventually became the
town of Concord. Reverend Peter Bulkeley was one of these settlers and so the group
met the requirements for a "'covenant town." Simon would serve as the town's
representative in the General Court from 1635 until 1654.
His good relations with the Indians did not go unnoticed by the colonial government
and he was given positions of authority in the militia, which might also indicate he'd
had some sort of military experience in England before he'd left for America. In 1653
he was made a Major in the Middlesex Militia and a year afterwards led an expedition
against the Narraganset Indians. Somehow he also managed to make time to also work
as a surveyor and in that line of work traveled as far north as Lake Winnipesaukee in
1652.
In 1658 the town of Lancaster invited him to take up residence there, citing a need for
a “controlling mind” or leader. But I wonder if perhaps this was also an attempt to gain
some respectability in the eyes of the colonial government by a town whose founder,
my other ancestor John Prescott, had not been looked upon favorably. And Willard’s
experience dealing with the local Indians might also have prompted the invitation by
the town on the western edge of the colony.
Whatever the town’s reason, Simon Willard accepted the offer and moved his family
from Concord to Lancaster in 1658. Twelve years later he moved again to the nearby
town of Groton where one of his sons was minister.
Simon Willard was now in his mid-sixties, an advanced age in a time where the average
lifespan was around thirty or forty years. He might have expected to live out the rest of
his life uneventfully, but that was not to be the case.
part in the foundation of the colonies but who are largely unknown today. He
was born in 1605 in Horsmonden, Kent, England and emigrated to the Massachusetts
Bay Colony with his family in May, 1634 and became a fur trader. A year later he
and several other settlers purchased land from Indians that eventually became the
town of Concord. Reverend Peter Bulkeley was one of these settlers and so the group
met the requirements for a "'covenant town." Simon would serve as the town's
representative in the General Court from 1635 until 1654.
His good relations with the Indians did not go unnoticed by the colonial government
and he was given positions of authority in the militia, which might also indicate he'd
had some sort of military experience in England before he'd left for America. In 1653
he was made a Major in the Middlesex Militia and a year afterwards led an expedition
against the Narraganset Indians. Somehow he also managed to make time to also work
as a surveyor and in that line of work traveled as far north as Lake Winnipesaukee in
1652.
In 1658 the town of Lancaster invited him to take up residence there, citing a need for
a “controlling mind” or leader. But I wonder if perhaps this was also an attempt to gain
some respectability in the eyes of the colonial government by a town whose founder,
my other ancestor John Prescott, had not been looked upon favorably. And Willard’s
experience dealing with the local Indians might also have prompted the invitation by
the town on the western edge of the colony.
Whatever the town’s reason, Simon Willard accepted the offer and moved his family
from Concord to Lancaster in 1658. Twelve years later he moved again to the nearby
town of Groton where one of his sons was minister.
Simon Willard was now in his mid-sixties, an advanced age in a time where the average
lifespan was around thirty or forty years. He might have expected to live out the rest of
his life uneventfully, but that was not to be the case.
Thursday, January 08, 2009
COVENANT & FREEMAN
As I've mentioned earlier, I've been doing some researching of my
Andover, Massachusetts ancestors and reading my distant cousin
Elinor Abbot's book "Our Company Increases Apace". One of the
things it helped clear up for me was the terms "covenant" and 'freeman"
we see so often associated with ancestors from this period. I'm going to
try to give a coherent version of what I learned here.
In the Massachusetts Bay Colony, towns were formed by a group that
had to include a minister and at least ten men who would form a
"covenant" church. In order to become a member of a covenant, the
applicant would have to undergo questioning by ministers to determine
if his beliefs adhered to the Puritan faith. He'd also have to make a public
declaration of faith before the members of the church and tell about
his personal conversion and beliefs. Depending on how he performed
these two requirements he would then be accepted or rejected for
membership into the church covenant.
In the Massachusetts Bay Colony, only covenant members were
allowed to take the Oath of Freeman, by which they could vote or
hold office. So you can see how this favored members of the
Puritan church over settlers from other religious affiliations. As the
population of the Colony grew there was an increase in settlers from
the Anglican Church who were taxed by a government in which they
could not actually participate. Eventually, after the Restoration of the
monarchy back in England, the covenant requirement for taking the
Oath of the Freeman was abolished.
While many of my ancestors were early covenant members and
freemen, a few like John Prescott were not.
Source:
Abbot, Elinor, Our Company Increases Apace: History, Language, and
Social Identity in Early Colonial Andover, Massachusetts.
Dallas, Texas: SIL International, 2007
Andover, Massachusetts ancestors and reading my distant cousin
Elinor Abbot's book "Our Company Increases Apace". One of the
things it helped clear up for me was the terms "covenant" and 'freeman"
we see so often associated with ancestors from this period. I'm going to
try to give a coherent version of what I learned here.
In the Massachusetts Bay Colony, towns were formed by a group that
had to include a minister and at least ten men who would form a
"covenant" church. In order to become a member of a covenant, the
applicant would have to undergo questioning by ministers to determine
if his beliefs adhered to the Puritan faith. He'd also have to make a public
declaration of faith before the members of the church and tell about
his personal conversion and beliefs. Depending on how he performed
these two requirements he would then be accepted or rejected for
membership into the church covenant.
In the Massachusetts Bay Colony, only covenant members were
allowed to take the Oath of Freeman, by which they could vote or
hold office. So you can see how this favored members of the
Puritan church over settlers from other religious affiliations. As the
population of the Colony grew there was an increase in settlers from
the Anglican Church who were taxed by a government in which they
could not actually participate. Eventually, after the Restoration of the
monarchy back in England, the covenant requirement for taking the
Oath of the Freeman was abolished.
While many of my ancestors were early covenant members and
freemen, a few like John Prescott were not.
Source:
Abbot, Elinor, Our Company Increases Apace: History, Language, and
Social Identity in Early Colonial Andover, Massachusetts.
Dallas, Texas: SIL International, 2007
Saturday, June 28, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)