Puritan Farmers Or Farming Puritans

PURITAN FARMERS OR FARMING PURITANS:

PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY AND AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES

IN NEW ENGLAND COMMUNITY FORMATION

by

Donald E. Maroc

B.A., Indiana University, 1968

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF ARTS

in the Department

of

History

We accept this thesis as conforming to the

required standard:

THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

April, 1970 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shal1 make it freely available for reference and study.

I further agree tha permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.

Department of H > 5TQ/-<-|

The University of British Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada

Date C ABSTRACT

A large number of Englishmen, predominantly from the West Country and East Anglia, began the settlement of New England in 1630. In the sparsely populated North American wilderness they established a new society. The foundation for their New England community lay in the

English experience which they brought to the New World.

When a group of men consciously agree to form a new community it is essential that they share certain aspirations, needs and experiences. The form of this new society results from an effort to fulfill and satisfy their common characteristics. An agricultural occu• pation was the experience shared by the Englishmen who settled the town of Dorchester, Massachusetts, in 1630. Their common needs included finding an environment in which the physical geography fit their accus• tomed agricultural practices.

A large majority of the settlers of Dorchester came from the three

West Country counties of Somerset, Dorset, and Devon. The Somerset and

Dorset emigrants were from regions known for their dairy products since the Middle Ages. The Devonshiremen, in contrast, had lived in that county's grain and fruit producing sections.

At the time the Dorchester settlers left their English homes economic conditions in the West Country pressed hard on individual farming families. Increased demand for agricultural products in emerging urban areas caused rents and the cost of good land to multiply rapidly. Price increases outran incomes and many people, in trying to escape the rural hard times, found themselves among the urban unemployed in cities such as Dorchester, in Dorset, and Exeter, in Devon.

In an effort to understand the motivation for both the impulse to emigrate from England and the formation of a new community at Dorchester in Massachusetts Bay, a crisis situation was selected for study. Buring

1635 and 1636 one-third of Dorchester's population moved to the Connect• icut River Valley. As with all of New England's history this event has been interpreted on the basis of either its religious or political significance.

The people of Dorchester have been portrayed as fleeing from an increasingly rigid and narrow religious orthodoxy in the Bay Colony, or as democractically inclined frontiersmen escaping the oppressive, feudal oligarchy of the

Massachusetts leaders.

The people of Dorchester who established Windsor, Connecticut in 1636 did not fit either of these categories. They were dairy farmers and cattle raisers from Somerset and Dorset, together with a few east county men, whose

Dorchester lands were not compatible with their agricultural practices. The

Connecticut Valley, particularly at Windsor where they settled, provided the meadowlands and pasturage absolutely necessary to the successful maintenance of their cattle. The native grasses in the river-bottom meadows and higher pastures grew in red sandstone-based loams, reminiscent of the best soils in

Somerset and Dorset.

It is concluded that it was cattle, not religious doctrine or politics, which split the Dorchester community and resulted in the foundation of Windsor,

Connecticut. It is suggested that while religion and politics were important to seventeenth-century New England husbandmen, as social determinants these were decidedly subordinate to the soil and the agricultural use of that soil. TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1

Chapter

I. THE GREAT MIGRATION 7

II. • WESTCOUNTRYMEN IN THE GREAT MIGRATION 12

1. Dorsetshire Dairymen 2.. Somerset Emigrants 3. Devonshire Husbandmen 4. Conclusion

III. SETTLEMENT OF DORCHESTER,, MASSACHUSETTS 29

1. Church Members and Freemen 2. The Ordering of Town Affairs 3. The Tenor of Religious Affairs 4. Conclusion

IV. SETTLEMENT OF WINDSOR,, CONNECTICUT 69

1. Minor Distortions for Major Theses 2. The Windsor Migration Dissected 3. The Impulse to Migrate 4. -'An Agricultural Bias 5. Red Sandstone Meadows 6. Conclusions

APPENDIX 104

BIBLIOGRAPHY 142 Migration and Labour are expressions of one of the basic instincts of all living creatures, the instinct for survival. ^ - J.M. Mackenzie

INTRODUCTION

The hypothesis that the most decisive element in the foundation of colonial New England's society was a brand of Chris Han organization known as non-separating congregational Puritanism is false. Data, collected in support of this widely accepted theory; fell into a heap of impossible conclusions because the assumption rested upon an over- intellectualized analysis of a rather restricted body of evidence. Further, its acceptance required the near neglect of the recorded experiences and pre-occupations of the early Massachusetts Bay Settlers. The debris yielded another idea, the idea that behind the decisions of most New

England colonists lay something far more basic to human existence than theological abstractions.

Nearly all the early settlers at Massachusetts Bay engaged in some form of farming. The New England town, from its inception,was an agricul• tural community. The needs of an agricultural society provided a framework

for its institutions. The New England town was not a religious community

John MacDonald Mackenzie, "African Labour in South Central Africa, 1890-1914, and Nineteenth Century Colonial Labour Theory," (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The University of British Columbia, 1969), 1. • which only incidentally cultivated the earth but an agrarian society with healthy regard for the Diety who controlled the weather and the crops, as well as each man's individual destiny.

Historians established religion as the essence of New England life largely on the basis of literary evidence. Eighteenth and Nineteenth- century historians depended to some extent on tracts by leading Puritan divines published in New England, but even more on journals and histories written by John Winthrop, William Bradford, Nathaniel Morton and William

Hubbard, together with manuscript records of the Colony courts. As time went on others added records of town meetings, land appropriations, deeds, wills, etc., and a few diaries and letters. Much of this material was originally incorporated into local studies of New England towns. These data, in the hands of historians such as James Truslow Adams, came to support a much less complimentary.view of seventeenth-centuryfNew

Englanders than that previously held.

The attitude associated with Adams prevailed until the 1930's, when Perry Miller, Charles M. Andrews, Samuel E. Morison, Ola E. Winslow,

Edmund S. Morgan and others, decided to make New England history into

Puritan history of an American Whig strain. Using all previously exploited sources very selectively, these academicians immersed themselves in sermon literature and religious tracts written by English divines in

England, Holland, and America. ' They determined that more than 90 percent of the English emigrants to New England in the 1630's were literate and, therefore, participants in the theological-ecclesiastical logic chopping 3

contained in the voluminous publications of the ministers and religiously oriented Colony leaders.-*- The New Englanders suddenly became less austere and much more human, but also achieved an unbelievably high intellectual level.

Whether they found seventeenth-century New England narrow and distasteful or earthy and wholesome, American historians used non- separating congregational Puritanism as their frame of reference. Without serious objection the religious base has been accepted as the New Englanders raison d'etre, as fundamental to their institutional organization and decision formation. Roy H. Akagi, in 1924, made the only real effort at dissent from this position, before Sumner Chilton Powell's study of Sudbury,

Massachusetts, in 1963. According to Akagi the New England town,

was at first nothing but a simple land community for the sole purpose of settlement. . . . [The] original settlers or grantees became the proprietors of the land which was granted to them and they formed a simple agrarian community bound by the common ownership of land. The first town meeting held was the meeting of these proprietors for the better ordering of their land and its divisions.^

Akagi decided the "simple land community" gave way to a separate political community — which he quietly surrendered to the historians of Puritanism.

Akagi's limitation was his political-institutional approach to history. The proprietors were merely a lower order of political organization which evolved

^Samuel Eliot Morison, The Puritan Pronaos: Studies in the Intellectual Life of New England in the Seventeenth Century (New York: New York University Press, 1936), 79-82. 9 Roy Hidemichi Akagi, The Town Proprietors of the New England Colonies (Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, 1963), 291-292. 4

into the superior institution of town-meeting government with its growing administration structure.

The usual historical approach has been to investigate and describe an institution, which is.an;:academicajterm for an organization created by a community of men, meant to solve a collective problem or fulfill a common need.

This method assumed that the human community would be accurately reflected in its institutions. It is the tendency of institutions, however, to develop beyond the control of those who are supposed to be served. The institution then does not respond to the needs of its constituency and certainly does not reflect the human community from which it sprang. Further, there is little real difference between using institutions and relying on articulate leaders, who often personify institutions, to provide a reflection of the human environment.

An alternative approach is to investigate t'a; community of people directly, and hope eventually to understand the organizations they developed.

Motivation and decision, individual and collective, are basic attributes of a human community and serve as a common denominator cementing the group.

Men's decisions and their associated motivations are most easily identified in a crisis situation.

Dorchester, one of the original Massachusetts Bay towns, was the

community selected for study. The crisis occurred in 1635-36, when a

significant minority of the townspeople decided to migrate to the nearly uninhabited Connecticut River Valley. If the characteristics of those who moved are identifiably distinct from those who remained, it might be possible

to discover some of the reasons which motivated community action in New England. 5

The raw material for this research were the individuals who formed

Dorchester's society at the time of crisis and decision. However the decision-forming process functioned in seventeenth-century New England family units, it was the adult males of the population who took the public actions. Therefore, a biographical file was made for each adult male resident in Dorchester from 1630 to 1640. The information thought essential included: (1) his age and place of residence at the time of emigration;

(2) the date of his immigration to New England; (3) his places of residence in New England and dates of residence in Dorchester; and, (4) his status in

Dorchester, i.e. when he was accepted into the church, when admitted a freeman, and when he held what positions of community responsibility. With this information it was possible to discern the kind of community the emigrant came from in England and the associations he made after settlement in New

England.

From previous studies, it had been expected that the 1636 division of Dorchester would have revealed a split between East Anglians and

Westcountrymen. If the traditional view of early New England history had been accurate, the East Anglians ought to have remained in Dorchester, while

the Westcountrymen moved to Connecticut. Unfortunately, the data gathered would not support such a conclusion. Instead, the split occurred within

the group of West Country immigrants. Those who had come from the English

counties of Somerset and Dorset led the migration to Connecticut, while the

most significant minority remaining in Dorchester had come from Devonshire.

The division between the groups of West Country immigrants cannot be

explained by religious differences. The varying agricultural customs of the 6

Dorchester settlers, however, could explain the migration. The Connecticut

River Valley was the only area in New England which fulfilled the agricultural needs of the men from Dorset and Somerset. This lends considerable weight to the thesis that some communities of seventeenth- century New Englanders were farmers first and Puritans second. 7

I.

THE GREAT MIGRATION

In 1630 scores of English families boarded ships at Southampton,

< Bristol and Plymouth bound for the unknown but promising shores of New

England. Religious, social and economic adversity largely beyond their

control or understanding induced them to migrate. Increasingly rigid

Laudian orthodoxy frustrated some in their desired religious reforms; others

feared repeated defeats suffered by continental Protestants heralded a

return to Papal supremacy. Increasing population and changing land use

stimulated growing under-employment and mounting land hunger. Fast-rising

prices and slowly-rising wages resulted in chronic, wide-spread poverty.^

Whatever might be the verdict of later observers, many of the uprooted peoples

sailing west past Land's End in March and April of 1630 believed they were

being driven from their homeland.

The Humble Request and The Planters Plea, published soon after

departure of the emigrants, made it apparent that some considered themselves

oppressed by the authorities of the Church of England and feared this authority

would haunt them even across 3000 miles of ocean.2 Since ultimate authority

Joan Thirsk, ed.., The. Agrarian. History of England and Wales, 1500- 1640 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 598.

^The Humble Request (London: John Bellamie, 1630); and, [John White], The Planters Plea (London: William James, 1630). 8

in England, in both civil and religious matters, met in the Crown it was difficult to separate dissent in the one from disloyalty in the other, or unorthodox practices in the one from treason in the other.

The leadership's sense of persecution may have resulted from guilt created by knowledge of their intended unorthodoxy. Although their records are silent concerning their intentions, there can be little doubt the leaders of the Massachusetts Bay Company planned no extension of the Church of England in America. The church organized by clergymen Francis Higginson and Samuel

Skelton at the Company's settlement at Salem in New England definitely leaned toward Separatism. Letters to the civil governor, John Endecott, at Salem indicate that Mr. Higginson and Mr. Skelton had been given some idea of how to proceed in church organization.^ At least some of the migrants also knew of the plans to establish a non-conformist church policy in the Bay Colony.

In December 1629, four months before the fleet departed, Arthur Tyndale, later a passenger on the flagship Arbella, wrote a troubled letter to Massachusetts

Bay Company Governor John Winthrop. Tyndale told Winthrop, whom he had just visited in London, he knew he had to be ready to give up material and spiritual security "to serve yow in that unitie bond, and waie of pietie, and devocion which your selves shall embrace.Though he must have submitted by March 1630,

Matthew Cradock to John Endecott, 17 April 1629, in Nathaniel B. Shurtleff, Records of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay in New England (Boston: William White, 1853), I, 390; also see Ibid, 37-38.

o Arthur Tyndale to John Winthrop, 10 November 1629, in Winthrop Papers, 1623-1630 (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1931), 166. 9

in December Tyndale was not yet certain of his resolve "to live under the

Hierarchie of your church and civil government, purposed and concluded among your selves.""'' Apparently Governor Winthrop had,explained some manner of organization.to Mr. Tyndale.

The emigrants' fear that accusing fingers pointed at them was not mere paranoia. The 7 June 1630 entry in John Rous' diary noted that he saw a book containing The Humble Request, "a declaration of theire intent who be gone to Newe Englande, set out by themselves, and purposed for the satisfaction of the King and state (as I conceive), because of some scandalous misconceivings 2 that runne abroade." In The Planters Plea, Mr. John White, a prominent

West Country clergyman involved in the organization of the New England migrations, answered the objection that those departing were "men of ill affected mindes," who were no longer willing to participate in Church of England practices, and who were setting out to create "a nursery of faction ... 3 and separation from the Church" in New England. • Referring to The Humble

Request, signed by seven of the emigrant leaders, Mr. White reminded his readers: They acknowledge the grace they have received, unto this Church; professe their resolution to sympathize and share with her in good and evill, and desire heartily her prayers.^

Arthur Tyndale to John Winthrop, 10 November 1629, in Winthrop Papers, 1623-1630 (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1931), 166.

2

Winthrop Papers, 1623-1630, 231.

[White], Planters Plea, 59. Ibid., 60. 10

He hoped this "would sway and beare downe the ballance against all groundlesse surmises and guesses.at mens intentions."^ He avoided mentioning that

The Humble .Request was, deliberately or not, a very vague document which nowhere denied an intention to establish practices contrary to those of the Church of

England.

Mr. White addressed himself to the problem of separation from the

established Churchswhich, because of the indivisibility of church and state in seventeenth-century England, was a political as well as an ecclesiastical offense. In The Planters-tPlea, written and published hurriedly while the emigrants made the three-month Atlantic crossing, he put aside Separation by admitting to the lesser transgression of Non-conformity. He asserted "that at least three parts of foure of the men there.planted, are able to justifie themselves to have lived in a constant course of conformity unto our Church 2 government and orders." By this he implied that the remaining one part did not conform and turned to a plea for toleration within the ranks of the Church of England, just as the Church tolerated the practices of foreign Protestants.

Mr. White suggested to those who could not accept toleration that, "it is the remaining of the thorne in the midst of the flesh which torments; the plucking 3 it out, and casting it away breedes ease and quietnesse."

[White], Planters Plea, 60.

2Ibid., 62.

3Ibid., 64. 11

Mr. White admitted that some ministers accompanying the migration

"are knowne to be unconformable. But," he asked, "how shall they prevent it?""'" What minister j settled in a good living, would expose himself and family to the hazards of such a journey and unpredictable future? "Pardon them," he begged, "if they take such Ministers as they may have, rather than 2 none at all."

To establish the improbability of a solemn agreement among the emigrants to separate from the Church in any way, Mr. White pointed out that

"There passed away about 140 persons out of the western parts from Plimmouth, of which I conceive there were not sixe knowne either by face or fame to 3 any of the rest." whether or not this could be said of all the emigrants of 1630, it seems to have been an accurate statement for those sailing from

Plymouth, whom the Reverend Mr: White gathered himself from the southwestern counties of Dorset, Somerset arid Devon.

[White], Planters Plea, 63.

2Ibid. 3 Ibid., 62. 12

II. WESTCOUNTRYMEN IN THE GREAT MIGRATION

The sailing of the Mary & John from Plymouth harbor, 20 March 1630, represented a major achievement in John White's efforts toward social rehabilitation in England's West Country. For a quarter of a century Mr.White, the rector of Holy Trinity parish and spiritual leader of the shire-town of

Dorchester, worked for colonization in New England as one means to alleviate

the social and economic dislocations afflicting England's southwest

counties.

Faced by the puzzling problems of simultaneously increasing population,

demand, production, prices, under-employment, unemployment and.poverty, the

socially conscious priest espoused emigration as a solution.^ It was neither religious fanacticism nor the exoticism of an adventurous dreamer which drove

the Reverend Mr. White. He had already tried charity, public works and

re-education, but the problems continued to outgrow his solutions. Specificallys prices outran incomes and numbers of people out-stripped employment and housing possibilities.

Although the wild but fertile and healthy shores of New England beckoned,

pulling up stakes to leave one's homeland was not a simple decision, especially 2 for agricultural people. For the Westcountrymen in 1629-30, however, the

iThirsk, Agrarian History, 3, 598; and, [White], Planters Plea, 17-21.

2 Francis Higginson, New-Englands Plantation, (London, 1630), 6, 9. 13

decision was eased somewhat because many were already milling about. Since

Elizabethan times Englishmen in increasing numbers migrated in search of more favorable agricultural conditions and small-holders, squeezed off the land, moved into cities such as Dorchester and Exeter.1

Under-employed masons, carpenters, tailors and shoemakers, protected by guilds, drove up prices while their incomes declined.2 In the countryside the labour force could not absorb the increased population.0 As a result, while the agricultural labourers' money wages increased 25 percent during the first half of the seventeenth century, prices rose approximately 50 percent.^

The surplus labour left the countryside and inundated the cities, already crowded with unemployed men.

The religious inclinations and economic and social status of individual emigrants prior to leaving England is difficult to establish because of their generally insignificant status and the unsettled character of the times. It can be ascertained that slightly more than three-fourths of the approximately

150 passengers on the Mary & John were from the West Country. The heaviest

E.E. Rich, "The Population of Elizabethan England," Economic History Review, 2nd series, II (1950), 263-264; and, Carl Bridenbaugh, Vexed and Troubled Englishmen, 1590-1642 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968), 21-25, 129-130, 380-381.

2[White], Planters Plea, 19.

3 Thirsk, Agrarian History, 598.

W. G. Hoskins, Old Devon (Newton Abbot, Devon: David and Charles, 1966), 189. 14

concentration was from Dorset and Somerset, with a somewhat lower number from Devonshire.

The majority of those from Dorset and Somerset come from an area in the form of an arc, ten to fifteen miles in width, which ran from Weymouth northwest through Bridport and Chard into the midst of Somerset's fertile

Vale of Taunton Deane. All the emigrants from Devonshire originated in the valleys of the Exe, Axe and Tow rivers or the southern coastal plain.

The character of an agricultural community can be determined by its land and the use to which the land was put.-*- Although relatively little specific information about individuals remains, their geographic origins do enable a reasonably reliable reconstruction of the social and economic environment from which they sprang.

1. Dorsetshire Dairymen

All the Dorset emigrants hailed from the western section of that shire. This was the lowland region of strong red clay soils and mild damp climate, an area of dairy farming now referred to as the Bjitter Country.

Further, all the Dorset families lived within fifteen miles of the sea, and most in the areas surrounding Dorchester, Bridport and Beaminster.

Though the thriving medieval ports of Bridport and Lyme Regis had

Thirsk, Agrarian History, 109-112, 197-199.

2 Eric Kerridge, The Agricultural Revolution (New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1968), 117. 15

dropped into decay by the seventeenth century, the Dorset dairymen still

carried on a brisk trade through Weymouth with Southampton, Devonshire and

Cornwall. Their red sandstone-based soils made fine arable land as well as

rich pasturage. Other than orchards producing excellent cider, however, the west Dorsetshire agrarians concentrated on the production and export of butter

and skim-milk cheese.1

The Dorset farmers improved their arable with dressings of marl and

lime, though in general they cultivated in the negligent manner of most small

dairy farmers interested primarily in grain and straw. Well-known for their native red, dark brown and pied milk cows, few Dorset farmers kept teams,

depending rather on jobbing ploughmen. Only about one-third of the land in

use was regularly tilled, with the remaining two-thirds in pasture, rarely if

ever ploughed.0

In contrast to the champion country in the Chalklands of eastern

Dorset, where small family farms dwindled in number, the small dairymen of

Kerridge, Agricultural Revolution, 117; D.T. Williams, "Medieval Foreign Trade: Western Ports," in An Historical Geography of England before A.D. 1800, ed. by H.C. Darby (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1951), 279; A.J. Buckle, "Agriculture," in The Victoria History of the County of Dorset, ed. by William Page (London: Archibald Constable and Co., 1908),II, 275.

2 Marl is a crumbly soil consisting mainly of clay, sand, and calcium carbonate.

Kerridge, Agricultural Revolution, 119. 16

the west multiplied.1 Small farms, scattered settlement, much old enclosure, with even the common fields, meadows and pasture in higher lands rapidly disappearing, characterized the dairy lands.2

There were a few pockets of Roman Catholicism in eastern Dorset but the religious posture of the 1630 emigrants was most nearly personified in the moderate puritanism of John White and his friend William Benn, rectors of the Dorchester parishes of Holy Trinity and All Saints.J Though by 1634

Archbishop William Laud could rail that Puritans obstructed every parish in

Dorset, there were few presentments for other than moral offences, such as drunkenness, violence in church and occasional non-attendence at church or communion.^ The Dorset "Puritans" were generally Church of England men taking advantage of .certain local prerogatives and remoteness from London, to institute minor procedural reforms to eliminate the vestiges of Papism.-> As

John White would freely admit, these local deviations might be considered non• conformity but in no way could they be condemned as efforts to separate from

Champion country was unenclosed countryside where "the lands of freeholders,, farmers, and tenants lie in common." Bridenbaugh, Vexed and Troubled Englishmen, 65.

^Thirsk,- Agrarian History, 65, 68.

^Frances Rose-Troup, John White: The Patriarch of Dorchester and the Founder of Massachusetts,. 1575-1648 (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1930); and, VCH, Dorset, I,.32-35.

4yCH,. Dorset, I,. 35.

5Ibid., I, 32-35. 17

or destroy the national Church.1

In addition to these generalizations it would be helpful in studying the foundations of Dorchester, New England, to know of personal acquaintance• ships and family connections before the migration. Unfortunately, as the

Reverend Mr. White wrote, few such connections seem to have existed.

Thomas Ford, later an important member of new Dorchester's society, resided in old Dorchester at least five years before emigrating. Born in

1587, he had previously lived in Bridport where he married Joan Waye in 1610.

This raises the possibility that he knew or was related to another emigrant,

Henry Waye, a young man his own age living in Allington, a parish on the outskirts of Bridport.2 Joan Waye Ford died during the spring of 1615 and one year later Ford married Elizabeth Cooke, widowed mother of Aaron Cooke.

After emigrating to New England, Aaron married Ford's daughter Mary, cementing a very solid family circle. After the death of his first wife

Aaron Cooke married Nicholas Denslow's daughter Joanna who, like Henry Waye, came from the hamlet of Allington.^

Giles Gibbs, who lived near the limestone quarry in South Perrot, may

[White], Planters Plea, 61-62.

2 Charles E. Banks, Topographical Dictionary of 2885 English Emigrants to New England, 1620-1650 (Baltimore: Southern Book Company, 1957), 30; and, New England Historical and Genealogical Register, XLI (1887), 344; LXI (1897), 278.

3NEHGR, XVI (1862), 41-43; XXI (1867), 336. 18

have been acquainted with John and Humphrey Gallop of Mosterton, which formed a rectory with South Perrot.1 Gibbs, a dairyman, also possibly knew blacksmith Eltweed Pomeroy of the nearest cattle-market town, Beaminster.2

John Hoskins and his two grown sons, John, Jr., and Thomas, also lived in the Beaminster parish before emigration.3

Most of the Dorsetshiremen aboard the Mary & John were married with small families. Several of the men were over forty years of age with at least two, Nicholas Denslow and George Dyer, in their fifties. Counting the half-dozen mature single men who established families soon after arrival in

New England, there were twenty-one Dorsetshire family groups represented on the voyage of the Mary & John.

Mr. white's contention that few were acquainted becomes more credible when one realizes that, though most were from small rural villages, the twenty-one adult males came from eleven different parishes. Seven of the twenty-one lived in the city of Dorchester at the time of emigration, leaving fourteen from ten parishes. Except for the Fords and the Cookes, there is no definite evidence of personal connections between Dorsetshiremen before they met in Plymouth to embark on their voyage to America.

Samuel Lewis, A Topographical Dictionary of England (London: S. Lewis & Co., 1844), III, 535; Charles Pope, The Pioneers of Massachusetts, 145; and, Banks, Topographical Dictionary, 34.

2 Banks, Topographical Dictionary, 30; Pope, Pioneers, 365; and, NEHGR, LIX (1895), 215.

Charles E. Banks, The Planters of the Commonwealth, 1620-1640 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1930), 89. 19

2. Somerset Emigrants

The populous county of Somerset contributed nineteen adult males to the Mary & John's passenger list. At least ten of the nineteen were married men with families, numbering approximately forty-three persons. The Blakes,

Richards, Rockwells and Wolcotts came from parishes associated with the fertile Vale of Taunton Deane in west-central Somerset. The Gaylords, Hulls,

Rossiters, the Gillette brothers, Humphrey Pinney and Richard Sylvester had lived in the dairying region of Somerset which merged imperceptibly with

Dorsetshire. The Phelpses, William with his wife Elizabeth and five children, and younger brothers, George and Richard, came from Porlock on the Bristol

Channel.

Except for fifty-two-year-old Henry Wolcott and forty-five-year-old

William Gaylord, none of the Somerset emigrants were- over forty. Outside of family groups it is doubtful if any of the Somerset men were acquainted.

Thomas Richards and William Blake may have known one another; they were about the same age, both married with families, and both lived in Pitminster, but

there is no positive evidence of association. Young Humphrey Pinney married

George Hull's eldest daughter soon after arrival in Massachusetts. Coming

from parishes but a few miles separated, they may have been acquainted before

departure but, equally well, it may have been a ship-board romance.

William Laud held the Bishopric of Bath and Wells, coterminous with the

county of Somerset, through most of the 1620's and his staunch follower

William Pierce assumed the post in 1632. During the 1630's Bishops Laud and 20

Pierce found much to offend their orthodox sensitivities but what consti• tuted puritanism in the bishops' eyes were established Church of England practices in the view of the gentlemen and yeomen of Somerset. They quietly enjoyed their lecturers and received their infrequent communions at a deal

table in the nave of the parish church.• There is no hint of Puritan

conventicles in this period:.and.certainly no deep commitment to militant

puritanism, just as there was no threat of Roman Catholic recusancy. For

the Somerset men the Cathedral at Bath, on the far side of the Mendip Hills, was nearly as far removed from their lives as the greater authority in London.

Their moderate puritanism was neither revolutionary nor disloyal but merely a

local solution to local problems; an action no more unusual in religious matters than those used by Westcountrymen to deal with Channel piracy or land use.!

The sparcely populated Exmoor pastoral country in western Somerset had no vestige of common fields, whereas the eastern portion, congested with dairy farmers and the cattle-and-corn farmers of the central Somerset levels still clung to their strip fields. It was very common for tenant farmers to join their strips in closes for cropping and grazing. Enclosure continued, as in Dorset, unrecorded through most of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries,

Thomas G. Barnes, Somerset, 1625^1640; A County.'s Government During the "Personal Rule" (Cambridge, Mass.;"Harvard Uhiversity^Press, - 1961), 14,' 15, 17. 21 and even in the eighteenth century fifty or sixty parishes were affected by parliamentary enclosure.1

Somerset was a very populous county and prosperity was real, if somewhat spotty as in Dorset. Tlie'r:e'!were -avvariety of occupations outside husbandry at which dairy farming families could earn wages in their off-hours.

There were coal, lead, limestone and iron mines. Cloth-making was an old industry, as was glove, bone-lace and knit-stocking making.2

The rich red clay loams and mild serene climate made the Vale of

Taunton Deane the granary of the southwest. Sprinkled with orchards, the lowest lands were mostly meadow, the highest under permanent tillage and those between convertible. The lands of the Vale were enclosed and common fields unknown. Nearly all farms had dairy herds and the Taunton farmers gained fame for their careful cultivation and enormous grain yields. By 1600 they were producing from thirty-two to eighty bushels of wheat per acre. Horses provided the main draught and team animals, though some oxen were used. Sheep and cattle bred and fattened in the Vale were noticably larger than those of the rest of the West Country, owing to the superior grass and hay.3

Though its lead mines were operating at their peak and Somerset was a leading cloth producer among English counties, the very bad harvests '1622-23 and 1629-31, coupled with the generally depressed nature of the cloth industry

Thirsk, Agrarian History, 73; and C.S. Orwin, The Open Fields (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967), 67.

2 Thirsk, Agrarian History, 71; Barnes, Somerset, 3. 3 Kerridge, The Agricultural Revolution, 115-116. 22

gave a very uneven character to Somerset's economy. Grain was scarce, prices soared, unemployment increased in both towns and countryside and many small farmers staggered under the burdens of repeated natural disasters.1

Central and southern Somerset, the origin of many emigrants in 1630, was generally dairy country,, oriented southward to Dorset. The Mendip Hills are a formidable barrier to northern intercourse, the barren Exmoor blocks the northern passage, and the Blackdown Hills effectively cut west Somerset off from Devon. While the people of the central portion can be considered

"typical'1 Somersetshiremen, they possess a certain commonalty of life styles with the men of Dorset, particularly those from the western portion of that shire.

3. Devonshire Husbandmen

Less populous than Somerset and Dorset, Devonshire sent a smaller contingent to America aboard the Mary & John. Fewer in number and apparently less aggressive, the Devon emigrants, with but a few exceptions,.remained in the shadow of the larger West-Country groups.

Young married men were prominent among the Devonshire group. The

Welshman John Strong came by way of Taunton in Somerset and London to reside in Plymouth. Richard Collecott of Barnstaple became Dorchester's Indian trader and one of its most important citizens,' and Nathaniel Duncan whose command of

Latin and French,-and training as an accountant set him apart from most of the

Barnes, Somerset,.3. 23

Devonshiremen. Twenty-five-year-old Strong, a tanner, was accompanied by his wife Margery, two children, and his sister Eleanor.1 Married less than three years, twenty-six-year-old Collecott came from a pleasant, fertile valley on the east bank of the river Taw, near the confluence with the Yeo, in north

Devon. His wife Joan and year-old daughter Elizabeth made the trip with him.

Duncan's wife, Elizabeth Jordain, was the daughter of Exeter's mayor. They had two sons at the time of theimigration.^

Twenty-one-year-old Roger Clap, single,impressionable, and deeply religious, came in the care of the Reverend Mr. John Maverick, rector at

Beaworthy in west-central Devon. Clap obviously found Dorchester and New

England society to his liking because he was joined there by his brother Edward in 1633 and his cousin Nathaniel in 1636.^ Mr. Maverick's son Samuel had been

\taude Pinney Kuhns, The ''Mary.and John": The Story of the Founding of_Dorchester, Massachusetts, 1630 (Rutland, Vt.: Tuttle Publishing CoT, 1943), 74; Frank R. Holmes, Directory of the Ancestral Heads of„New England Families, 1620-1700 (New York: American Historical Society, 1923), 230; Henry R. Stiles, The History and Genealogies of Ancient.Windsor, Connecticut., 16.35-1891, 2 Vols. (Hartford: T891T 1892) >~ I> 166; II, 743;

2 Banks, Topographical Dictionary, 19; Lewis, Topographical Dictionary, I, 149; Pope, Pioneers, 145; and, NEHGRv^XVI ^1892()v, 87.

3Banks, The.Planters, 88; Kuhns, Mary and John, 5, 32; NEHGR, XLIX (1895), 493; Edward Johnson, Wonder-Working Providence, 1628-1651, ed. by J. Franklin Jameson (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1910),143.

4 Roger Clap, Memiors, in Alexander Young, Chronicles of the First Planters of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1846), 345-387. 24

in New England since 1624.1 With Maverick on the Mary & John were his wife

Mary, two grown sons, Elias twenty-six and Moses nineteen, and four younger children.

Mr. Maverick and his colleague, the Reverend Mr. John Warham of

Exeter, Devon, most^probably became involved in the New England migration through the agency of Mr. John White of Dorchester, perhaps with the help of

White's friend Matthias Nicolls, Master of the New Hospital at Plymouth in

Devonshire. There is no evidence that either of the West-Country clergymen were extreme Puritans, .ior even that they were any more non-conformist than Mr. John

White.2

By the early seventeenth century the people of the shire-town of Exeter were deeply touched with the Puritan spirit but not the self-conscious and aggressive puritanism commonly associated with East Anglia. The bishop faced little overt discontent with the religion of the realm in terms of theology, liturgy, or church government.-^ The philanthropy of the period, increasing in quantity and shifting in emphasis, marked the sober and purposeful religious spirit which prevailed. Charity veered away from passive relief of suffering toward positive efforts to reduce poverty through self-help in offering the recipient's aid in achieving their own economic independence.^ Such an approach

1NEHGR, XXXIX (1885), 46.

2 See below, page 61-62

Wallace MacCaffrey, Exeter, 1540-1640: The Growth of an-English Country Town (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1958), 199.

4 MacCaffrey, Exeter, 109. 25

to charity made eminently good sense to those reaping the benefits of increasing land rents, increasing demands for agricultural produce, increasing prices,' and relatively decreasing wages. The same stance made little sense at all to those caught in the squeeze of land consoli• dations, industrial unemployment,' and surplus labour force.^ Describing the Devonshire husbandman in 1630, Thomas Westcote wrote:

How can he get wisdom that holdeth the plough, and he that glorieth only in managing of the goad to drive oxen,' and is always busied in their labours, . and talketh only of the breed of bullocks? he giveth his mind to turn furrows, and is diligent to give the kine fodder; yet these do maintain the state of the world, and their whole desire is know• ledge in their work and occupation.2

A stagnant agricultural backwater by the mid-eighteenth century,

Devonshire during the early seventeenth century drew commendation for its careful preparation and manuring of arable land.3 The rising population, especially in non-agrarian areas, constantly expanded the food market.

Ambitious and able land owners improved yields by enclosure, consolidation, use of fertilizers, and careful tillage. Arable land,, for which tenants had once been hard to find, came to be in great demand, and rents rose ten-fold.

•••Thirsk,- Agrarian History, 74-75.

2xhomas Westcote, A View of Devonshire in 1630, with a Pedigree of Most of its Gentry (Exeter: William Roberts, 1845), 50.

^Westcote, A View of Devonshire, 55-57; Darby, Historical Geography of England,, 354; and,- A. H. Shorter, ejt al, Southwest England (London: Thomas Nelson,. 1969), 138.

^h irsk, Agrarian History, 74-75. 26

The areas along the established trade routes, such as the fertile coast lands and river valleys, responded first to the expanding markets of the time.

It was from just these regions that Devonshire families emigrated to New

England.

The Devonshiremen, forming a sizable minority of the Dorchester,

Massachusetts, population, emigrated from the rich grain and fruit lands in the Vale of Exeter and the valley of the Exe river, the littoral of Torbay, the South Hams district, and the area around Bideford and Barnstaple.

Athwart the path of moisture-carrying Atlantic winds, Devon had a cool, wet climate, with generally heavy rainfall. Along the coast and in the narrow river valleys, on slaty silt loam lowlands and upland black growans} Devonshire farmers carried on mixed husbandry, in many cases retaining small, permanent strips and commonable fields. They kept cattle of the middle-horn variety, valued for draught and beef but with no claim to dairy breed.

For those living along the coast — no one in Devonshire lived more

than twenty-five miles from the coast — there was also the coasting trade and fishing; and for those in the Exe valley there was weaving of kersey woolens

to supplement or replace agriculture.^ Such by-employment formed an important

''"Black growans are the pulverized remains of granite rock.

2 Westcote, A View of Devonshire, 38; Thirsk, Agrarian History of England, 2, 72, 73; Kerridge, Agricultural Revolution, 149-150.

3Westcote, A^View of Devonshire, 38-39, 59-60, 67-68. 27

economic element in a county in which one-third of the population was farm labourers.1

On the coastal lowlands and river valleys where some common fields and meadows still lingered, the nucleated village, associated with the highly organic manorial community, characterized Devonshire's social frame-work.

Communities of the lowland kind also inhabited the few pockets of fertile land in the highlands. In the early seventeenth century only scattered areas of champion remained but that which survived the sixteenth century stayed unchanged, for the most part, through the seventeenth century. The main form of enclosure during the latter century was new farmsteads and fields claimed directly from wild land. Outside the champion country farmsteads were grouped in pairs and, less often, in small hamlets.2

4. Conclusion

The Westcountrymen who sailed for New England in 1630 came, largely, from two rather different agricultural regions. The Dorset and Somerset people originated mainly in dairy farming areas in western Dorset and central and southern Somerset. The emigrants from Devonshire's river valleys and southern littoral, on the other hand, were husbandmen accustomed to tilling fields of barley,wheat;and peas. All three counties were renowned for their

"'"Hoskins, Old Devon, 186.

2 Thirsk, Agrarian History of England, 8, 14, 73; Orwin, Open Fields, 65; Shorter, et al, Southwest England., 113.;. and, Kerridge, Agricultural Revolution, 150. 3 Sir William Ashley, The Bread of Our Forefathers: An Inquiry in Economic History (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1928), 38-39. 28

orchards and apple cider.

Nearly all the West Country agrarians raised cattle, although there were distinct differences in their purposes. The Dorset and Somerset men bred dairy cows for butter and cheese production. The main interest of the Devonshire.farmers was in draught animals, although they also sold many young cattle to eastern stockmen to be fattened for urban beef markets.

Land values and rents increased greatly in all three western counties during the first quarter of the seventeenth century. The small family dairy farms multiplied in Somerset and Dorset, both by fragmenting existing properties and by reclaiming woodlands and waste.

The West Country emigrants probably took their religion seriously, as did most seventeenth-century Englishmen. There are few indications, however, of violent reactions against the established Church of the realm.

The two clergymen accompanying the emigrants came from Devon, although

Mr. Warham was originally from Somerset. Neither of them displayed the aggressive Puritanism usually associated with East Anglia.

Members of the company who sailed aboard the Mary & John were probably not religious refugees. It seems much mare likely they were

escaping high rents and a chronic land shortage in rural areas and unemploy• ment in the cities and countryside. 29

III.

SETTLEMENT OF DORCHESTER,. MASSACHUSETTS

On 20 March 1630, John White put his newly gathered flock into the hands of Captain Squeb, master of the 400-ton ship Mary & John. After a comfortable ten-week voyage, during which they enjoyed daily preaching and expounding of scriptures, the emigrants made land at Nantasket Point, the entrance to Boston Harbor, on 30 May 1630.-'' Though he had apparently contracted to carry the passengers to the Charles River, Squeb hesitated to sail his large ship into the island-strewn, harbour without an experienced pilot. He instead ordered the unhappy emigrants ashore with their possessions.

They managed to obtain a boat from some old planters nearby and ten men of the company struck out for Charlestown. The party, probably led by

Roger Ludlow of Wiltshire, one of two Massachusetts Bay Company Assistants sailing with the West Country settlers, staked out a spot on some well- watered meadowland on the banks of the Charles River near Watertown.2

Clap, Memoirs, in Young, Chronicles,' i347.

2 The other Assistant on board was Edward Rossiter of Somerset, one of the principal promoters of the Dorchester Company, a predecessor of the Massachusetts Bay Company, who died 23 October 1630, four months after arrival in New England. An Assistant of the Massachusetts Bay Company, presumably and assistant to the Company's governor, held a position analogous to a member of the board of directors in a modern corporation. As the Bay Colony leaders translated the Company structure into the civil government of Massachusetts Bay,.the Court of Assistants became the provincial legislative body and the highest judicial organ. After creation of the Deputies to represent the growing number of freemen in the General Court, and the consequent rift between the Deputies and the Assistants in 1634, the Court of Assistants became, in modern terminology, the upper house of the legislature. 30

Within a few days the Westcountrymen found and moved to a commodious neck of land called Mattapan further south on the Bay. The reason given for moving was that the new site afforded pasture land fit for their numerous cattle.1

On the 7th of September the Court of Assistants, with Edward Rossiter

and Roger Ludlow present, recognized the Mattapan settlement as permanent and

renamed it Dorchester. The bounds of the new town were not yet laid out

but it was of large extent, both on the Neck and the mainland.-^ Facing the

sea the town had two fair harbours and was well-watered by the Neponset 4

River. The settlers took up their home lots at the northern end of the

town, next to Dorchester Neck, and set about apportioning to each man acreage

for tillage and pasturage, and meadow land for hay.-*

The first five pages of the Town Records were lost and with them the

exact criteria used for the initial land distribution in Dorchester. Later

records indicate that heads of families and non-indentured single men,

"'"Clap, Memoirs, in Young, Chronicles, 350.

2 Nathaniel B. Shurtleff, ed., Records of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay in New England (Boston: William.White, 1853),I,75. 3 T.M. Harris, "Chronological and Topographical Account of Dorchester," Massachusetts Historical Society, Proceedings, first series, IX (1804), 158. 4 Johnson, Wonder-Working Providence, 69.

James Blake, Annals of the Town of Dorchester (Boston: Dorchester Antiquarian and Historical Society, 1846), 11. 31

received varying shares of commons rights. The extent of each man's share may have depended upon the size of his family, his social status, the amount of his investment in the Company or, more likely, a combination of these considerations. The "great lot" for tillage and pasturage initially granted to each adult male householder decided his share in the commons. . Each proprietor's share in the commons became his proportion for all subsequent allocations of land. . If, for instance, the "great lots" varied in size from eight to thirty-two acres, then a proprietor with a sixteen-acre great lot would have been allotted five acres of marsh for mowing hay while another proprietor with a thirty-two-acre great lot would have been given ten acres of marsh. Later, when the Town opened new acreage for tillage, the land distri• bution among the proprietors, or commoners, would be on the same proportional basis. The Dorchester commons remained open to new settlers until January

1636; thereafter it was necessary to buy an existing proprietor's rights to enjoy the privileges of commons.

Absence of the names of Ludlow and Rossiter, Assistants in the

Colony's Court, on land-grant documents in the Town Records indicates that land matters were a purely local concern. Though Ludlow had been appointed a Justice of the Peace by the Court in August, 1630, it was the Dorchester clergymen, Mr. Maverick and Mr. Warham, along with thirty-nine-year-old William

Rockwell and forty-five-year-old William Gaylord, both of Somerset, whose signatures validated the proprietors' land transactions.1 The involvement of

Dorchester Town Records, in New England Historical and Genealogical Register, XXI (1867),. 165-168, 269-274; and,- Mass. Col. Rec., I, 74. 32

Dorchester's clergymen in civil matters was unique in the Bay Colony. In no other New England town during the first decade did a clergyman hold a civil office or officiate in town government affairs. These activities were, however, quite in line with what might be expected in a group strongly influenced by socially active John White of old Dorchester. This also might be an indication of a practice common in the established Church in

England. There the vestry, dominated by the clergymen and a few influential parishioners, became involved in many civil affairs of the parish.!

In matters other than land appropriations the Colony government clearly intended, from the beginning, to retain some authority and responsibility in local affairs.2 The third meeting of the Court of Assistants, held on 28

September 1630, appointed Thomas Stoughton constable for Dorchester. The office of constable represented, through the Justice of the Peace, local administration of central authority as it had in England.3

With dispersal of the Colony's population into several towns, the

Governor and General Court realized that new arrangements had to be made to involve the people in the government.^ The Court decided, on 19 October 1630,

Sidney Webb and Beatrice Webb, English Local. Government from the Revolution to the Municipal Corporations Act: The Parish and the County (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1924), 37-40, 52-54, 114-120.

2 George Lee Haskins, Law and Authority in Early Massachusetts (New York: Macmillan Co., 1960), 75-77. 3 Webb and Webb, The Parish and the County, 26-28; and, Haskins, Law and Authority, 75.

^Darrett B. Rutman, Winthrop's Boston: Portrait of a Puritan Town, 1630-1649 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1965), 26-28, 280-283. 33

that freemen of the Company should have the power to elect Assistants, who in turn would make laws and select Company officers. According to the Charter both Assistants and Company officers, such as governor, deputy governor and treasurer, were to be chosen by and from the body of freemen. However, only a few Company officials knew of this Charter provision and the town proprietors then present assented to the Court's proposal in a show of hands.1

The freemen of the Company, originally a synonym for stockholders, were relatively few at the beginning of settlement. In Dorchester only

Roger Ludlow, Edward Rossiter of Somerset, Thomas Southcote of Devon and wealthy Lancashireman John Glover are known to have been shareholders. Henry

Wolcott of Somerset and Thomas Newberry of Dorset probally owned shares also.2

The October meeting of the General Court arranged to extend freemanship to other suitable persons and accepted application from 108 men, including twenty-fsiix;t from Dorchester. The Court determined the criteria for freeman- ship at the first session of the General Court meeting in May,1631. It then ordered that,

. . . to the end the body of commons [freemen] may be preserved of honest and good men . . . for time to come noe men shalbe admitted to the freedome of this body politicke, but such as are members of some of the churches within the lymitts of the same.^

'''Mass. Col. Rec. , 1, 10, -7,9.

2 Committee of the Dorchester Antiquarian and Historical Society, History of the Town of Dorchester (Boston: Ebenezer Clapp, Jr., 1859), 27; and,Frances Rose-Troup, The Massachusetts Bay Company and Its Predecessors (New York: Grafton Press, 1930), 154. 3 Mass. Col. Rec., I, 87. 34

It would appear that freemanship, or full citizenship, became a function of:

(1) real-property ownership and rights to commons (proprietorship), and (2) at least local religious orthodoxy.

All adult male passengers on the Mary & John who settled at Dorchester became landed proprietors and the majority of them church members, which made them eligible for Colony freemanship. However, subsequent immigrants faced a three-fold filtering process. Each had to be accepted by all the proprietors to gain rights to commons, then face the men and women of the church to achieve membership before being qualified to apply to the Court of Assistants for consideration for freemanship.

1. Church Members-and Freemen

Lacking church records for Dorchester before 1636, the Colony freemen rolls are the only means of establishing church membership during the town's first six years. However, historians from Thomas Hutchinson in the eighteenth century, through Charles M. Andrews to Darrett B. Rutman in the 'twentieth have construed the church-membership qualification for freemanship as operative only after admission of 116 freemen at the 18 May 1631 General Court.

Hutchinson pointed out that Samuel Maverick and William Blackstone were not members of New England churches but were among the 109 admitted to freeman• ship at the General Court on 19 October 1630.-'- xhe October Court only

Thomas Hutchinson, The History of the Colony and Province of Massachusetts Bay, ed. by Lawrence Shaw Mayo (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1936), I, 24. 35

accepted requests for admission; it was not until May 1631 that the Court admitted new freemen.

Andrews noted that 108 men responded when "an invitation was extended to all such as desired to become 'freemen' to hand in their names."-'- ^ majority of the applicants, according to Andrews, had been residents of the

Massachusetts Bay region before Winthrop's group arrived. In truth fewer than one-fourth of them fit such a category and many of these came to Salem in

1628 or 1629. He claimed that many of the earlier emigrants, such as William

Blackstone, Samuel Maverick, William Jeffrey, Roger Conant and others, particularly those of Salem and Dorchester, were Church of England men, and that

Winthrop later stated these "old planters" were admitted before the churches were established. The Winthrop statement was one of a series of answers to demands from "Lord Say, Lord Brooke, and other Persons of Quality, as conditions of their removing to New England."-3 All the answers. tended to ease the gentlemen's fears that the church-membership qualification would or had destroyed the family and property basis of rank' and privilege they enjoyed in

England. On the weight of this hazy passage Andrews proves that the "old planters" gained freemanship before the qualification of church membership applied.

Charles M. Andrews, The Colonial Period of American History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1964), I, 434.

2 Andrews, The Colonial Period, I, 435. 3 Hutchinson, History of Massachusetts Bay, I',;'410-413. 36

The "others" Andrews referred to as Church of England men would have included John Balch, Peter Palfrey, Roger Conant, John Woodbury,

Lawrence Leach and Charles Gott. They were all members of the Salem

Church under the ministry of Mr. Francis Higginson.1 Samuel Maverick was not made a freeman until October 1632.2 William Blackstone, an

ordained clergyman of the Church of England but certainly no friend of

the episcopal system,, is listed in the records together with John Maverick,

John Warham and George Phillips, who were all, like Blackstone, clergymen

of the established Church.3 William Trask,- an "old planter" and a Salem

church member at the first gathering in 1629,. requested freemanship but

was refused.^

Rutman claimed that the freemen admitted 18 May 1631, "were relatively

prominent and well-to-do, although not necessarily members of the church.

Even after this date, he maintained, the religious qualification was not

rigidly adhered to. According to Rutman one example was John Cogan, who

was a freeman but never a church member. Concentrating on Boston, Rutman

failed to notice that while Cogan was not a member of the Boston church at

the time he gained freemanship,. November 1633, he and his first wife

Abigail were members of the Dorchester church.6

ijames D.- Phillips, Salem in the Seventeenth Century (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1933),.350-351.

2Mass. Col. Rec.,. I,. 367.

3lbid., I, 366.

4-Pope, Pioneers,. 460.

^Rutman, Winthrop's Boston, 137.

6Ibid., 138; and, Pope, Pioneers,, 108. 37

Of the twenty-six Dorchester inhabitants who requested admission in

October. 1630, only twenty gained admission in May 1631. Of the six failing in admission John Drake, a thirty-year-old father of five from Somerset, never achieved membership in the Dorchester church or freemanship in Massachusetts

Bay. Christopher Gibson from Buckinghamshire did not join the Dorchester church until 1636 and John Holman of Dorset until 1640; neither.ever became a freeman in Massachusetts. Richard Sylvester did not become a church member until moving to Weymouth in 1633, where he became a freeman in 1634. Henry

Wolcott, Sr., and Thomas Southcote of Devon were shareholders and freemen in the Company before leaving England.

Whatever was true of the church-membership qualification, it is certain that on 18 May 1631 at least twenty-eight men from Dorchester, including twenty of the October applicants, became.freemen and full citizens of the Massachusetts Bay Colony.1 All of the new freemen were proprietors and holders of commons rights and all except John Bursley newly arrived in

1630.

The applications for Colony freemanship by Wolcott and Southcote, indicate the Company hierarchy had not, in October, 1630, firmly decided upon the extent of the electorate nor the criteria for the franchise. It would appear they considered making Colony freemanship distinct from Company freeman• ship, which was governed by the Charter. By May 1631 the leadership had agreed upon the church-membership qualification. Therefore, it is assumed that

See Appendix I for list of Dorchester freeman, 18 May 1631. 38

all thdt^««a'dM*M'e'd'.~te';'€ol-omy'---'freeinatisMp: -were**considered' by the Court -to be legitimate church members.

2. The Ordering of Town Affairs

By the end of summer 1630, the Colony government had appointed Roger

Ludlow a Justice of the Peace and the Essex.gentleman Thomas Stoughton constable for Dorchester. Stoughton's brother John was a friend and colleague of the Reverend Mr. John White. To these officers, responsible to the Court of Assistants, the proprietors of the town added a group of their own officials one week before the May 1631 meeting of the General Court.

There is no surviving record of membership for the first Dorchester

Board of Selectmen, established 11 May 1631, "to order all affayres of the

Plantation.""^ It is evident that, aside from two or three stockholder- freemen, neither the electorate nor the Board was composed of freemen, since the Court admitting the Colony's first freemen met on 18 May 1631. It is probable the town's proprietors chose the members of the Board from among their own number. The signatures of Mr. John Maverick, Mr. John Warham,

William Gaylord and William Rockwell on the earliest town orders indicate they were among-the membership of the initial Boards.

On Tuesday, 8 October 1633, the Town decided that in the future,

. . . their shall be every Mooneday, before the Court, by eight of the Glocke in the morning, and presently, upon the beating of the drum, a generall meeteing of the inhabitants of the Plantation, att the meeteing house, there to settle (and sett downe) such orders as may tend to the generall good, as a fore sayd; and every man to be bound thereby without gayne saying or resistance.2

^-Dorchester Town Records, in NEHGR, XXI (1867), 275.

2Ibid., 167-168. 39

If by "Mooneday" the Town Meeting meant Monday, they did not often follow their own orders. Meetings took place on various days of the week, though most often on Mondays or Tuesdays.^ The Dorchester Town Meeting therefore belies the rather common assertion that New England town meetings grew merely as extensions of the Congregational Sabbath church services.2 it was not until 1637 that the Town ordered the Selectmen to present their decisions to

Dorchester's freemen for approval after one of the weekly lectures.

It is clear from the 1633 order regulating town meetings that all inhabitants, not just the freemen, of Dorchester participated in the local decision making process. From the beginning neither church membership nor freemanship coincided with the adult male population of the town. In 1631, not more than thirty of at least eighty-nine adult male, heads-of-households in Dorchester achieved the status of freeman; It seems quite unlikely that

Of forty-nine Town Meetings in the Dorchester Town Records through 1640, fifteen were held on Tuesday, thirteen on Monday, seven on Wednesday, five on Saturday, four on Sunday, three on Friday, and two on Thursday. (See Appen

2 Rutman, Winthrop's Boston, 61; C. M. Andrews, The River Towns of Connecticut (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1889), 83; Ola E. Winslow, Meetinghouse Hill, 1630-1783 (New York: Macmillan and Co., 1952), 37; Sumner C. Powell, Puritan Village: The Formation of a New England Town (Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Books, 1965), .183-184; and, Noah Porter, "The New England Meeting House," The New Englander, XLII, 305.

Dorchester Town Records, NEHGR, XXII (1868), 52. 40

eighty-nine property holders would consent, without contest, to being dictated to by a third of their number. It is probable, however, that inhabitants who were non-freemen and non-church members were kept out of positions of authority and thereby relegated to a lower status in town affairs.

Much hinges on the definition of "inhabitants" who, in theory at

least, had an equal voice in the decisions of New England towns. Charles

Francis Adams held that in English common law it,

. . . was well settled that a man was an "inhabitant" of a place, whether he had his house there or some• where else, when he had land in occupation in that place and was interested in the management and well being thereof.1

Sidney and Beatrice Webb were not nearly so certain of the use of the term

"inhabitant" in England. The only thing they could say with assurance was,

"Both law and custom assumed that 'the inhabitants' of a parish were those who were reputed to 'belong' to it."2 Unfortunately, "belonging" to a parish varied in meaning according to locality. The right to be present at vestry meetings, and thus take part in the government of the parish, might be

"confined to the payers of one or the other parish rates, or to residents in

the parish, or to heads of households, or to male adults."^ The Webbs

Charles Francis Adams, "The Genesis of the Massachusetts Town, and the Development of Town-Meeting Government," Massachusetts Historical Society, Proceedings, second series, VII (1892), 178.

2

Webb and Webb, The Parish and the County, 14.

Webb and Webb, The Parish and the County, 15. 41

concluded, "that there was at all times a considerable body of English subjects who, for one or ether purpose, did not belong to any parish.1,1

The uncertainty holds for New England as well, particularly in the language of the Colony Records. On 1 April 1634 the General Court decreed that all non-freemen resident in the Colony would be required to take an oath subjecting themselves to "the aucthorities and government there 2 established." The oath began: "I doe sweare, and call God to witness, that, 3 being nowe an inhabitant within the lymitts of this jurisdiction . . . ." The same meeting of the Court ordered each.town to survey and record the real 4 estate, houses and fields "of every Free inhabitant." The survey would be made.by "the constable and four or more of the chief inhabitants of every towne, (to be chosen by all the Freemen there, at some meeting there.)""*

The unqualified use of "inhabitant" referred to non-freemen. When qualified as "free inhabitant" the term was synonomous with freemen, and "chief inhab• itants" may have.been town officials. "A generall meeteing of.the:inhabi• tants," would have included all the inhabitants, free inhabitants and chief inhabitants.

Webb and Webb, The Parish and the County,15.

2

Mass. Col. Rec., I, 115.

3Ibid.

4Ibid., 116.

5Ibid. 42

Rutman concurs, more or less, with C. F. Adams that an "inhabitant" was a resident who possessed the rights and privileges of a citizen of the

town but who was not necessarily a church member or freeman. At the outset the

inhabitants' rights were tied to the land, so that proprietorship and

inhabitancy were inseparable."'" This description also conforms to the earliest

records for Dorchester. It thus appears that originally the inhabitants or

proprietors of Dorchester constituted the civil polity of the town.

Although Dorchester had a Board of Selectmen in May 1631, the town's

first recorded election of such a Board took place on 8 October 1633. Of 2

twelve members elected the Town Records give the names of seven. In

addition Maverick, Warham, Gaylord and Rockwell continued to sign all orders

throughout the term of this Board and were probably members. Though seven

of the twenty-six West Country freemen in Dorchester were from Devon, aside

from the two ministers, Mr. Maverick and Mr. Warham, the Devonshire emigrants

were not represented on the 1633 Board of Selectmen. As previously noted,

the active involvement of Dorchester's clergymen in civil affairs of the town

was unique in early New England. With Warham and Maverick seated on the

Board of Selectmen its meetings assume the appearance of English select vestry

meetings. The Town Meeting with the ministers present as community officials

would resemble the open vestry meetings in England. Select vestries, becoming

more widespread during the seventeenth century, took upon themselves the 3 powers of the parish as a whole. Somerset, with but four freemen in

''"Rutman, Winthrop's Boston, 157.

2 See Appendix III for membership lists of Dorchester's Boards of Selectmen to 1640.

3Webb and Webb, The Parish and the County, 91, 173-175. 43

Dorchester, had four members on the Board. Three of Dorset's fourteen

freemen were Selectmen in 1633. Except for Thomas Richards of Somerset, a non-freeman, all members of the 1633 Board were both church members and

freemen.

In May 1634, acceding to demands of the freemen, the Governor and

Assistants granted regular representation at the General Courts to

the several towns of the Colony.1 The freemen of each town were to choose

two or three deputies to represent them in all business and voting at the

General Courts, except election of magistrates. The Dorchester freemen

selected William Phelps and George Hull, both Somerset emigrants, and the

newly-arrived young Essex gentleman Israel Stoughton as their Deputies.

Two years earlier, in May 1632, the Court had selected two from each

town — William Phelps and William Gaylord for Dorchester — "to conferre with 3

the Court about raiseing of a publique stocke." In this instance the Court

did not intend to make the representation permanent and did not give the

freemen of each town a choice in their own deputies.

In response to the Colony's first major tax levy, in October 1633,

the Dorchester selectmen appointed a six-man Board of Raters or tax assessors.

"*"Mass. Col. Rec., I, 118.

2 See Appendix IV for Dorchester's deputies to the General Court to 1640. 3 Mass. Col. Rec, I, 95.

4Ibid., I, 110; and Dorchester Town Records, in NEHGR, XXI (1867), 269-270. 44

All but two of the Raters, Henry Wolcott of Somerset and Giles Gibbs of

Dorset, were also selectmen. The Devonshiremen were conspicuously absent among the assessors, who all came from either Dorset or Somerset."'"

Exclusion of Devonshiremen extended even to the humbler offices.

Though in 1633 there were nineteen heads-6f-households in Dorchester from

Devon, as compared with twenty from Somerset and thirty-four from Dorset, the

Devonshiremen were not represented on the more onerous, less prestigious local positions of town surveyors and fence viewers.

To collect taxes in 1634 the Selectmen appointed wealthy land• owner Thomas Ford and young Roger Clap. Fifty-year-old Ford, from Dorchester in old England, had been a freeman since 16311 Clap, a Devonshireman, though a church member in 1630 and a proprietor by January 1633, did not become.a freeman until May 1634. The assessors appointed in October 1633 determined the tax distribution for Dorchester's fc80 portion of the fc-600

Colony rate levied 25 September 1634. Another group of assessors assembled in June 1634 specifically to raise funds for militia captain John Mason's salary. Three members were from Somerset, but the Indian trader Richard

Collecott from Devonshire was also among the seven selected.

Also in 1634, the Town appointed Nicholas Upsall^an innkeeper from

Dorset, bailiff and ten others, including Thomas Ford, George Philips, John

Hoskins and Simon Hoyte of Dorset, to inspect the town's fences. Again the

Devonshiremen were"left out.

See Appendix V for town office holders other than Selectmen and Deputies. 45

The Town Meeting, October 1634, elected a new Board of Selectmen.

Except for William Phelps the personnel of the ten-man Board changed completely from that of the previous year. One of the new members,

Nathaniel Duncan, son-in-law of the lord mayor of Exeter and "Learned in

Latin and French," was the first Dorchester selectman from Devonshire."''

Also, Duncan was the only Board member who was not a freeman at the time of election. He was a church member and later, during his first term as selectman, admitted a freeman. Except .for Thomas Stoughton and George Minot, both of Essex and among Dorchester's most important citizens, Dorset and

Somerset emigrants continued to dominate the Board.

During 1635 eight men in various combinations of three and four represented Dorchester at the three constitutionally important sessions of the

Massachusetts Bay General Court. Nathaniel Duncan was the only Devonshireman among the eight. The deputies, during the March 1635 Court session, achieved supremacy in•determination and distribution of taxes, as well as the 2 right to determine qualifications of their own members. In September, with

Duncan, Gaylord, John Mason and William Bartholomew representing Dorchester, it was ordered that, "hereafter, the deputyes to be chosen for the Generall ... ^ Court shalbe by paps, as the Governor is chosen." 1

Johnson, Wonder-Working Providence, 143.

2Mass. Col. Rec., I, 138, 142. 3 Ibid., I, I57V Voting by "paps" refers to the use of paper ballots in deciding among candidates, and the use of two different kinds of grains, as Indian corn and rye, for designating a yea or nay vote. 46

The Town Meeting elected a nine-man Board of Selectmen 11 November

1635, and reduced the Board's term to six months, possibly because a majority of the membership planned to move to Connecticut in the spring of 1636. A newcomer, Thomas Dimmock of-Chesterblade," Somerset, though not a freeman and apparently not even a proprietor, gained a seat on the Board. Again,

Nathaniel Duncan was the only Devonshire representative. It was much the

same among the lesser offices. Of one constable, a bailiff, four surveyors

and ten fence viewers only two, Duncan as a surveyor and Roger Clap a fence

viewer came from Devon.

Dorchester's population in 1635 was the town's highest during the

first decade of settlement. At that time thirty-six of the settlers' families

had come from Dorsetshire, twenty-six from Somerset, and twenty-three from

Devonshire. The only other sizable minority was the fourteen adult males from

Essex."'"

Table I

ADULT MALE RESIDENTS OF DORCHESTER County of origin 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 1638 1639 164( Dorset 23 23 24 32 -33 36 31 17 14 11 9 Somerset* 22 21 22 23 23 26 24 11 9 5 3 Devon 17 18 16 19 23 23 20 19 18 17 15 Other 25 26 28 34 44 79 75 73 70 67 56 Totals 84 88 91 108 123 164 150 120 111 100 83 *Somerset totals include R. Ludlow and J. Gilbert from Wiltshire. Both came from the southwest section of Wilts near the Somerset border, which is dairy country indistinguishable from Somerset.-

See Appendix VI for a more complete break-down of Dorchester's population. 47

Distribution of church membership and freemanship slightly favored those from Dorset. Twenty-four, or 66 percent, of the Dorset men were freemen, as were fifteen, or 58 percent, from Somerset, and thirteen, or 56 percent from Devon. Seven of the fourteen men from Essex had been admitted freemen by 1635.

Table II

DORCHESTER FREEMEN County of Origin 1630 1631 . 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 1638 1639 164( Dorset 0 9 10 13 20 24 22 11 9 7 7 Somerset* 2 6 6 7 12 15 " 18 3 3 1 1 Devon 1 7 5 7 11 13 11 10 9 9 9 Other 0 8 8 12 24 29 28 23 27 34 33 Totals 3 30 28 39 67 81 74 47 48 51 50 *includes.R. Ludlow and J. Gilbert from Wiltshire

The relatively fair distribution of church membership and free• manship in Dorchester's population was not, however, reflected in§bhei'pdlifcica 1 2 structure of the town. In 1635 the. Dorchester voters elected and had appointed thirty-five town officials. Of these nine were from,Dorset, eight from Somerset, four from Devon and thirteen from the fourteen other counties represented in Dorchester's population. If only the major offices of select• man, deputy to the General Court, and tax assessor are considered, Somerset

See Appendix VII for complete distribution of freemen by county of origin.

2 See Appendix VIII for distribution of town officials by county of origin. 48

men controlled six of twenty, the Dorsetshiremen four, the Devonshiremen two, and the others seven. With but 16 percent of the population and 19 percent of Dorchester's freemen, the Somerset group held 30 percent of the town's major political offices.

The Somerset and Dorset groups together made up only 38 percent of

Dorchester's total population in 1635, but represented 49 percent of the town's freemen and the same percentage of all civil offices. Combined they held 50 percent of the town's major positions; The other West Country group, from Devonshire, though it had its fair share of freemen, was grossly under- represented in town politics. They held only two of twenty, or 10 percent, of the offices of importance.

If the timefj,period: is expanded to include the years 1632 through

1635, the Somerset-Dorset preponderance grows even greater. With 46 percent of the population and 50 percent of the town's freemen they held 55 percent of all offices and 60 percent of the positions of real authority. In contrast the Devonshiremen, with 17 percent of the population and freeman, held only eight of ninety-four (9 percent) town offices.

Table III DISTRIBUTION OF TOWN OFFICES 1635 County Population Freemen Town Offices Major Offices of Origin % of total % of total % of group* % of total % of total Dorset 22 30 66 26 20 Somerset 16 19 58 23 30 Devon 14 16 56 11 10 Other 48 36 37 38 35

*Percentage of freemen in each county group. 49

1632-1635 County Population Freemen Town Offices Major Offices of Origin %,of.total /I of total % of group* % of total % of total Dorset 26 31 54 31 25 Somerset 20 19 43 24 35 Devon 17 17 44 9 9 Other 39 34 18 28 25

*Percentage of freemen in each county group.

A one-for-one correspondence cannot, of course, be assumed for either the offices enumerated or for the men who filled them. Often men held only unimportant posts and many times for one or two terms only. It appears that up to 1636 only about sixteen had a share in the real authority of the town. Nine of the sixteen were from Dorset and Somerset, one from Devon and four from the other counties.

The four Dorsetshire men who held important civil offices in

Dorchester, Nicholas Upsal, Thomas Ford, Thomas Newberry, and Eltweed

Pomeroy, all arrived aboard the Mary & John in 1630. Upsal and Ford became freemen in May 1631, Pomeroy in 1633 and Newberry in 1634. Ford, Newberry, and Pomeroy were all elected selectmen. Upsal served in appointive positions as tax collector, bailiff and town surveyor but won no elections until 1638.

The controversial keeper of the Red Lion Inn, Upsal, unlike the other

Dorset men, did not leave Dorchester for the Connecticut valley. He married

Dorothy Capen, whose father Bernard and brother John also remained in

Dorchester after the Connecticut migration. Though he and his wife were members both of the original Dorchester church and the new church organized 50

after the exodus to Connecticut, Upsal was later prosecuted, imprisoned and banished because of his sympathy for the Quakers. Upsal and the Capens all came from Mr. White's flock in old Dorchester. "*"

Ford and Newberry, both extensive land owners, were members of the

Dorchester Board of Selectmen, Ford for two terms. A former parishioner of Mr. White's and a member of the original Dorchester church, Ford also 2 held posts as tax collector, surveyor and fence viewer. One of Thomas

Newberry's daughters married Henry Wolcott, Jr., and his widow married the

Reverend Mr. Warham. After serving as a selectman he was twice sent as

Dorchester's deputy to the General.Court, once with Thomas Stoughton and once with William Phelps. Between September 1633 and November 1635 the Town granted Newberry more than 330 acres of land. He came to Dorchester from 3 Marshwood Vale in the southwest corner of Dorset near Beaminster. j Dorchester's blacksmith Eltweed Pomeroy was also from Beaminster.

Elected selectman soon after being admitted a freeman in March 1633, Pomeroy was then appointed tax assessor and town constable before migrating to 4 Connecticut.

Pope, Pioneers, 468; Records of the First Church at Dorchester in New England, 1636-1734 (Boston: George H. Ellis, 1891), y, 3; Kuhns, The Mary and John, 82; and, NEHGR, XXXIV (1880), 21, XV (1861), 250.

2Stiles, Windsor, I, 156, II, 270; Dorchester Church Records, v; NEHGR, XVI (1862), 41-43.

Lewis, Topographical Dictionary, III, 253; Banks, Topographical Dictionary, 34; Pope, Pioneers, 326; Kuhns, The Mary and John, 10; and Mass. Col. Rec.,. I, 141, 147, 161.

^Banks, Topographical Dictionary, 30; Pope, Pioneers, 365; Stiles, Windsor, I, 164; II, 620; NEHGR, LX (1906)", 215; and, Mass. Col. Rec,I, 132. 51

The five Somerset men prominent in town affairs, Roger Ludlow,

William Phelps, George Hull, William Gaylord, and Henry Wolcott, also all arrived aboard the Mary & John. All but Mr. Hull were freemen by

May 1631, and all five migrated to Connecticut. Wolcott and Ludlow were of the gentle class and had each inherited a comfortable estate in England.

A solid Puritan country squire from a small parish near Wiveslecombe in the fertile Vale of Taunton Deane, Wolcott held positions as selectman,, tax assessor and fence viewer.1

After attending Balliol College, Oxford, and studying law at the

Inner Temple, Ludlow came to New England in 1630, at the age of forty, with his wife Mary. He seems to have been as headstrong and opinionated as his brother-in-law John Endecott of Salem.2 Except for his election to the Board of Selectmen during the period of migration from Dorchester, Ludlow held only provincial government offices.3 He was Dorchester's "man at Court," serving as an Assistant for four years and finally as Deputy Governor in 1634.

•'-Lewis, Topographical Dictionary, IV, 368; Kuhns, The Mary and John, 85; Stiles, Windsor, I, 171, II, 799; and, NEHGR, I (1847), 251.

2 James Savage, A Genealogical Dictionary of the First Settlers of New England, 4 Vols. (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1965), III, 129; Banks, The Planters, 89; Kuhns, The Mary and John, 5, 50-51; and, Stiles, Windsor, II, 456-464.

3It is doubtful that Ludlow served on the Board of Selectmen elected 27 June 1636. He, and William Phelps of Dorchester, attended meetings of the Commission appointed to govern Connecticut, on 26 April 1636 at Hartford,:on 8 June 1636 at Windsor, and on 1 September 1636 at Wethersfield. J. Hammond Trumbull, ed., The Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut (Hartford: Bcown & Parsons, 1850), I, 2-4. 52

William Phelps, one of Dorchester's most important resident^ was thirty years old when he arrived in Massachusetts Bay with his two brothers,

George and Richard, and his wife and five children. Born at Tewksbury,

Gloucestershire, he later moved to Porlock on the Bristol Channel. A member of the original church in Dorchester, he became a freeman on 18 May 1631 and was appointed constable for the town four months later. Phelps spent three terms as deputy to the General Court, served as surveyor for both town and

Colony, fence viewer, tax assessor and selectman before being appointed with

Roger Ludlow, to the eight-man Commission to govern Connecticut in 1636. As deputy he attended the General Courts with William Gaylord, Israel Stoughton,

Thomas Newberry and Roger Ludlow's associate George Hull."''

Forty-year-old George Hull came to New England from Crewkerne, an important market town for horses, cattle, linen draperies and cheese in a fertile west-Somerset valley watered by the Parret and Axe rivers. Seven months after he arrived in March 1633, the Dorchester voters elected him to the Board of Selectmen. He served twice each as selectman, deputy to the

General Court and tax assessor in the three years before he departed for the 2 Connecticut River Valley. Hull's daughter Elizabeth married Samuel Gaylord,

Frank R. Holmes, Directory of the Ancestral Heads of New England Families, 1620-1700 (New York: American History Society, 1923), 187; Pope, Pioneers, 356; Stiles, Windsor, II, 563; and, Kuhns, The Mary and John, 59-60.

2 Lewis, Topographical Dictionary, I, 707; History.of Dorchester, 60; Holmes, Directory of Ancestral Heads, 126; Dorchester Church Records, v; Banks, The Planters, 89; Stiles, Windsor, II, 416; and Kuhns, The Mary and John, 48-49. 53

son of William Gaylord, deacon of the first Dorchester church. In addition to his church office, Gaylord, who was forty-five years old when the Mary &

John arrived in 1630, was elected selectman three times and deputy to the

Court for four terms, and appointed a tax assessor before joining his brethren at Windsor, Connecticut. "^

Only one Devonshireman, Nathaniel Duncan, ranks in influence and status«with these other Westcountrymen. By 1636 he had been elected selectman three times, once before he became a freeman in May 1635. He was also twice deputy to the General Court, town clerk and town surveyor. This lone

Devonshire representative in Dorchester politics was an exceptional immigrant.

Duncan was well-trained for a career in commerce and trade. A very good accountant, he was son-in-law of Ignatius Jurdain, the very Puritan alderman and lord mayor of Exeter, where Mr. Warham had his parish before emigrating 2 to New England.

Pope, Pioneers, 184; Kuhns, The Mary and John, 5, 29, 31; and, Stiles, Windsor, II, 278.

2 The bold and tenacious alderman Ignatius Jurdain served in four Parliaments from 1621 to 1627, winning his seat twice in the face of severe opposition from Exeter's Chamber of Burgesses. "The most eminent man in the city in the last generation before the Civil War," Jurdain was lord mayor of Exeter in 1617 and 1625. A successful merchant, he "underwent the characteristic conversion experience of the Puritan" during Elizabethan days. Known for his austere morality, he "challenged royal anger and episcopal indignation by his letter on the Book of Sports," and was later hauled before the Privy Council for failing to uncover at the reading of a royal proclamation. MacCaffrey, Exeter, 224, 234, 273; Pope, Pioneers, 111, 146; Banks, The Planters, 88; Johnson, Wonder-Working Providence, 143; Kuhns, The Mary and John, 5; and,. NEHGR, XLIX (1895), 493. 54

Politically prominent men-who came from outside the West Country included the gentlemen William Hathorne of Berkshire and Thomas Stoughton of

Essex, the military captain John Mason,, and John Pearce of Gloucestershire.

Pearce, the only one of the four who remained in Dorchester, arrived in June

1630 with the Winthrop fleet. He was admitted a freeman May 1631, elected a slectman in 1633 and 1636, and a tax asseseor in 1634."'" Mr. Hathorne, who also arrived with the Winthrop fleet, was in Dorchester six years before moving to Salem in 1636. During this time he served as selectman, tax 2 assessor, and deputy to the Court.

Mr. Stoughton and Captain Mason were both passengers on the Mary &

John and both joined the migration to Connecticut. The young, well-paid military commander of Dorchester, Mason served two terms as deputy to the Court before leaving for Connecticut in 1635, when he was twenty-nine years 3 old. Thomas Stoughton, whose brother Israel remained in Dorchester and became one of its most prominent citizens, was constable, town surveyor, fence viewer, ensign to Captain Mason, tax assessor, deputy to the Court and select- 4 man before moving to Connecticut in 1636.

''"Banks, Topographical Dictionary, 57; Banks, The Planters, 79; and, Savage, Genealogical Dictionary, III, 427-428.

2 Sidney Perley, The History of Salem Massachusetts, 3 Vols. (Salem: Sidney Perley, 1924), I, 284; History of Dorchester, 156. 3 John G. Palfrey,. History of New England during the Stuart Dynasty (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1859),. I, 463; Holmes, Directory of Ancestral Heads, 159; Pope, Pioneers, 304; NEHGR, V (1851), 101, 172; Mason's salary, paid by the town, was £30 per year.

Conn. Col. Rec, I, 7; Stiles, Windsor, I, 166; II, 225-226; Mass. Col. Rec., I, 76; Holmes, Directory ,of. Ancestral Heads, 229; Kuhns, The Mary and John, 21; and NEHGR, XIV (1860), 101; XXI (1867), 249. 55

It does not appear that the Westcountrymen, particularly those from Somerset and Dorsetshire, although in control of local authority, denied church membership and, consequently, full citizenship to settlers from other counties. The West Country planters constituted a majority, albeit a declining one, of the inhabitants of Dorchester until 1636, and of the freemen until 1637. The percentages of West Country freemen, however, were approximately proportional, with about a one-year lag, to their percentages of the town's total population. In time of stress, however, the Westcountry• men responded by disproportionately increasing their base of authority.

The; first decade in New England was full of uncertainty, adjustment, organization, and fear. The over-riding concern throughout 1634 was that

William Laud, translated to the Archsee of Canterbury in 1633, would with royal backing institute actions to.revoke the Massachusetts Bay Company's

Charter and send a royal governor to establish civil and religious orthodoxy.

The Crown's actions in February 1634, which stopped all shipping to New

England and ordered Matthew Cradock, original governor of the Massachusetts

Bay Company, to bring in the Company's Charter for review, heightened the colonists' fears. Cradock, unable to produce the Charter, apparently promised to write Winthrop requesting its return from New England. After the shipping was released, Charles I, at' Laud's suggestion, appointed the Lords

Commissioners for Plantations in General with full power to supervise and regulate the Massachusetts colony.^

•'•Allen French, Charles I and the Puritan Upheaval (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1955), 389; Calender of State Papers, Colonial Series, 1574-1660 (London: Longman, Green, Longman, & Roberts, 1860), 177; and John Winthrop, History of New England, 1630-1649, ed. by James Kendall Hosmer (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1908), I, 127-128. 56

The New Englanders responded with increased armaments, tightened-up political and social organization, and purified external morals. In March some wealthy newcomers, including,.John Haynes, Israel Stoughton and John

Cogan, raised 6144 for a floating "sea fort" at Boston."'' At the 3 September

1634 General.Court, after the arrival of Cradock's. letter pleading for return of the Chapter, a L600 rate was levied for fortifications. Dorchester,

Newtown and Boston, assessed of"t80 each, carried the heaviest burdens.

In addition the Court squeezed another fc500 from the Colony leaders for defence.

New and more stringent oaths of allegiance were ordered for residents. and freemen. Stern and authoritarian Thomas Dudley replaced Winthrop as governor of the Colony in May 1634. Dorchester's Roger Ludlow became deputy governor and John Haynes was added to the Court of Assistants. The

General Court reserved for itself sole authority to admit freemen, make laws, elect Colony officers, assess taxes, dispose of land and confirm property rights. The deputies, as representatives of the towns, were made a regular part of the General Court. The Court ordered taxes to be assessed for

"every man according to his estate, and with consideration of all other his 2

abilityes, whatsoever, and not according to the number of his persons." This

tax distribution tended to increase the wealthy men's stake in the colony and,

at the same time, avoided alienating the numerous poorer husbandmen needed for

defence. The Colony magistrates gained tbe^p.ow.er to dmpressrmen for public

Mass. Col. Rec, I, 114.

'Mass. Col. Rec., I, 120. 57

works and military service, and. the train-bands of each town were to exercise at least once every month. Tobacco, immodest and costly fashions, and long hair were prohibited to appease God and the magistrates."*"

Having augmented the power of the General Court, the magistrates broadened its base of freemen, who participated personally in one General

Court per year.and sent representatives to the other three. It was apparently believed that a larger segment of the population need be given a greater stake in society. During 1634 the Court admitted 171 new freemen.

This was more than twice the number admitted throughout the preceding two years. Dorchester, with but a 14 percent increase of population between

1633 and 1634, boosted its freemanship rolls 72 percent. The Westcountrymen, with a controlling majority in the town, enjoyed the greatest share of the expansion. Though Westcountry numbers increased by only five, they gained sixteen new freemen, while the rest of the population which grew by ten had only twelve new freemen admitted.

It is understandable, given their majorities, that the Westcountry• men controlled Dorchester politcs throughout this period. It is less under• standable why the Devonshiremen, equal in numbers and often superior in freemen to the Somerset settlers, were so nearly excluded from political preference. It is even more puzzling why their political fortunes did not improve after most of the Dorset and Somerset families had departed for the

Connecticut Valley in 1636.

The :phenomenon of the political domination of Dorchester by the

"^Mass. Col. Rec, I, 124-126; Winthrop, Journal, I, 134. 58

Somerset-Dorset immigrants, and the consequent subordination of the

Devonshiremen, may lend some weight to generalizations made by both Eric

Kerridge and Joan Thirsk. It was their contention, based on seventeenth- century commentaries, that pastoral, dairying areas were strongholds&of independent family farmers who lived at the mercy of harvests and markets.

These dairy farmers were more stubborn and uncivil than people bred in champion country and were more inclined to be turbulent and rebellious."'"

Such characteristics may also explain, in part at least, why the Dorchester settlers from Dorset and Somerset, once they made up their minds that it was to their advantage to move to Connecticut, left Massachusetts Bay in spite of the fact that they held political control of both the town and the church, that the Colony government opposed their leaving, and that Plymouth people already occupied the site they intended to settle.

3. The Tenor of Religious Affairs

It is difficult to accept the conclusion, universally subscribed to by American historians, that the West Country settlers of Dorchester organized or "gathered" a congregational church at Plymouth before sailing for 2 New England in March 1630. This pre-supposes that the emigrants, few of

"*"Kerridge, Agricultural Revolution, 64; and, Thirsk, Agrarian History, 111.

2 In. the parlance of New England Congregationalism to gather a church meant to organize the nucleus of a church, usually from among the town's most prominent, i.e. most godly, men. From then on the church could grow through acceptance of new members by those already identified as the elect. The church in New England referred to the body of elect, or saved, members, in contrast to the congregation which, theoretically, took in all persons living in the town. 59

whom knew one another before reaching Plymouth and most of whom were from

rural parishes, had a considerable sophistication in ecclesiastical matters.

To organize such a church was a very unorthodox act, so far as the

Church of England was concerned. Those involved would have been committing

religious heresy and political treason. There is not the slightest evidence

that any of the leaders or lesser individuals, either lay or clerical, were

inclined to heterodoxy, nor that anyone was ever brought to book by the

Crown for involvement in the alleged church organization. Certainly such

an unorthodox act would not have occurred at the instigation of John White,

who exercised a strong influence among the emigrants collected at Plymouth.

Mr. White conformed to Church of England practices in all outward forms and,

based on what we know of his character, must have believed in what he was

doing. . Further, there is evidence that Mr. White was very dissatisfied with

the course of religious development in New England after 1630,. indicating

he would not have participated in gathering a congregational church at

Plymouth-.1 If, as alleged, he had been a principal party in a congrega•

tional church gathering in March 1630, then writing The Planters Plea

immediately afterward would have constituted the rankest hypocrisy -- a

characteristic never attributed to John White.

The only evidence for believing that the Westcountrymen "gathered" a

iRose-Troup, John White, 199-201, 394-401; Thomas Fuller, The History of the TStorthies of England (London: Thomas Tegg, 1840), III, 24-25; and, The National Dictionary of Biography (Oxford: The University Press, 1917), XXI, 58-59. 60

congregational church before leaving England is a brief passage in Roger

Clap's Memoirs:

These godly people resolved to live together; there• fore, as they had made choice of those two reverend servants of God, Mr. John Warham and Mr. John Maverick, to be their ministers, so they kept a solemn day of fasting . . . in the latter.part of the day, as the people did solemnly make choice of and call those godly ministers to be their officers., so also the reverend Mr. Warham and Mr. Maverick did accept thereof.

The departure from Plymouth occurred just before Clap's twenty-first birthday.

When quite elderly, he. wrote his Memoirs for the benefit of his grandchildren.

By this time he had become associated with the ultra-puritan wing of the church, intolerant of any innovation. Thus his Memoirs might easily have reflected late seventeenth-century ideas and language, applied to events fifty 2 years xn the past.

Those at Plymouth may have chosen, or even "called" Mr. Warham and

Mr. Maverick to be their ministers, although the emigrants probably had little real choice because both clergymen had already resigned their livings and decided to travel to America. There is no mention that this "calling" constituted an "election" or that it was followed by ordination, either with or without "laying on of hands," or that a "covenant" of any kind was used.

Such clearly congregational actions were used in gathering churches at Salem 3 in 1629 and Charlestown in 1630.

"'"Clap, Memoirs, in Young, Chronicles, 347-348.

2 Kuhns, The Mary and John, 14-15.

Charles Go'tt to Governor William Bradford, 30 July 1629, in Perley, History of Salem, I, 154-156; and, Winthrop, Journal, I, 95. 61

Further on in his Memoirs, Clap mentioned being admitted to church fellowship at their "first beginning in Dorchester, in the year 1630."

Edward Johnson noted that "The third Church of Christ gathered under this 2

Government was at Dorchester." The first was at Salem and the second at

Charlestown. According to William Hubbard, writing in the 1680's, "A church was gathered at Dorchester soon after the coming over of the Governor and Assistants . . . and in the church of that place Mr. Warham was ordained 3 the pastor, and Mr. Maverick the teacher."

John Maverick and John Warham received their degrees at Oxford

University, as had John White of old Dorchester. All were ordained and practicing clergymen of the Church of England. Maverick, baptized at

Awliscombe in Devonshire 28 December 1578, matriculated at Exeter College,

Oxford, in 1595. Ordained a deaconaand priest at Exeter in 1597, Maverick only later received his B.A.,in 1599, and his M.A., in-1603. In 1615, William

Cotton, Bishop of Exeter, inducted Maverick into the rectory of Beaworthy in west-central Devon. He remained at Beaworthy, without known incident until 4 his resignation shortly before sailing to New England.

"''Clap, Memoirs, in Young, Chronicles, 355.

2

Johnson, Wonder-Working Providence, 69.

3* 1 William Hubbard, A General History of New England, from the Discovery to 1680, in Massachusetts Historical Society Collections, 2nd series, V (1815), 186. NEHGR, LXIX (1915), 153-155. 62

Four years after inducting Mr. Maverick the bishop ordained young

John Warham, who had taken his degrees at St. Mary's Hall, Oxford, in 1614 and

1618. Later, at Crewkerne in his native Somerset, Bishop William Laud@6f

Bath and Wells suspended Mr. Warham for some infraction. Whatever his transgression against the strict discipline of Bishop Laud, it does not appear to have indicated any real non-conformity for Mr. Warham immediately became pastor of St. Sidwell in the more liberal.atmosphere of Exeter. He remained there until migrating to New England."*"

The colleges of Oxford- drew students predomihfantly from the south and west of England, while the. more. volatile, strongly reformist Puritan east fed Cambridge University. In the New England migration Cambridge

graduates outnumbered those from Oxford at least three-to-one and outweighed

them even more in social influence. It must be remembered that from 1604 to

1621 William Laud, first as a Fellow and later, 1611, as President of St. John's, was the most pervasive force on the Oxford scene. Oxford provided the base

for Laud's offensive against all varieties of non-Conformity. It should not be surprising that Oxford, at this time, did not attract the type of men who 2 became path-finding religious leaders in Puritan New England.

Charles E. Banks, The-Winthrop Fleet of 1630 (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1961), 101; Samuel E. Morison, The Founding of Harvard College (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1935), 404;Pope, Pioneers, 479; and, Stiles, Windsor, II, 775.

2 Franklin B. Dexter, A Selection from the Miscellaneous Historical Papers'of Fifty Years (New Haven: Tuttle, Morehouse & Taylor, Co., 1918), 104-105; and, Morison, Founding of Harvard College, 117-118, 360. 63

The assumption that the West-Country emigrants in 1630 formed a church at Plymouth, England, is rejected. It is suggested they gathered their church in imitation of their neighbors after settling in Massachusetts Bay and that the Westcountrymen who controlled Dorchester life were at most moderate non-Conformists, not yet committed to a particular form of church organization and, therefore, flexible enough to fit into the emerging New

England polity.

After settling at Matapan, the Westcountrymen continued to suffer from a variety of maladies which appear to have resulted from dietary deficiencies during their ocean crossing. Mr. Warham asked the Plymouth physician Samuel

Fuller to minister to their ills. The Plymouth Separatist reported that, while caring for the sick, ne discussed the principles of church organization with Mr. Warham. In their long and wearying conferences Dr. Fuller could not budge the Dorchester divine from his belief "that the visible church may consist of a mixed people, godly, and openly ungodly.""'" Such a position was completely contrary to the exclusionist doctrines of the Separatists.

In contrast to his assessment of Mr. Warham, Dr. Fuller spoke favorably of

George Phillips,, pastor at Watertown, of Governor John Winthrop and William 2 Coddington of Boston and, especially, of John Endecott of Salem.

There was further evidence in 1634 of Mr. Warham's position before the removal of the Dorchester church to the Connecticut Valley. A church member,

1Samuel Fuller to William Bradford, 28 June 1630, in The Mayflower Descendant, VII (January, 1905), 80.

2Ibid. 64

whose daughter had not gained admission to the Church, wanted his grandchild baptized. At the time, this ordinance was reserved for the children of visible saints (church members). Pastor Warham,, encountering opposition in his congregation to baptism of the child, sought and gained support

from the Boston Churchy John Cotton, the Boston Teacher, and the ruling elders, Thomas Oliver and Thomas Leverett, agreed that the grandfather, as a member of the Dorchester Church, might claim the privilege of baptism for his grandchild.1 Mr. Cotton held the efficacy of baptism in low esteem as an indicator of future regeneracy and was unconcerned whether or not the children of unregenerate parents gained entrance to the external covenant through the ordinance.2 Warham apparently concurred in Cotton's views on baptism, just as he agreed substantially with Cotton on the importance of tangible assurance of election.3 In these points he was much more in accord with John Cotton than with Thomas Hooker, who insisted that only children of church members ought to be baptized and that only visible saints might be church members.^

The position subscribed to by Cotton and Warham leads directly to

•'•Williston Walker, The Creeds and Platforms of Congregationalism (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1893), 250-251.

2John Cotton, The Grounds and Ends of the Baptism of the Children of the Faithful (London, 1647), 159, 161-162; and, A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace (London, 1659), 115-120, 204, 208.

3Douglas H. Shepard, "The Wolcott Shorthand Notebook Transcribed," (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Iowa, 1957), 26.

Thomas Hooker, A Survey of the Summe of Church-Discipline (London, 1648), preface, 2, 4, ch.II, 3, 14. 65

the Half-way Covenant, a position accepted in New England during the last half of the seventeenth century. This doctrine allowed all but the openly scandalous to be baptized and received into the external covenant. As pastor of the Windsor, Connecticut, church Mr. Warham adopted the Half-way

Covenant while it was still opposed by many prominent New England divines.

A majority Of his own church also disagreed with him, and shortly thereafter forced him to suspend the practice-v^

On the subject of preparation and assurance of election, Mr. Warham was also more closely aligned with Mr. Cotton than with Mr. Hooker or

Thomas Shepard of Cambridge. Hooker's^, and Shepard'sij heavy emphasis on the

"how to" of preparation skirted dangerously close to Arminianism and tended to ejtevatLe" greatly the importance . of the clergy as spiritual guides. Hooker allowed man the will or ability to select correctly from those choices God 2 puts before him on the path to regeneracy. Cotton, on the other hand, gave man no active part in the process. He, like Warham, was prone to an interest in where one was in the spiritual journey, to election rather than discovering 3 and guiding men through the proper phases of preparation.

It is not suggested that Warham was of the stature, intellectually or in spiritual leadership, of Hooker or Cotton, or even of Shepard. Similarly,

1Stiles, Windsor, I, 196.

2 Thomas Hooker, The Unbelievers Preparing for Christ (London, 1638), I, 127-130; 11,40. 3 Cotton, A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace, 128-129; Norman Pettit, The Heart Prepared: Grace and Conversion in Puritan Spiritual.Life (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966), 129; and Shepard, Wolcott Handbook, 26. 66

it is not intended to portray him as John Cotton's follower or disciple, but only to point out that in matters of doctrine his thinking more closely paralleled Cotton's than it did Hooker's. Mr. Warham's theological and ecclesiastical views suggest he did not, as has been claimed, lead the people of Dorchester to the Connecticut Valley in order to be near Thomas Hooker."*"

Deacons John Moore, William Gaylord, and William Rockwell assisted the clergymen in the management of Dorchester church affairs. They had all travelled to New England in the Mary & John, all became members at the original gathering of the church, all were admitted freemen on 18 May 1631, and all removed to Connecticut.%poreJwas from Southold in Suffolk, and

Rockwell and Gaylord from Somerset. There seems to have been no ruling elder in Dorchester's church until after re-organization in 1636. This means one of the major responsibilities and powers of the elder, that of taking the initiative in admission of new members, would be in the hands of other officers. Perhaps, contrary to other New England towns, the clergymen or the 2 deacons or both assumed the function.

With no church records before 1636 and very scanty ones immediately

.thereafter, freemanship is the only sure criterion of church membership.

From 1630 to 1640 freemanship and church membership ^coineBded. sufficiently that the difference was not significant. Also, if freemanship is used as

Edmund S. Morgan, Visible Saints:The History of a Puritan Idea (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1965), 108.

I. N. Tarbox, "Ruling Elders in the Early New England Churches," Congregational Quarterly, XIV (1872), 406. 67

the measure throughout the period errors in comparisons will be minimal.

In 1631, the first year Massachusetts Bay admitted freemen,

Dorchester had an adult male population of eighty-eight. Of these sixty- two, or 71 percent, were from the West Country counties of Dorset, Somerset, and Devon. At the same time 74 percent of Dorchester's church members originated in the three West Country shires. Only during 1635 and 1636, years of great flux with many people moving in and out of the town, did the proportion of West Country church members become unbalanced relative to their

share of the total population. In those years, with 52 and 51 percent of

the total inhabitants, they constituted 65 and 63 percent of the church membership.2

IV. Conclusion

The dominant faction in civil and religious affairs during

Dorchester's first years were emigrants from Somerset and Dorsetshire. Their

dominance was manifested in control of the political and ecclesiastical

offices of the town. Though the Dorset-Somerset group held the reins of

power they did not totally exclude others from participation in local affairs.

Freemanship and church membership were proportionately distributed except

during the crisis situations, when the dominant minority asserted and

solidified its control.

Supra, 34-38.

See Tables I, II, and III, on pages 46-49. 68

The Westcountrymen, at least the Dorset and Somerset people, and their clergymen appear to have been very moderate Puritans, as was their patron John White of old Dorchester. They, in contrast to other New

England Puritans, openly retained some of the church-state mixture of their English heritage. Both the Dorchester clergymen and the church deacons functioned as civil as well as church officals. Mr. Warham, who had lived in Somerset before becoming a clergyman in Devon, had more in common with John Cotton of Boston than with Thomas Hooker, whom he and the

Dorchester Church were supposed to have followed to Connecticut.

There is no evidence of serious discord either in local politics or within the Dorchester church. Further, there was not a great deal of

friction between the town leaders and the Colony officals at Boston. The situation of the dominant West Country settlers was rather complete and secure. In these comfortable circumstances the Dorset-Somerset settlers,

in 1635 and 1636, packed up and moved to the Connecticut River Valley. 69

IV.

SETTLEMENT OF WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT

The Dorchester people apparently knew little or nothing about the

Connecticut River Valley before the winter of 1633. In July of that year

Plymouth's Governor Bradford suggested to Governor Winthrop the possibility of a joint settlement scheme in order to attract part of the Indian trade from the Dutch on the Hudson River. Winthrop declined Bradford's invitation, apparently afraid that the Bay Colony would be over-extending itself at so early a stage in its development. His caution did not receive support throughout the settlements.

An "old planter" from Derbyshire, John Oldham, with three others left Watertown for the Connecticut Valley in late summer, 1633. Hos• pitably treated by the Indians along their 160-mile trek overland they returned the first week of September with a few beaver pelts, some black lead, and reports of extensive meadowlands and an abundance of the best quality hemp growing along the Connecticut river.^ John Hall and a couple of friends took the Indian trails for Connecticut on 3 November

1633. They returned, gaunt and exhausted, through the mid-January snow and-reported-there was no trade because a small pox epidemic had 2 ravaged the Indians as far west as their sources of information reached.

Winthrop, Journal, I, 108.

2Ibid, I, 118. 70

The reports of fertile, alluvial lands bordering the Connecticut River now

devoid of its native population must have quickened the pulse of many Bay

Colony farmers. Dairymen, such as the Dorset-Somerset- settlers in Dorchester, would have been particularly interested because of their expanding herds .

and limited meadow and pasture.

As described above, throughout 1634 in Massachusetts Bay there was

considerable fear the King and ecclesiastical authorities of England would

take steps to revoke the Charter and interfere in Colony affairs. At the

second session of the May General Court, after the elections of Dudley,

Ludlow and Haynes, and passage of several orders tightening up the magis•

trates' control of the Colony, the representatives of Newtown "complained

of straitness for want of land, especially meadow, and desired leave of the

court to look out either for enlargement or removal, which was granted."'*"

After scouting out the Merrimac River area without success, six Newtowners

sailed for the Connecticut River to explore the possibility of moving

their town there.

During the summer of 1634 a Court of Assistants met at New town >

and determined to allow the farmers of the town use of additional meadow- 2

land. This bit of appeasement was too little and too late; Newtown's

scouting party had already returned to the Bay and told of extensive

"Winthrop, Journal, I, 124.

i Mass. Col. Rec., I, 122. 71

meadows stretching along the west side of the Connecticut River from the falls southward to the present site of Middletown.; Pressed for space to accommodate their growing stock of cattle, the Newtowners decided to dispose of their holdings in the Bay Colony and head for the meadowland in Connect• icut. They hoped to beat the Hudson River Dutch and the New Plymouth

English to the fertile and spacious river valley."'' But first, according to

Colony regulations, it was necessary to gain the consent of the General

Court.

With a full agenda of urgent business the Court met at Newtown, where Governor Dudley had settled, on 3 September 1634. After passing numerous orders to strengthen the Colony's defences and moral fibre, the deputies and Assistants flared into heated debate over Newtown's demand 2 for permission to move to Connecticut.

There were weighty arguments against their removal. It was pointed out that they were bound by oath to consider the welfare of the entire

Massachusetts commonwealth. This they would certainly not be doing by leaving at a.time when the Colony was weak and in imminent danger of attack. The damage would be continuing because when friends of Newtown's renowned religious leader, Thomas Hooker, arrived, they would probably'., follow him to Connecticut, depriving Massachusetts of the numbers they sorely needed for defence. In addition to exposing themselves to harm from the Dutch, the migrants might agitate the Indians to warfare against

Winthrop, Journal, I, 132.

2Ibid. 72

all European settlements. Also, the people of Newtown might attract more unfavorable attention in England by settling down without a patent upon land claimed by the Crown.^

These arguments did not convince the Newtowners, who with a "strong bent of their spirits to remove" to Connecticut, forced a vote in the 2

General Court. The deputies, representing the towns' voters, polled fifteen,to ten in favor of allowing the departure. Governor Dudley and two of the Assistants, probably John Haynes and William Pynchon, agreed with the deputies but Deputy Governor Roger Ludlow and the remaining six

Assistants opposed Newtown's removal.• According to the Charter that should have put an end to it, for the measure had failed to gain the assent of six Assistants; but the deputies, representing hundreds of freemen in the towns, denied that the Assistants had the right of veto over the General Court. A noisy and disorderly debate ensued until the Court was adjourned for fourteen days, with a day of humiliation called 3 to cool tempers.

The Court reopened September 24th with an exhortation by John

Cotton reminding the magistrates, clergy and people of their responsi• bilities and powers. Although many were still dissatisfied with

Winthrop, Journal, I, 133.

2Ibid., 132-133.

3Ibid., I, 133. 73

allowing the magistrates a negative voice in the decisions of the General

Court, no effort was made to abolish it and the Newtowners agreed to accept enlargement of their lands, at the expense of Watertown and Boston, in return for remaining in the Colony."*"

This was not quite the end of the "negative voice" argument. A

Dorchester deputy, Israel Stoughton, wrote a brief book condemning the practice and maintaining that the Colony officers were administrators and not magistrates as they claimed. They therefore, he pointed out, could 2 have no power superior to the representatives of the freemen. Though he was an important man in Dorchester, owning its only grain mill and controlling fishing rights for the Neponset River, the Colony oligarchy, including Winthrop and Ludlow, squashed Stoughton's effort. His book 3 was destroyed and he was disabled from holding office for three years.

The General Court assembled in May, 1635, at Newtown for Colony elections. Dorchester's Roger Ludlow expected to move up from deputy

"*"Winthrop, Journal, I, 134. 2 Israel Stoughton to Dr. John Stoughton, [June], 1635, in Massa• chusetts Historical Society Proceedings, LVIII (June, 1925), 453-454; Winthrop, Journal, I, 147; and, Mass. Col. Rec., I, 135. 3 Winthrop, Journal, I, 147; and, Mass. Col. Rec., I, 135. Stoughton alone had the right to trap alewives as they crowded up the Neponset River to spawn. These small, herring-like fish were used extensively as fertilizer in New England. 74

governor to the governor's seat but was disappointed when the recently arrived squire John Haynes won the post."*" Ludlow, never much of a believer in the efficacy of the popular will, protested the/election of Haynes, offending enough of the electorate in the process to be left out of office entirely. To satisfy his pique, Ludlow resigned as overseer in charge of fortifying Castle Island, a fort protecting Dorchester Neck, and there• after favored removal to the Connecticut Valley.

Before the Court adjourned, the inhabitants of Watertown and

Roxbury gained permission to find new locations for their towns on the condition that they remained within the jurisdiction-.of the. Massachusetts 2 Bay government. One month.later, reconvened at Newtown the General Court granted permission to the inhabitants of Dorchester to move to any place they thought proper for their needs within the patent of the 3

Bay Colony.

Some of the Dorchester people must have been packed and ready to travel when the Court gave its nod because by July 6th, Jonathan

Brewster, in charge of the Plymouth post on the Connecticut River

Israel Stoughton to Dr. John Stoughton, [June], 1635, in Mass. Hist. Soc Proc., LVIII (June, 1925), 456. 2 Mass. Col. Rec., I, 146; Winthrop, Journal, I, 151. 3 Mass. Col. Rec, I, 148. 75

reportedj "The Massachusetts men are coming almost dayly." Stopping briefly at the Plymouth fort the Dorchester advance party turned north and explored the river banks beyond the falls. When they returned to claim the meadowlands around Plymouth's settlement they met yet another group of twenty Englishmen led by Francis Stiles. They had been sent from England by Sir Richard Saltonstall to establish a community in the

Connecticut Valley.

The Dorchester men, led by a very determined Roger Ludlow, brushed aside the claims of the new arrivals in spite of their valid patent, just as they did the solid rights of the Plymouth people based on settlement and purchase from the Indians; Though there were numerous complaints to Governor Winthrop at Boston from Governor Bradford and Sir Richard, as well as several negotiating sessions with the Dorchester leaders, it was all to no avail. The Westcountrymen knew what they wanted and would not be deterred. By the middle of October, 1635, at least sixty Bay 2

Colony inhabitants with numerous cattle were on the trail to Connecticut.

They departed late in the season and the New England winter enveloped the country early that year, forcing most of the party to struggle back to the BayCcblpny^f or survival. Those who remained grubbed through the long winter for acorns, malt, what wild grains they could gather and provision they could beg from the Plymouth men. They lost many of their

Jonathan Brewster to Governor William Bradford, 6 July 1635, in Stiles, Windsor, I, 28. 2 Winthrop, Journal, I, 157, 163. 76

cattle because the lush virgin grasses growing as high as a man's head along the Connecticut River banks, were untended and uncultivated and, there• fore, mostly stalks and roughage and low in nutritive value. Though he may have over-estimated their misfortunes because of his disapproval of their venture, Winthrop reported that the Dorchester pioneers lost some 62000 worth of cattle during the winter. At 1636 prices that would represent about seventy head."*" Despite their losses the Dorchester dairymen remained undaunted and in the spring of 1636 they returned in greater numbers with all their possessions to eiS:tab,lish.ipermanent.Lyi Windsor, Connecticut.

Though they appear to have begun the agitation to remove to Connecticut, the Newtowners were the last to break away and resettle. Some, at least, were never mollified by additions to Newtown's meadowlands. While the first

Dorchester people neared their destination in Connecticut, the Court of

Assistants called John Pratt of Newtown to answer for a letter he had written to friends in England. The Court claimed Pratt, who came from Wood Ditton, near Newmarket, Cambridgeshire, had "affirmed divers things, which were untrue and of ill report, for the state of the country, as that here was nothing 2 but rocks, and sands, and salt marshes." With the help of his pastor,,

Thomas Hooker, and two other clergymen Pratt wrote a contrite answer acceptable to the Court. Through his apology, however, came the unmistakable belief of this farmer from the east Cambridgeshire dairy country that

Winthrop, Journal, I, 178; and, Thomas Hooker to John Winthrop, August 1638, in.Connecticut Historical Society Collections,1(1860), 3-15.

Banks, Topographical Dictionary, 13; Lewis., Topographical Dictionary, II, 12; Winthrop, Journal, I, 165; and, Mass. Col. Rec., I, 360. 77

Massachusetts Bay was a poor region to practice husbandry. He admitted that if the ground were "manured and husbanded" properly it yielded more English grain, such as wheat, rye, and oats, than he had expected. But he was dub• ious enough of its long-term potential that he suggested fishing and other 2 trades be developed to supplement farming. Goodman Pratt bowed to the will of the Court but did not long remain in their land of rocks, sand and salt marshes. The-end of May 1636, he and many of the Newtown congregation fol- 3 lowed their Dorchester neighbors to the meadows of Connecticut.

History is a needle for putting men to sleep anointed with the poison of all they want to keep.

- Leonard Cohen

1. Minor Distortions for Major Theses

At this point there is a strong indication that the men migrating from Massachusetts Bay to the Connecticut Valley were farmers dissatisfied with their land. They moved in search of wider acres and soil better suited to their dairy-farming needs. This interpretation, however, has not satis• fied American historians. They have used the removal to Connecticut to help establish their theses for the "bigger picture" of United States history.

''"Mass. Col. Rec. , I, 358-59; and, Thirsk, Agrarian History of Eng• land, 41, 47.

2

Mass. Col. Rec. , I, 35.8.

3WiMhrop, Journal, I, 180-181. 78

Possibly because they concentrated on proving the validity of their overall statements, and not on understanding what appeared to be a rather minor, local event, they tortured historical evidence into support of their pre-con- ceived theories.

The Imperial historian, Charles M. Andrews lumped together the move• ment of all four towns and made Newtown's Thomas Hooker into something of a Moses leading an exodus to the Promised Land. In spite of his romantic view Andrews totally dismissed the religious motive as non-operative in this migration. He accepted as the chief cause, based on contemporary records, the desire to find more "fertile land and wider pastures.""'"

Andrews then, in an inexplicable shift, turned to "the political motive,"

2 which although "a secondary reason," was, "of the greatest significance."

It was the desire of the "instigators," whom he did not identify, to get out from under the oligarchic rule of the Bay Colony government, . . . and to set up a government of a more popular charac• ter - a government which drew its authority not from above but from below, patterned after the method used in govern• ing the church: election by the members,, but control in the hands of those elected.

His description of the Connecticut government could be just as accurate- c.iy applied to that of Massachusetts Bay. Andrews did not explain why the

"instigators" or the migrants would have decided to take this action just at the time John Haynes became governor of Massachusetts Bay. Indeed, Haynes

Charles M. Andrews, "On Some Aspects of Connecticut History," New,England Quarterly, XVII (March, 1944), 9.

2lbid.

3Ibid. 79

himself later joined the migration and became the first governor of the

Connecticut colony.

After carefully reviewing contemporary assessments of the Connec• ticut migration, Whig historian Clinton Rossiter agreed that the argu• ments for plentiful and fertile land were substantial, but argued that they failed "to.explain why these particular congregations should have been the first to move out."''" To establish his conclusion that the removal "was the first overt indication of the popular urges that ran deep and strong beneath the apparently integral autocracy of New England Puritanism," 2

Rossiter resifted the evidence to support two main conjectures. First he posited personal rivalries between Haynes and Winthrop, and between Thomas

Hooker and John Cotton. Secondly, he repeated Andrews' assertion that the people "were becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the oligarchic tenden- 3 cies of the ruling element in the Bay Colony."

Perry Miller, who sought the genius of New England through an incred• ibly thorough study of Puritan sermon literature, adroitly avoided the con• sequences of the available evidence.. Miller acknowledged that Edward Johnson,, a Canterbury squire.who came to New England in 1630 with Winthrop and wrote a history of the colony twenty years later, seemed only aware of "the economic 4 motives concerned with tillage and the breeding of cattle. Miller then pointed

Clinton Rossiter, "Thomas Hooker," New England Quarterly, 'xxv (1952), 466.

2Ibid., 467. .

3lbid., 466.

Johnson, Wonder-Working Providence, 5-6; and, Perry Gilbert Miller, "Thomas Hooker and the Democracy of Early Connecticut," New England Quarterly, IV (1931), 675. 80

out that John Pratt of Newtown, one of the emigrants to Connecticut, was disciplined by the Court of Assistants for a letter written to England

complaining of the "paucity and poverty of the soil."1 With that reported Miller promptly dropped all thought of such mundane matters and turned instead to,

.. . . the historian William Hubbard, writing about 1680, and possibly in the possession of some authentic tradition, several times implies a rivalry and even.enmity between Hooker and Cotton, and between Hooker's wealthy and ambi• tious friend, John Haynes, and the great John Winthrop.2

On that bed-rock foundation Miller proceeded to build an ediface of doc•

trinal religious differences as the motivation for the split which led

to the settlement of Connecticut.

Edmund S. Morgan, the current dean of American colonial historians, has written that some ."Historians have been so convinced by the importance

of social and economic divisions that they have uttered the wildest kind

of nonsense."3 Morgan thought to avoid such pitfalls by eschewing nearly all but religious motivation in the formation of New England society. Not only was it Hooker's advocacy of a more generous church membership policy which, according to Morgan, stimulated the emigration from Newtown to the

Connecticut Valley but John Warham, pastor of the Dorchester church,

•'-Perry Miller, "Thomas Hooker and Democracy of Early Connecticut," New England Quarterly, IV (1931), 675.

2ibid., italics mine.

3Edmund S. Morgan, "The American Revolution: Revisions in Need of Revising," William and Mary Quarterly, XIV (1962), 3. 81

. . . may have led his flock to Windsor, Connecticut,, in 1635 because he did not agree with the newly developed Massachusetts system and preferred to be near Hooker who held views closer to his own.l

There is not even tradition to support Morgan's view. On the contrary the possibility has been suggested that both pastor Warham and teacher Maver• ick of Dorchester opposed the move to Connecticut.2

In the most recent work concerned with the foundation of Connecti• cut, Mary Jeanne Anderson Jones co-opted both Miller's and Morgan's argu• ments and added the suggestion that,

... . the Connecticut Valley offered a site for a Bible commonwealth farther inland and one more step removed from the sight of the unsympathetic officals of the King and Archbishop.3.

She concluded that, "land shortages, personal rivalries, disquiet within . the Bay Colony, and the threatened interference from abroad all played their part in promoting the removal. "4- She failed, however, to expand on any other than the religious causes.

These few examples do not exhaust the historiography of the Massa• chusetts Bay-Connecticut migration, but they are representative of what has been written by twentieth-century historians.

^Edmund S. Morgan, Visible Saints; The History of a Puritan Idea (New York: New York University Press, 1963), 107^-108.

^Committee of the Dorchester Antiquarian and Historical Society, History of the Town of Dorchester (Boston: Ebenezer Clapp, Jr., 1859),, 404.

3Mary Jeanne Anderson Jones, Congregational Commonwealth: Connecticut, 1636-1662 (Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan University Press, 1968), 22.

Ibid., 23. 82

2. The Windsor Migration Dissected

To leave the relative security and comfort of the coastal settle• ments in Massachusetts Bay for what to seventeenth-century Europeans was a trackless, uninhabited wilderness demanded serious consideration by each family.,; In probing for the impulse which prompted the decisions ijz is first necessary to identify the migrants. Distinct characteristics must be sought for those who departed as contrasted with those who stayed with their homes and farms in the original settlement. From a comparison of the two groups perhaps it can be discerned why, or on what basis, the decisions to leave or to stay were taken.

A cursory glance at the statistics shows that fifty-two of one- hundred and sixty adult male heads-of-households, who were in the town during the migration years of 1635-1636, left Dorchester and settled at

Windsor on the Connecticut River. The mere fact that 33 percent of the population removed and 66 percent remained is of no significance but the composition of each group may be.

Although the actual number of church members leaving only exceeded those who remained forty-five to thirty-five, there is no doubt that the controlling portion of the church removed. At least 87 percent of the migrants were freemen and church members. In contrast to this only 33 percent of those who remained in Dorchester were freemen. Included in the company settling Windsor weretthe Dorchester pastor, John Warham, and the church's three deacons, John Moore, William Gaylord, and William

Rockwell. It would be a-pather safe assumption to say that the church,

as a collective entity, moved to Windsor. 83

It is also true that those with the most political authority in

Dorchester removed to Connecticut. Twenty-seven, or 52 percent, of the migrants had held town offices. Of those staying at the Bay twelve -- a meagre 11 percent -- served in town posts before 1636. That the departing men made up Dorchester's political and religious "in group" is perhaps to be expected since forty-three, or 83 percent, of them arrived in New England by 1630 and were on hand for the original land-^stributions and political formation. Forty-two of the forty-three had been fellow passengers aboard the Mary & John. In this group there were fifteen each from Dorset and

Somerset, six from Essex, two from Devon, and one each from Norfolk,

Warwickshire, Northamptonshire,, and London.

Only twenty-six of the non-migrants sailed on the Mary & John and only thirty-three were in Massachusetts Bay by 1630. Of the twenty-six passengers, ten came from Devonshire, seven from Dorset, four from Somerset,

TABLE IV

Political Division of Dorchester's Population in the Windsor Migration

total % of free- % of held % of in New % of total men* group town group England group total office total by 1630 total

Migrated to Windsor 52 33% 45 87%** 27 52% 43 83%

Remain in Dorchester 106 66% 35 33% 12 11% 33 31% *or church members **percent of Windsor group who were freemen 84

two from Buckinghamshire, and one each from Lancashire, Surrey and Essex.

Eight of the twelve office holders who remained in Dorchester were part of this pioneer group. Three of these town officals, Roger Clap, Richard

Collecott and Nathaniel Duncan, were Devonshiremen. Thomas Richards of

Somerset had served a single term as selectman in 1633 and Nicholas Upsal of Dorset had held three appointive posts -- bailiff, tax collector and

surveyor -- before 1636. George Minot of Essex had been a selectman in

1634, and John Greenway was a fence inspector for one term.

If Dorchester's 1635-1636 population is divided by English counties of origin it is seen that only the Dorset and Somerset emigrants sent a majority

of their number to Windsor. Of those included in the "other" fourteen

counties only the Essex and Lancashire men were numerous enough to be signi•

ficant. . From Essex nine men with their families remained in Dorchester while

four moved to Windsor. The four who moved had all been on the New England

shore since 1630. Of those remaining only George Minot and Tom Rawlins had

TABLE V

Division of Dorchester Population by English Counties of Origin

Inhabitants Freemen-Church members Dorset Somerset Devon Other Dorset Somerset Devon Other

Migrated 19 15 2 16 16 12 1 16 to Windsor 54%* 60% 9% 21% 67% 80% 8% 55%

Remain in 16 10 19 61 8 3 11 13 Dorchester 46% 40% 91% 79% 33% 20% 92% 45%

*percent of Dorsetshiremen who migrated to Windsor 85

arrived that early. Thirteen Lancashiremen came to Dorchester, twelve of

them in 1635, and none moved to Windsor. John Glover, the only Lancashire- man aboard the Mary & John, though an investor and, therefore, a free• man in the Company before coming to New England, played no part in Dorches•

ter politics before 1636. Perhaps the most significant characteristic of

the non-Westcountrymen whoemigrated to Windsor was that they were all free•

men and church members in Dorchester before departing. Only thirteen of

the sixty-one east and north county settlers who stayed in Massachusetts Bay

had freeman's status. Of these sixty-one, seven had held Dorchester town

offices compared with eight of the sixteen migrants.

3?.. The Impulse to Migrate

An examination and comparison of the tabular and statistical data

of the Windsor migration indicates that there was something unique about

this group of people. Obviously there was not a West Country-East Anglia

split as John Waters found 'in.»his study of Hingham. Neither does the

Windsor migration reflect the agricultural bias of open fields versus closed

farm advocates as developed by Sumner Chilton Powell in his study of Sudbury,

Massachusetts.

Waters claimed that in Hingham the early-settling Westcountrymen lost

control of their community to an incoming wave of east-country emigrants and

John J. Waters, "Hingham, Massachusetts, 1631-1661: An East Anglian Oligarchy in the New World." Journal of Social History, I (1968)", 351-370; Sumner Chilton Powellj Puritan Village: The Formation of a New England Town (Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Books, 1965). 86

that most of them pulled up stakes and departed. In the same way, Powell showed that when a fight developed over the type of land divisions to be made in Sudbury, the losers petitioned the General Court for land and estab•

lished the new town.of Marlborough.

In Dorchester these schemed, perhaps well-suited in the local situa-

tions examined, simply do not hold together. The migration to Windsor split

the Dorchester people, roughly, between Dorset and Somerset settlers on the

one hand arid Devonshiremen and those from eastern, midland, and northern

countiesVon the other. This was definitely not a migration of Westcountry• men fleeing from either an East Anglian controlled Massachusetts town", or

from a dispute over land distribution practices.

The vast majority.^— at"least 87 percent — of those migrating were church

members. There had been no friction between the Dorchester clergymen, War•

ham and Maverick, and the Colony ecclesiastical leadership. In fact Warham

was in essential agreement on matters of doctrine with John Cotton, undeniably

the most important man of the cloth in Massachusetts Bay.

There is not.the slightest hint of internal dissention within the

Dorchester church or congregation, nor between the church and its ministers

or secular officers. There appear to be no grounds for giving religious moti•

vation, either theological or ecclesiastical, to the Windsor migration. The

migrating group clearly included the political elite of Dorchester. As con-

contrasted with Watertown, Newtown, Hingham, Salem, Weymouth and other towns,

the migrating Dorchester leaders never came into conflict with the Bay Colony

political authorities, nor did the Colony officers ever attempt to interfere

in local affairs. , 87

The only example of town-Colony discord was Israel Stoughton's rejection.of the authority of the magistrates, and his swift and severe disciplining at their hands. Displeased citizens of Dorchester, many'of whom apparently agreed with his position, petitioned the Court to reverse its decision banning Stoughton from office but took no further action when the

Court refused their plea. In spite of his treatment from the provincial officers, Stoughton remained in Dorchester until caught up in the English

Civil Wars of the next decade. 1 By way of contrast, Stoughton's elder bro• ther, Thomas, who had never voiced dissent against the authorities, moved his family to the Connecticut frontier.

Roger Ludlow, who migrated to Connecticut, had made numerous enemies in the Colony after failing in his bid for the governor's office. His con• flict, however, was with the deputies representing the people of the towns and not with the Colony magistrates. The Massachusetts leaders, thinking that Connecticut was within their patent, appointed Ludlow to the eight-man commission to govern Connecticut in 1636. His argument could hardly have been with the Bay magistrates. Indeed, Ludlow had stood with Winthrop in condemning Stoughton's criticism of the Colony officers. According to

Stoughton, Ludlow even gave false testimony of a conversation between the two.''" Discussing Ludlow's failure to gain the governorship Stoughton did not declare his own reaction but stated that "both wise and godly men" opposed 2 his election.

Israel""Stoughton to Dr. John Stoughton, [June], 1635, in Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc., LVIII (June, 1925), 455.

2Ibid., 456. 88

It would be a mistake to make too much of the bad blood between

Stoughton and Ludlow as an important factor in the decision to migrate.

There is no indication that Ludlow had ever been an important figure in local

Dorchester affairs. He had confined his political activity to provincial politics. It is quite reasonable to assume that Ludlow, once an opponent of group migrations, decided to "throw in" with those planning to go to

Connecticut after ruining his chances of gaining elective- office in~Massa• chusetts. It is not at all reasonable to suppose!) that a group of settled, married men with families,"'"who"''were in full control of their local affairs, would suddenly decide to follow a disgruntled politician into the wilder• ness.

To be sure, there was a rather significant tightening"up of the rules and regulations governing Massachusetts society just prior to the departure to Connecticut. This may have disturbed some, but these probably would have been the non-church members whose lesser stake in society decreased their desire to defend an establishment which refused them full citizenship.

Nothing in the contemporary documents indicates dissatisfaction in

Dorchester with the relative monopoly of political offices by Dorset and

Somerset men. Also, those who remained-in Dorchester voiced no complaints toward policies of the Colony government; rather, they appear to have been well pleased by the large land grants made to the town by the General Court shortly after the Windsor group departed.

Had the migrants been leaving to avoid practices they considered oppressive, the split in the population would have been" different. The Devon• shire people were more akin to those of Somerset and Dorset in matters of the 89

soul and state than any of them were to the men of East Anglia. There were a number of the East Anglians, however, who joined the Dorset-Somerset group going to Connecticut while the Devonshire men and the^bulk.of.the others remained. Without reading into the available evidence a great deal more than it contains, it would be impossible to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between the actions of the Court and "the removal, or to accept political causation as a major force in the decision to migrate to Connec• ticut. Similarly, one-third of the people of Dorchester did not leave their homes and farms to re-establish themselves in a completely undeveloped site in the hope of gaining wealth from the Indian fur trade. They already knew from Oldham and Hall that this would be a fruitless venture. During the winter of 1633-34 the New England Indians had been decimated, and in some cases totally wiped out, by a small pox epidemic. Even more conclusive, perhaps, is the fact that Dorchester's Indian traders, Richard Collecott of

Devon, John Holman.of Dorset, and Simon Willard of Kent, did not move to

Connecticut.

Neither John Winthrop's "due forme of Government hothb.aciv.i-11. and ecclesiastical" nor any.local political or religious differences drove a

third of Dorchester's population and a substantial majority of the- leadership

from the Bay to the Valley. Something more basic to their existence and experience provided the repellent and the attraction.

4. An Agricultural Bias

The surviving Town Records ofDorChester leave no doubt the New

England community was first anddforemost agricultural.• From the very first 90

page the proprietors' main concerns were mowing rights to meadows, fencing the cattle commons, the price of hay and, of course, distribution of plant• ing ground.

In 1633, the first year for which there is a complete record, the" orders made by the Town can be broken into eighteen separate actions. Of these, six dealt with setting up and maintaining fencing; another named the assessors of a tax ear-marked for fences, gates and bridges. Four orders were concerned with distribution of land, one with setting up a town pound, one for regulation of the town cattle, and another for the construction of a grain mill. The remaining five orders set thev.form for town meetings and the board of selectmen, and provided.for building a roadway to reach pasture lands, the location of the burying ground, and the regulation of seating in the meeting house."*"

Of sixty-seven orders recorded by Dorchester town meetings for

1634, thirty-two deal with distributionoof arable, meadow and pasture lands and lots for home construction. One order, issued on 3 November 1634, restricted sale of property in Dorchester to anyone from outside the town unless that person was approved by the Town. There were nine orders con• cerned with fencing agricultural land, one with building another town pound and some common gates, and three for building roadways to. and from the great lots, where most,of the town's tillage took place. Four separate orders regul- lated the trespass of swine into arable and pasture land, and two decrees

Dorchester Town Records, in NEHGR, XXI (April, 1867), 166-168;

(July, 1867), 269-273. 91

assigned bulls to the town dairy herds. There were two regulatory orders to restrain cutting timber and one to provide for a fort on the top of the town's most prominent hill. Two orders set the salary for militia captain John

Mason.

In addition,.the-town meeting ordered a warehouse built at the grain mill and a fish trap constructed on the Naponset river to catch alewives for fertilizer. It also provided a regulation for the pricing and sale of the fish, set rules for the election of selectmen' and town bailiff, established the form and time of town meetings, and made provision for repair of the meet• ing house and fencing for the burying ground.^

For these two typical years, at least sixty-seven of eighty-five decis• ions by the Dorchester Town Meeting were directly concerned with agricultural activities of the community. Approximately 80 percent of the Dorchester

Town Meeting's business was concerned with agrarian interests, indicating the Dorchester settlers devoted the majority of their energiesHbd/agricultural pursuits.

The people of Dorchester definitely formed an agricultural community.

j ~ •-••

They thought in terms of local agrarian problems and formed decisions upon

their ideas for improving their agricultural situation. ; It follows quite

logically that the reason they gave repeatedly for their desire to migrate —

land was, in truth, the purpose most prominent in their minds.

Admittedly, it would be difficult to establish an absolute shortage

of land at Massachusetts Bay in 1635. Much of Dorchester's land^"•for example,

Dorchester Town Records, in NEHGR, XXI (July, 1867), 273-277; (October, 1867), 329-330. 92

had not yet been distributed. Perhaps, however, they referred to a shortage of the right type of land. Surely that is the point John Pratt made. He was, of course, from Newtown not Dorchester and he came to

New England from Cambridgeshire not the West Country. His English home, however, was geographically much more a part of Suffolk than of Cambridge• shire. On the basis of soil, agricultural use and community organization,

Wood Ditton resembled the Somerset dairy lands more than the surrounding east-county countryside.''' Also, more than half of Newtown's soil was the 2 same as Dorchester's, and the remainder was much poorer.

The Dorset and Somerset settlers in Dorchester, as well as the east- county people who moved with them to Windsor, were generally independent dairy farmers. There is supporting evidence for this generalization in the

Dorchester Town Records. On 3 April 1633 it was agreed to build a double- rail fence around some marsh land. Twenty-two cattle owners assumed the responsibility for construction of the fence. Each man supplied a ten-foot section for every milk cow he intended to keep. Of the twenty-one dairymen identified ten came from Dorset, seven from Somerset, two from Essex, and two 3 from Devonshire. The only two Devonshiremen with dairy cows were the

The Atlas of Britain and Northern:Ireland (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963), soil map, 40; Thirsk, Agrarian History, 48.

2 Edward Hitchcock, Final Report on the Geology of Massachusetts (Amherst: J. S. & C. Adams, 1841), I, see frontispiece map.

Dorchester Town Records, NEHGR, XXI (April, 1867), 166; see Appendix IV for list of dairy cattle owners. 93

ministers, Mr. Warham and Mr. Maverick. Nineteen, of the dairymen later moved to Connecticut. Mr. Maverick died just before the migration,

leaving George Dyer of Dorset the only.man on the list who remained in

Dorchester. Though a church member in 1630, a freeman in 1631, and chosen by the Court of Assistants to be town constable in 1632, Goodman Dyer held no town offices until after departure of the Dorset-Somerset group in 1636.

In February, 1634, the town meeting agreed that five men would provide seven bulls to "constantly goe with the drift of Milch Cowes.""*'

Three of the men owning bulls were from Dorset, Thomas Ford, John Holman

and Simon Hoyte. William Rockwell was from Somerset and Israel Stoughton

from Essex. Even after the Windsor migration no Devonshiremen provided bulls for the milk cows. During 1637 and 1638 three Essex farmers,. Israel

Stoughton, George Minot and Edmund Munnings, and two from Dorset, John 2

Holman and William Hill, supplied bulls for the town herd.

The Devonshire husbandmen, from the coastal areas and river valleys

of that county, and the late arrivals from south-west Lancashire, in

contrast to the Dorset-Somerset people, were accustomed to tilling the soil,

often as tenant farmers. This characteristic was evident when in the spring

of 1637, after most of the dairy farmers had gone to Connecticut, the

Dorchester town meeting decided,

1Dorchester Town Records, in NEHGR, XXI (October, 1867), 329.

2Ibid., in NEHGR, XXIl(January, 1868), 53; and, Fourth Report of the Record Commissioners of the City of Boston 1880, Dorchester Town Records (Boston: Rockwell and Churchill, 1883),33. 94

That if some shall desire to plant and others to keep Cattle, the Minor parte shall' fence agaynst the Major that is the Minor parte will improve \ their propriety to Come.and the like, and the Major parte to cattle, the Minor shall fence agaynst the Major at his own perill, and-so the like if the Minor will keepe Cattle, -and the Major plant, they must secure the Majors Corne, and be lyable to pay dammage if they doe not.1

The majority was determined by a head-count and not according to the number of acres. This order is indicative of the co-operative common-field agriculture of champion country, not that of independent family farmers of the dairy areas.

The regions from which all of Dorchester's Devonshiremen came, river valleys and south coastal areas, were noted for corn and fruit production.

On the strong red loams of the lush Vale of Exeter and the silty slate soil of the river valleys the Devonshire ploughman, behind that county's famed ox teams, carefully prepared the land with lime, sea-sand and dung for the crops of barley, wheat, peas and beans which were his principal products.

In the dips and hollows around every farm were orchards of apples, cherries, pears and walnuts. Many raised cattle but only for draught and sale to east 2 county graziers, not for dairy use.

Dorchester Town Records, in Record Commissioners, 23.

John Britton and Edward W. Brayley, The Beauties of England and Wales; or, Delineations, Topographical, Historical, and Descriptive, of Each County (London: Thomas Maiden, 1803), IV, 8, 11, 19, 21-22; Westcote, A View of Devonshire, 37-38; Thirsk, Agrarian History of England, 72-73; Kerridge, Agricultural Revolution, 149-150. 95

Except for those who lived in the city of Dorchester just before migrating to America, the Dorset and Somerset settlers nearly all came from localities within what Eric Kerridge has called the Butter Country."'' In these areas such as the Vale of Blackmore in Dorset or Ilminster in

Somerset, dairying was the farmers' prime interest. The rich hay of the meadows of this region kept the milk cows fleshed-out through the winters and 2 provided butter, cheese and milk production throughout the year. Except for the farmers of Somerset's Vale of Taunton Deane, the Butter Country agrarians have been characterized as rather indifferent tillers of the soil.

Although lime and marl in large quantities helped enrich the negligently worked soils of the arable and the red loams and clays of the Butter Country pastures and meadows, "The idea-appears to prevail," among Dorset farmers, 3

"of putting all crops into the ground with as few ploughings as possible."

At least half of the non-West Country settlers who migrated to

Windsor were from dairying or cattle-fattening regions. Thomas Moore, his son John, and Joseph Clarke from Suffolk, David Wilton of Topcroft, Norfolk, and Thomas Stoughton from Coggeshall, Essex, were all husbandmen of the High 4 Suffolk farming country where dairying and swine raising were the specialty.

"'"Kerridge, Agricultural Revolution, 117-121.

2 Britton, The Beauties of England, IV, 323.

3Ibid., 324.

4 Kerridge, Agricultural Revolution, 85-86. 96

Wheat, rye, maslin, barley and peas were grown but hardly enough to supply local needs. The. meandering rivers of the region provided well-watered meadows on deep, fertile loams.^ Of all the crops, grass and hay were the 2 largest. Matthew Grant of Hadleigh, Essex, and Thomas Marshall of

Alford, Lancashire, came from the marshy coastal sections where cattle for both dairy and beef were of primary importance. As in other similar areas 3 horses displaced cattle at the plough and cart.

Although not all the migrants to Connecticut originated in English farming countries devoted primarily to dairying, milk or beef cattle did play an important secondary role in their customary agriculture. From the Essex woodlands, south and west of the High Suffolk, came John Porter and Samuel

Allen. Here the hot summers, hard winters and moderate rainfall made for good wheat country. Dairying was of secondary consideration and usually only for domestic use, but cattle fattening was of importance. Because cattle were being prepared for market, horses made-up the draught teams.

Born in Yorkshire, Bigod Egglestone came to New England from near Norwich,

Norfolk, fitere barley, wheat, and rye were the market crops, but sizable dairy herds were kept by most farmers. Thomas Dewey, the only Kentish man in the Windsor migration, was from the Northdown region of that fertile county.

"^Kerridge, Agricultural Revolution, 84.

2 Ibid., 85; G. E. Fussell, "Farming Methods in the Early Stuart Period," Journal of Modern History, VII (March, 1935), 19-20. 3 Kerridge, Agricultural Revolution, 53, 55-56, 88, 138. Wheat, peas,,barley,, oats, fruit and hops constituted the produce of the red flinty-clay loams. As in the woodland area, horses made the plough teams while cattle were fattened for the London market.

The Connecticut immigrants from Dorchester, Massachusetts, were dairy and beef-raising men. Their most fundamental needs -- mowing and pasture lands -- were the same in New England as they had been

in old England. These needs, not religious and political pressures,

forced them out of the Bay Colony. Cattle, not doctrine or politics, split Dorchester and founded Windsor.

5. Red Sandstone Meadowlands

When the Newtowners first requested permission to leave their town, the General Court offered them additional meadowlands as an

inducement to remain in the Bay Colony settlements. The Connecticut

River Valley, however, held out even greater attractions for the prospective emigrants. There, according to the explorers sent west by the towns, lay vast meadows and lush stands of grass and hemp. In addition to the men from Newtown, the Dorchester dairy• men from the western Butter Country and. the cattle raisers from the eastern counties were dissatisfied with,their land on Massa• chusetts Bay and wanted to relocate. They, perhaps more than any 98

others, would find the vegetation and soil of the Connecticut Valley appealing.1

The tenacity with which the Dorchester men clung to their decision to settle at Windsor in spite of severe opposition from the Plymouth government, the Massachusetts Bay Court of Assistants, and Sir Richard Saltonstall and his aristocratic backers in England,

indicates that that site must have fulfilled particularly well the requirements for dairy farming. The reason for their determination

is clear. At the future site of Windsor there were more than nine- hundred acres of head-high grass growing in meadows on the west side of the river alone.2 The excellent stands of hemp would have reminded

the migrants from Dorset,- Somerset and eastern Suffolk, of tho;se vwh±ch grew in the rich alluvial soil of river banks and fenland they had known in England.3

Archer B. Hulbert, Soil: Its Influence on the History of the United States (New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univdrsity Press, 1930), 70-71.

2Stiles,-Windsor, 50.

Thirsk. Agrarian History, 177; and, Thomas Morton, The New English Canaan, ed. by Charles Francis Adams (Boston: The Prince Society, 1883), 187,. 231. 99

A farming man, to be really comfortable, needs soil the color and texture of the best land which he has worked."'" The new red sandstone-based soils of the Connecticut Valley closely resemble in appearance, though not quite in chemical composition, the predominent soils of western Dorset and 2 central and southern Somerset, and can be found no place else in New England. The Dorchester farmers probably knew then, as we know now, that this red 3 color usually indicated a well-drained, aerated and fertile soil.

In addition to the right kind of vegetation and a familiar soil, the migrants found an extensive bed of marl on the Farmington River, just west of 4 . 5 Windsor. Marl was the Dorset-Somerset farmers first choice for fertilizer.

Hulbert, Soil, 77-78; and, Barbara Kerr, Bound to the Soil: A Social History of Dorset, 1750-1918 (London: John Baker, 1968), 7.

2 Dr. Olave Slaymaker, Geography Department, The University of British Columbia, and Dr. L. M. Lavkulvich, Agricultural Soil Sciences, The University of British Columbia, private interviews, November, 1969; and, Hitchcock, Geology of Massachusetts, I, 17; II, 434.

Soil Survey Staff, Bureau of Plant Industry, Soils and Agricultural Engineering, Soil Survey Manual (Washington: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1962), 190.

4 James G. Percival, Report on the Geology of the State of Connecticut (New Haven: Osborn and Baldwin, 1842), 465. This is the only such bed of marl in the Connecticut Valley.

Hitchcock, Geology of Massachusetts, I, 67. No form of Calcareous matter is so valuable in agriculture as rich marl. 100

i The varieties of new red sandstone in the Connecticut Valley resemble both the new red sandstone and old red sandstone substatral formations underlying some of England's most fertile land."*" Not only did the soils developed over these formations in England produce hay and pasture of superior quality but they were considered excellent for cultivation of wheat, 2 barley and beans.

The Dorchester agrarians, lacking modern chemical analysis, erred slightly in their judgement of the soil. The soils of Dorset and Somerset are older and better developed than those at Windsor owing to differing periods of 3 glaciation. The red soils they knew in England contained lime whereas those in the Connecticut Valley have little or no lime content, but the ready supply of marl, rich in calcareous matter, compensated for this deficiency at Windsor.

In contrast to the fine, stone-free red soil of the Connecticut

Valley, the soil at Dorchester was graywacke, a coarse conglomerate of plum- pudding stone mixed with sand or clay. It varied from deep brown on the

Dorchester Neck in the north to a grey slaty variety on Squantum Neck and a light sandy soil at The Farms in the extreme south of the town."* Dorchester's

"^Edward Hitchcock, Report on the Geology, Mineralogy, Botany, and Zoology of Massachusetts (Amherst: J. S. & C. Adams, 1835), 20, 211.

2Ibid., 20, 97. 3 Dr. 0. Slaymaker, Geography Department, The University of British Columbia, private interview, November, 1969.

^Hitchcock, Report on the Geology ... of Massachusetts, 20.

^Hitchcock, Geology of Massachusetts, I, 17; II, 531. 101

light, stoney, sandy land, with the help of decaying fish as fertilizer, would support good crops of Indian corn, barley, oats and the like, but made poor meadow and pasture.

For husbandmen interested primarily in cultivating the soil for cereals and garden crops Dorchester, geographically the largest town in

Massachusetts Bay Colony, offered extensive acreage of fair to good land. For dairymen and cattlemen interested in raising and fattening milk and beef animals it was a hopeless location. The pasturage was generally poor and marsh and meadow for mowing were scarce. The best pasture in town, Dorchester Neck's 2 480 acres, had to be limited to 120 head of cattle to prevent over-grazing.

6.. Conclusion

The experiences of the settlers of Dorchester, Massachusetts, both those who remained and those who moved to Windsor, Connecticut, require a revision of the politico-religious analysis conventionally made of the founding of New England. Much else points to an interpretation emphasizing the physical geography of agriculture: (1) location of the English homes of the

Windsor migrants; (2) their agricultural occupations and practices in England;

T. M. Harris, "Chronological and Topographical Account of Dorchester," Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc., first series, IX (1804), 164; and, William E. Powers, Physical Geography (New York: Appleton-Century-Croft, 1966), 163.

Dorchester Town Records, in NEHGR, XXII (January, 1868), 54. 102

(3) the type of vegetation and soil they were accustomed to in England;

(4) the lack of familiar conditions at Dorchester; (5) the soil and topo• graphy of the Connecticut Valley, unique in New England, and similar to the dairylands of Dorset and Somerset; and, (6) the absolute determination of the

Dorchester migrants, once the Windsor site had been found, to settle there and no where else.

Establishing an agricultural or occupational foundation for social decisions in mid-seventeenth-century New England, does not mean other factors are thought to be absent. Rather, it provides a far more plausible basis for decisions by members of an agricultural community than do abstract concepts such as religious or political ideologies.. Thomas Westcote's description of

Devonshire husbandmen in 1630, certainly supports this view.

How can he get wisdom that holdeth the plough, and he that glorieth only in managing of the goad to drive oxen, and is always busied in their labours, and talketh only of the breed of bullocks? he giveth his mind to turn furrows, and is diligent to give the kine fodder; yet these do maintain the state of the world, and their whole desire is knowledge in their work and occupation.!

Upon examining a handful of soil, such a farmer might have praised the Eternal Provider with sincerity and devotion—if it fit his idea of fertile earth. Being conservative by nature, the farmer might also have insisted to the point of violence upon his right to pronounce his praise in a specific manner. Dealings with his peers and superiors in matters of politics revolved about controversies over the quantity and shape of land distributions, access

Westcote, A View of Devonshire in 1630, 50. 103

roads to fields, deeds and titles, trespass, commons regulations, water rights, etc. While it is not claimed that religion, politics and social values were unimportant to the seventeenth-century husbandman, they were decidedly subordinate determinants to the soil and the agricultural use of that soil — even in "Puritan" communities of New England. Appendix I 104

DORCHESTER RESIDENTS ADMITTED FREEMEN

OF THE COLONY OF MASSACHUSETTS BAY. 18 MAY 1631

County Date of Name of origin arrival

Mr. John Maverack"*" Devon 30 May 1630

Mr. John.Warham Devon 30 May 1630

Capt. Rich. Southcote Devon 30 May 1630

Thomas Stoughton Essex 30 May 1630

Bray Rossiter Dorset 30 May 1630

Biggott Egglestone Norfolk 30 May 1630

John Benham Devon 30 May 1630

Stephen Terre Dorset 30 May 1630

George Phillips Dorset 30 May 1630

Roger Williams Somerset 30 May 1630

John Moore Suffolk 30 May 1630

John Hoskins Dorset 30 May 1630

Mathew Grant Essex 30 May 1630

Simon Hoytt Dorset 6 Sept 1628

Henry S mith Dorset 30 May 1630

Thomas Ford Dorset 30 May 1630

Thomas Rawlins Essex Jun® 1630

Davy Johnson 30 May 1630

Names are listed in the'form and order they appear in the Colony Records. Appendix I 105

County Date of Name of origin Arrival

Nicholas Upsall Dorset 30 May 1630

Mr. John Burslyn Devon Sept 1623

John Peirce Gloucester June 1630

George Dyer Dorset 30 May 1630

William Rockwell Somerset 30 May 1630

Thomas Moore Suffolk 30 May 1630

John Grinnoway Surrey 30 May 1630

Thomas Lumberd Devon 30 May 1630

William Gallerd Somerset 30 May 1630

William Felpes Somerset 30 May 1630 Appendix II 106

DATES OF DORCHESTER TOWN MEETINGS

AS GIVEN IN DORCHESTER TOWN RECORDS

Dorchester Subsequent Colony Town Meeting Court Meeting

16 Jan 1633 (Wed)

5 Aug 1633 (Mon) 1 6 Aug 1633 (Boston) 8 Oct 1633 (Tue)* 3 Nov 1633 (Sun) 5 Noc 1633 (Boston) 2 Dec 1633 (Mon)

6 Jan 1634 (Mon)* 5[May]1634 (Mon) 14 May 1634 (Boston)** 17 May 1634 (Sat) 20 May 1634 (Tue) 24 May 1634 (Sat) 2 Jun 1634 (Mon) 3 Jun 1634 (Newtown) 1 Sep 1634 (Mon) 3 Sep 1634 (Newtown) 28 Oct 1634 (Tue) 3 Nov 1634 (Mon) 7 Nov 1634 (Newtown) 22 Nov 1634 (Sat) 29 Dec 1634 (Mon)

10 Fdb 1635 (Tue) 17 Apr 1635 (Fri) 5 Jul 1635 (Sun) 7 Jul 1635 (Newtown) 12 Aug 1635 (Wed) 11 Nov 1635 (Wed) 17 Dec 1635 (Thu)

18 Jan 1636 (Tue) 1 Feb 1636 (Tue) 18 Feb 1636 (Fri) 1 Mar 1636 (Tue) 1 Mar 1636 (Newtown) 3 Mar 1636 (Newtown)** 27 Jun 1636 (Mon) 5 Jul 1636 (Tue) 2 Oct 1636 (Sat)

*These dates designated in the Town Records as "Mooneday." **Meetings of the General Court.

^"On this date the Town Meeting ordered, "their shall be every Mooneday, before the Court, by eight of the Clocke in the morning, and presently, upon the beating of the drum, a generall meeteing of the inhabitants of the Plantation." 107 Appendix II

Dorchester Subsequent Colony Town Meeting Court Meeting

16 Jan 1637 • (Mon) 2 May 1637 (Tue) 17 May 1637 (Newtown) 9 May 1637 (Tue) 2 Sep 1637 (Sat) 10 Sep 1637 (Sun)

2 Jan 1638 (Tue) 18 Mar 1638 (Sun) 3 Apr 1638 (Tue) 23 Apr 1638 (Mon) 20 Jul 1638 (Fri) 30 Oct 1638 (Tue) 14 Nov 1638 (Wed)

5 Feb 1639 (Tue) 13 Feb 1639 (Wed) 20 May 1639 (Mon) 22 May 1639 (Boston)** 31 Oct 1639 (Thu)

1 Apr 1640 (Wed) 8 Jun 1640 (Mon) 29 Sep 1640 (Tue) 7 Oct 1640 (Boston)** 28 Oct 1640 (Wed) 29 Oct 1640 (Boston) Appendix III 108

DORCHESTER BOARDS OF SELECTMEN

Board of Selectmen - 8 October 1633

County Date of Admitted Name of origin arrival freeman

John Warham* Devon 30 May 1630 18 May 1631

John Maverick Devon 30 May 1630 18 May 1631

William Gaylord* Somerset 30 May 1630 18 May 1631

William Rockwell* Somerset 30 May '1630 18 May 1631

Thomas Richards Somerset 30 May 1630 13 May 1640

Eltweed Pomeroy* Dorset 30 May 1630 4 Mar 1633

George Hull* Somerset 30 May 1630 4 Mar 1633

William Phelps* Dorset 30 May 1630 18 May 1631

Thomas Ford* Dorset 30 May 1630 18 May 1631

John Pearce Gloucester Jun 1630 18 May 1631

Davy.Johnson 30 May 1630 18 May 1631

*Removed to Windsor, Connecticut; Appendix III 109

Board of Selectmen - 28 October 1634

County Date of Admitted Name of origin arrival freeman

Thomas Newberry* Dorset 30 May 1630 3 Sep 1634

Thomas Stoughton* Essex 30 May 1630 18 May 1631

Henry Wolcott* Somerset 30 May 1630 bef.1630

Nathaniel Duncan Devon 30 May 1630 6 May 1635

William Phelps* Dorset 30 May 1630 18 May 1631

William Hathorne Berkshire Jun 1630 14 May 1634

Roger Williams* Somerset 30 May 1630 18 May 1631

George Minot Essex 30 May 1630 1 Apr 1634

Giles Gibbs* Dorset 30 May 1630 4 Mar 1632

Henry Smith** Dorset Jun 1630 18 May 1631

*Removed to Windsor, Connecticut. **Removed to Springfield, Massachusetts. Appendix III 110

Board of Selectmen - 11 November 16351

County Date of Admitted Name of origin arrival freeman

William Phelps* Dorset 30 May 1630 18 May 1631

Nathaniel Duncan Devon 30 May 1630 6 May 1635

George Hull* Somerset 30 May 1630 4 Mar 1633

Thomas Dimmock Somerset 1635 25 May 1636

William Gaylord Somerset 30 May 1630 18 May 1631

Roger Williams Somerset 30 May 1630 18 May 1631

George Minot Essex 30 May 1630 1 Apr 1634

John Phillips Jun 1630 7 Aug 1632

Thomas Newberry* Dorset 30 May 1630 3 Sep 1634

SRemoved to Windsor, Connecticut. "^Elected for a six-month term. Appendix III 111

Board of Selectmen - 27 June 1636

County Date of Admitted Name of origin arrival freeman

Roger Ludlow* Wiltshire 30 May 1630 18 May 1631

Israel Stoughton Essex 24 Jul 1633 5 Nov 1633

Nathaniel Duncan Devon 30 May 1630 6 May 1635

George Hull* Somerset 30 May 1630 4 Mar 1633

William Gaylord* Somerset 30 May 1630 18 May 1631

George Minot Essex 30 May 1630 1 Apr 1634

Thomas Ford* Dorset 30 May 1630 18 May 1631

Richard Collecott Devon 30 May 1630 4 Mar 1633

Augustine Clement Berkshire 3 Jun 1635 25 May 1636

Thomas Dimmock Somerset 1635 25 May 1636

George Dyer Dorset 30 May 1630 18 May 1631

John Phillips Jun. 1630 7 Aug 1632

Roger Williams* Somerset - 30 May 1630 18 May 1631

*Removed to Windsor, Connecticut.

^Elected for a six-month term. 112

Appendix IV

DORCHESTER DEPUTIES TO THE GENERAL COURT

General Court County of Admitted Date Name Origin Freeman

9 May 1632 WilliamTjJPhelps* Somerset 18 May 1631 William Gaylord* Somerset 18 May 1631

14 May 1634 William Phelps* Somerset 18 May 1631 George Hull* Somerset 4 Mar 1633 Israel Stoughton Essex 3 Nov 1633

4 Mar 1635 Thomas Newberry* Dorset 3 Sep 1634 Thomas Stoughton* Essex 18 May 1631 John Mason* London 4 Mar 1635

6 May 1635 Thomas Newberry* Dorset 3 Sep 1634 William Phelps* Somerset 18 May 1631 William Hathorne Berkshire 14 May 1634 William Bartholomew London 4 Mar 1635

2 Sep 1635 William Bartholomew London 4 Mar 1635 John Mason* London 4 Mar 1635 William Gaylord* Somerset 18 May 1631 Nathaniel Duncan Devon 6 May 1635

3 Mar 1631 William Bartholomew .London 4 Mar 1635 Nathaniel Duncan Devon 6 May 1635 William Gaylord* Somerset 18 May 1631 George Minot Essex 1 Apr 1634

25. May 1636 William Gaylord* Somerset 18 May 1631 George Minot Essex 1 Apr 1634 George Hull* Somerset 4 Mar 1633

8 Sep 1636 Nathaniel Duncan Devon 6 May 1635 George Minot Essex 1 Apr 1634 Richard Collecott Devon 4 Mar 1633

*Removed to Windsor, Connecticut. Appendix IV

General Court County of Admitted Date Name Origin Freeman

7 Dec 1636 William Hathorne Berkshire 14 May 1634 Israel Stoughton Essex 3 Nov 1633 William Read North'd 2 Sep 1635

18 Apr 1637 Israel Stoughton Essex 3 Nov 1633 Richard Collecott Devon 4 Mar 1633 John Glover Lancashire bef 1630

17 May 1637 George Minot Essex 1 Apr 1634 John Glover Lancashire bef 1630 Richard Collecott Devon 4 Mar 1633

1 Aug 1637 Nathaniel Duncan Devon 6 May 1635 John Glover Lancashire bef 1630 William Gaylord* Somerset 18 May 1631

26 Sep 1637 . John Glover Lancashire bef 1630 Nathaniel Duncan Devon 6 May 1635

2 Nov 1637 William Bartholomew London 4 Mar 1635 Nathaniel Duncan Devon 6 May 1635 Richard Collecott Devon 4 Mar 1633 John Glover Lancashire bef 1630

12 Mar 1638 William Bartholomew London 4 Mar 1635 Nathaniel Duncan Devon 6 May 1635 John Glover Lancashire bef 1630 Thomas Jones Essex 13 Mar 1639

2 May 1638 William Bartholomew London 4 Mar 1635 Nathaniel Duncan Devon 6 May 1635 John Glover Lancashire bef 1630

6 Sep 1638 Nathaniel Duncan Devon 6 May 1635 John Glover Lancashire bef 1630 William Read North'd 2 Sep 1635 Humphrey Atherton Lancashire 2 May 1638

13 Mar 1639 William Bartholomew London. 4 Mar 1635 John Glover Lancashire bef 1630 Thomas Jones Essex 13 Mar 1639 John Pearce Gloucester 18 May 1631

*Removed to Windsor, Connecticut. Appendix IV

General Court County of Admitted Date . Name Origin Freeman

22 May 1639 John Glover Lancashire bef 1630 Humphrey Atherton Lancashire 2 May 1638 John Stowe Kent 3 Sep 1634

4 Sep 1639 John Stowe Kent 3 Sep 1634 John Glover Lancashire bef 1630 Thomas Hawkins London 22 May 1639

5 Nov 1639 John Stowe Kent 3 Sep 1634 John Glover Lancashire bef 1630 Nathaniel Duncan Devon 6 May 1635

13 May 1640 John Glover Lancashire bef 1630 Nathaniel Duncan Devon 6 May 1635

7 Oct 1640 John Glover Lancashire bef 1630 Nathaniel Duncan Devon 6 May 1635

2 Jun 1641 John Glover Lancashire bef 1630 Humphrey Atherton Lancashire 2 May 1638 Appendix V

DORCHESTER TOWN OFFICES

OTHER THAN SELECTMAN AND DEPUTY TO THE GENERAL COURT

Date of elect. County Admitted and office Name of origin freeman

8 Oct 1633 John Warham* Devon 18 May 1631 fence viewer Henry Smith Dorset 18" May -1631 John Greenway Surrey 18 May 1631 Thomas Thorneton 3 Sep 1634 John Phillips 7 Aug 1632 John Hoskins* Dorset 18 May 1631 Simon Hoyte* Dorset 18 May 1631 William Hosford* Dorset 1 Apr 1634 David Wilton* Norfolk 11 Jun 1633

3 Nov 1633 H6nry Wolcott* Somerset bef 1630 raterl Davy Johnson 18 May 1631 George Hull* Somerset 4 Mar 1633 William Phelps* Somerset ; 18 May 1631 Eltweed Pomeroy* Dorset 4 Mar 1633 Giles Gibbs* Dorset 4 Mar 1633

3 Nov 1633 William Phelps* Somerset 18 May 1631 town surveyor Thomas Stoughton* Essex ~ ' 18Ma y 1631

6 Jan 1634 Thomas Ford* Dorset 18 May 1631 rate collector Roger Clap Devon 14 May 1634

20 May 1634 Henry Wolcott* Somerset bef 1630 fence viewer Davy Johnson 18 May 1631 Walter Filer* Northampton 14 May 1634

24 May 1634 Thomas Ford* Dorset 18 May 1631 fence viewer John Phillips 7 Aug 1632 Matthew Grant* Essex 18 May 1631 George Phillips* Dorset 18 May 1631 John Moore* Suffolk 18 May 1631 John Hoskins* Dorset 18 May 1631 Simon Hoyte* Dorset 18 May 1631

*Removed to Windsor, Connecticut.

"*"Tax assessor. Date of elect. County Admitted and office Name of origin freeman

2 June 1634 Bray Rossiter* Dorset 18 May' 1631 rater George Hull* Somerset 4 Mar 1633 Thomas Stoughton* Essex 18 May 1631 Richard Collecott Devon 4 Mar 1633 Roger Williams* Somerset 18 May 1631 John Pearce Gloucester 18 May 1631 John Bursley Devon 18 May 1631

28 Oct 1634 Bailiff Nicholas Upsal Dorset 18 May 1631

10 Feb 1635 Henry Wolcott* Somerset bef 1630 fence viewer Stephen Terry* Dorset 18 May 1631 Thomas Moore* Suffolk 18 May 1631 Walter Filer* Northampton 14 May 1634 Thomas Ford* Dorset 18 May 1631 William Phelps* Dorset 18 May 1631 Thomas Stoughton* Essex 18 May 1631 William Hosford* Dorset 1 Apr 1634 Roger Clap Devon 14 May 1634 Chris. Gibson Bucks X

11 Nov 1635 Nathaniel Duncan Devon 6 May 1635 surveyor Thomas Dimmock Somerset 25 May 1636 Thomas Ford* Dorset 18 May 1631 Matthew Grant* Essex 18 May 1631

11 Nov 1635 bailiff Walter Filer* Northampton 14 May 1634

18 Jan 1636 John Gilbert* Wiltshire 4 Dec 1638 rater Thomas Makepeace Warwick X Thomas Jones Essex 13 Mar 1639 Richard Collecott Devon 4 Mar 1633 George Dyer Dorset 18 May 1631 Walter Filer* Northampton 14 May 1634

2 Oct 1636 William Gaylord* Somerset 18 May 1631 rater George Dyer Dorset 18 May 1631 William Hathorne Berks 14 May 1634

2 Oct 1636 bailiff Joseph Flood Essex X

^Removed to Windsor, Connecticut. Date of elect, County Admitted and office Name of origin freeman

16 Jan 1637 George Minot Essex 1 Apr 1634 fence viewer John Phillips 7 Aug 1632 John Glover Lancashire bef 1630 John Holman Dorset X Zach.- Whiteman Bucks X Henry Withington Lancashire X Edmund Munnings Essex X George Dyer Dorset 18 May 1631 Thomas Makepeace Warwick X John Moore* Suffolk 18. May 1631 Jos. Farnsworth 14 Mar 1639 William Read Northumberland 2 Sep 1635 William Sumner Oxford 17 May 1637 Richard Hawes Bucks 2 May 1638 John Pope Kent 3 Sep 1634 Edward Clap Devon 7 Dec 1636

18 Mar 1638 John Holman Dorset X fence viewer Richard Collecott Devon 4 Mar 1633 John Pearce Gloucester 18 May 1631 John Hill Somerset X Edmund Munnings Essex X George Dyer Dorset 18 May 1631 LssjfiiThomas Wiswall London X Wil-liam Read Northumberland 2 Sep 1635 William Sumner Oxford 17 May 1637 f, Richard Hawes Bucks 2 May 1638 Roger Clap Devon 14 May 1634 Edward Clap Devon 7 Dec 1636 Thomas Makepeace Warwick X John Phillips 7 Aug 1632

18 Mar 1638 Robert Deeble Dorset 6 May 1635 Bailiff

30 Oct 1638 James Bates Kent 7 Dec 1636 rater Roger Clap Devon 14 May 1634 Chris. Gibson Bucks X Barnabas Farr Gloucester X John Capen Dorset 14 May 1634

13 Feb 1639 Nicholas Butler Kent 14 Mar 1639 fence viewer John Wiswall London 14 Mar 1639 Edward Breck Lancashire 22 May 1639 John Holland 7 Dec 1636

*Removed to Windsor, Connecticut. Date of elect, . County Admitted and office Name of origin freeman

13 Feb 1639 Robert Deeble Dorset 6: May 1635 bailiff

20 May 1639 John Wiswall London 14 Mar 1639 fence viewer Roger Clap Devon 14 May 1634 Jos. Farnsworth 14 Mar 1639 Thomas Jones Essex 13 Mar 1639 William Sumner Oxford 17 May 1637 John Glover Lancashire bef 1630 John Holman . Dorset X

31 Oct 1639 John Glover Lancashire bef 1630 surveyor John Holman Dorset X John Phillips 7 Aug 1632

31 Oct 1639 Robert Deeble Dorset 6 May 1635 bailiff

28 Sep 1630 Thomas Stoughton* Essex 18 May 1631 constable

3 Jun 1634 Eltweed Pomeroy* Dorset 4 Mar 1633 constable

7 Jul 1635 Stephen Terry* Dorset 18 May 1631 constable

7 Jun 1636 John Phillips 7 Aug 1632 constable

6 Jun 1639 Chris. Gibson Bucks X cons table

*Removed to Windsor, Connecticut. 119 Appendix VI

DORCHESTER POPULATION: ADULT MALE RESIDENTS

County of origin 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 1638 1639 1640

Dorset 23. 23 23. 32 33 36 31 17 14 11 9

Somerset 20* - 19 20. 21 21 24 22 10 9 5 3

Wiltshire: 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1

Devon 17 18 16 19 23. 23 20 19 18 17 15

Essex 10 10 10 11 13 15 11 8 8 6 5

Suffolk 444 4 5 6 6 4 2 4 4

Norfolk 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 222

London 1 il 3 4 6 10 9 7 8 7 5

Kent - - - 2 5 7 6 • 11 11 11 9

Bucks 22.23 47 7 8 8 7 7

Surrey 1 1 1 1 1 23 33 33

Hertford - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Hampshire - - - - - 11 1 1 1 1

Gloucester 1 1 1 224 4 4 3 3 2

Berkshire 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 222

Warwick 1 11 1 1 21 1 1 1

Oxford - - -• - - 1 22 21 1

Northampton 1 221 1 1 1 - ,4-;

Lincoln 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1

Yorkshire - - - - - 23 3 221

Lancashire 1 11 1 1 13 13 13 13 13 12

Northumberl 'd - - - - - 1 1 1 11

Totals 84 88 91 108 123 164 150 120 111 100 83 Appendix VII 120

DORCHESTER FREEMEN

County of origin 1630 1631 1632 . 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 1638 1639 1640

Dorset 9 10 13 20 24 22 11 9 7 7

Somerset 5 5 6 11 14 12 3 3 1 1

Wiltshire 1 1 1 1 1 1

Devon 7 5 7 11 13 11 10 9 9 9

Essex 3 3 5 7 9 6 4 5 4 4

Suffolk 2 2 2 2 3 1 1 2

Norfolk 1 1 1 1

London 1 2 4 5 3 2 3 2

Kent 4 4 5 5 5 7 5

Bucks 1 1 1 1 3 3 4

Surrey .1 1 1 2 2 3 3

Hertford 1 1-1 1 1 1 1 1

Hampshire

Gloucester 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Berkshire 1 1- 2 1 1 1 1

Warwick 1 1

Oxford

Northampton 1 1 1

Lincoln 1 2 2 1

Yorkshire 1

Lancashire 3 7

Northumberl'd 1

Totals 31 29 40 68 83 76 49 50 52 51 1'21 Appendix VIII

DORCHESTER TOWN OFFICES:

DISTRIBUTION. OF OFFICE HOLDERS BY COUNTIES OF ORIGIN

Deputies Fence Town to Gen. Ct. Selectmen Raters* viewers Surveyors Bailiff

1632-33 Dorset 3 of 7 2 of 6 4 of 9 1 of 2 Somerset 2 of 2 2 of 7 3 of 6 Devon 1 of 9 Other 1 of 7 2 of 9 1 of 2

1634 Dorset 4 of 10 1 of 9 4 of 10 1 of 1 Somerset 2 of 3 2 of 10 3 of 9 1 of 10 Devon 1 of 10 2 of 9 Other 1 of 3 3 of 10 2 of 9 3 of 10

1635 Dorset 2 of 11 1 of 9 4 of 10 1 of 4 Somerset 2 of 11 4 of 9 1 of 10 1 of 4 Devon 1 of 11 1 of 9 1 of 10 1 of 4 Other 6 of 11 1 of 9 4 of 10 i of 4

1636 Dorset 2 of 13 2 ofl 9 Somerset 3 ofl 13 4 of 13 1 of 9 Devon 3 of 13 2 of 13 1 of 9 Other 7 of 13 4 of 13 . 5 of 9

1637 Dorset 3 of 22 2 of 16 Somerset 1 of 15 1 of 22 Devon 6 of 15 6 of 22 1 of 16 Other 8 of 15 11 of 22 11 of 16

1638 Dorset 4 of 30 1 of 5 3 of 14 1 of 1 Somerset 1 of 30 Devon 3 of 11 5 of 30 1 of 5 3 of 14 Other 8 of 11 15 of 30 3 of 5 6 of 14

1639 Dorset 1 of 11 1 of 2 1 of I Somerset Devon 1 of 13 1 of 7 1 of 11 Other L2 of 13 5 of 7 5 of 11 1 of 2

*Tax assessor Appendix IX

OWNERS OF DAIRY CATTLE

IN DORCHESTER, 3 APRIL 1633

County Name of origin

Roger Ludlow* Wiltshire Heniey Wolcott* Somerset Bray Rossiter* Somerset Stephen Terry* Dorset Henry Smith** Dorset Humphrey Gallop* Dorset Thomas Ford* Dorset John Warham* Devon John Maverick Devon George Hull* Somerset Matthew Grant* Essex William Rockwell* Somerset John Hoskins* Dorset Nicholas Denslow* Dorset Giles Gibbs* Dorset William Phelps* Somerset Simon Hoyte* Dorset Thomas Stoughton* Essex Eltweed Pomeroy* Dorset William Gaylord* Somerset George Dyer Dorset

*Removed to Windsor, Connecticut. **Removed to Springfield, Massachusetts. Appendix X

DORCHESTER VITAL STATISTICS, 1630-1640

Parish and Freeman- Migration Name and county of Arrived •• Years in church Dorchester in New England age on arrival origin N.' Eng. Dorchester member Town offices year destination

Samuel Allen Bums tead 1630-1636 6 May 1635 1636 Windsor (42) Steeple,Essex 30 May 1630

Peter Aspinwall Toxteth, 1635-1650 Lancashire 17 Aug 1635

Humphrey Atherton Atherton, 1635-1640+ 2 May 1638 Select, 1638 17 Aug 1635 x Lancashire 1639 Deputy, 1638 1639

Auditor,1638 William Barber Ludgate Hillj 1638-1639 1639 Marblehead London x

William Bartholomew London 18 Sep 1634 1634-1640+ 4 Mar 1635 Deputy, 1635 x 1635 1636 1637 1638 1638 1639

Thomas Bascombe Fordington, 30 May 1630 1630-1635 1635 Windsor ro x CO Dorset James Bates Lydd, Kent 1635 1635-1640+ 7. Dec 1636 Select, 1637 (48) 1638 1638 Rater, 1638

John Benham Plymouth, 30 May 1630 1630-1640 18 May 1631 x 1640 New Haven Devon

William Blake Pitminster, 30 May 1630 1630-1636 14 May 1639 1636 Springfield (36) Somerset 1637-1640+

Edward Breck Ashton unddr 17 Aug 1635 1635-1641 22 May 1639 Fence 1641 Lancaster Lyne, Lanca• viewer, 1639 shire

Edward Bullock Barkham, 1635- 1635-1649 x x X (27) Berkshire

Jonathan Burr Redegrave, 1639 1639-1641 x (35) Suffolk

Exeter, Sep 1623 1631-1635 18 May 1631 x 1636 Weymouth John Burs ley Devon

Ashford, Kent 3 Jun 1637 1637-1639 14 Mar 1639 Fence 1639 Edgartown Nicholas Butler viewer, 1639

Essex Jun 1630 1630-1636 x 1636 Springfield John Cable x Bernard Capen Dorchester, 24 Jul 1633 1633-1638 25 May 1636 x (62) Dorset

John Capen Dorchester, 24 Jul 1633 1633-1692 14 May 1634 Select, 1638 x Dorset Rater, 1638

William Boston, Jun 1630 1630-1639 18 May 1631 1639 Braintree Cheeseborough (36) Lincoln Edward Clap Salcombe Regis, 1633 1633- 1665 7 Dec 1636 Select, 1637 Devon 1638 Fence 1637 viewer, 1638

Nicholas Clap Venn Ottery, 1636 1636-1640+ x x x (24) Devon

Roger Clap Salcombe Regis,30 May 1630 1630-1686 14 May 1634 Select, 1637 x (21) Devon 1638 Rater, 1638 Tax collect,1634 Fence 1634 viewer, 1639

Joseph Clarke Westhorpe, 1634- 1637 4 Mar 1635 x 1637 Windsor Suffolk

Thomas Clarke Westhorpe, 1636 1636-1643 14 May 1638 x x Suffolk

William Clarke Plymouth, 1634 1634- 1659 22 May 1639 x x (25) Devon

Augustine Clement Reading, 3 Jun 1635 1635- 1674 25 May 1636 Select, 1636 x Berkshire

John Cogan .. Exeter, 24 July 1633 1633-1640 5 Nov 1633 x x Devon

Richard Collecott Barnstaple, 30 May 1630 1630-1659 3 Mar 1633 Rater, 1634 x (27) Devon Select, 1636 1636, 1637 1638 Deputy, 1636 i—' 1637, 1637 Fence viewer, 1638 Gilbert Crackbone London 8 Oct 1635 1635-1636 7 Dec 1636 x 1637 Cambridg

Henry Cunliffe Great WooIton, 17 Aug 1635 1635-1640+ 29 May 1644 x x Lancashire

Robert Deeble Weymouth, 24 July 1633 1633-1640+ 6 May 1635 Bailiff,1638 x Dorset 1639, 1639

Thomas Deeble Weymouth, 5 May 1635 1635- 1637 17 May 1637 Windsor Dorset 1637 x

Nicholas Denslow Allifgton, 30 May 1630 1630-1636. 4 Mar 1636 Windsor Dorset 1633 x

Thomas Dewey Sandwich, 24 Jul 1633 1633-1635 14 May 1635 Windsor Kent 1634 x

Thomas Dickerman Southwark, 1636 1636- 1658 14 Mar x Surrey 1639 x

Thomas Dimmock Chesterblade, 1635 1635-1638 25 May 1636 Select, 1636 1638 Hingham Somerset Survey.1635

John Drake Winscombe, 30 May 1630 1630-1636 x x 1636 Windsor (30) Somerset

Nathaniel Duncan Exeter, 30 May 1630 1630-1645 6 May 1635 Select, 1634 x Devon 1636, 1636 1637, 1638 1638, 1639 Deputy, 1635 1636, 1636 1637, 1637 1638, 1638 1638, 1640 Survey, 1635 Auditor,1638 George Dyer Dorchester, 30 May 1630 1630-1672 18 May 1631 Select, 1636 x (51) Dorset 1638 Rater, 1636 Cons tab,1632 Fence 1637 viewer, 1638

William Dyer Strand, 1635-1637 3 Mar 1636 x 1638 Portsmouth London

John Eels Aldenham, 1633-1640 14 May 1634 x 1640 Hingham Hertford

Bigod Egglestone Norfolk 30 May 1630 1630-1635 18 May 1631 x 1635 Windsor (43) (Settrington, Yorkshire)

Robert Elwell Abbots Stoke, 1634 1634- 1638 13 May 1640 x 1638 Salem Dorset

Joseph Farnsworth Toxteth, 17 Aug 1635 1635- 1640+ 14 Mar 1639 Fence. x Lancashire Viewer, 1637 1639

Barnabas Farr Bristol, 17 Aug 1635 1635-1644 x Rater, 1638 x Gloucester

Benjamin Fenn Bucks 30 May 1630 1630-1638 x x 1638 New Haven

Walter Filer 30 May 1630 1630-1636 14 May 1634 Fence viewer, 1634 Northampton 1634

Joseph Flood 8 Oct 1635 1635-1638 x Bailiff,1636 1638 Lynn (45) Essex Thomas Ford Dorchester, 30 May 1630 1630-1635 18 May 1631 Select, 1633 1635 Windsor (43) Dorset 1636 TaK col• lector ,1634 Survey, 1635 Fence 1634 viewer,1634

Hopestill Foster Biddenden, 1635 1635-1676 22 May 1639 x x Kent

Stephen French Devon 30 May 1630 1630-1637 14 May 1634 x 1637 Weymouth

Richard Frye Exeter, 13 Nov 1634 1634-1640+ x x x Devon

Humphrey Gallop Mosterton, 30 May 1630 1630-1636 x x 1636 Windsor Dorset

John Gallop Mosterton, 30 May 1630 1630-1635 1 Apr 1634 x 1635 Boston (40) Dorset

William Gaylord Chilterne Dum- 30 May 1630 1630-1638 18 May 1631 Select, 1636 1638 Windsor (45) mer, Somerset 1636, 1638 Rater, 1636 Deputy, 1632 1635, 1636 1636, 1637 Survey, 1638

Giles Gibbs South Perrot, 30 May 1630 1630-1636 4 Mar 1632 Select, 1634 1636 Windsor Dorset Rater, 1633 Christopher Gibson Wendover, 30 May 1630 1630-1648 x Select, 1636 1648 Boston Bucks 1638 Rater, 1638 Survjiy, 1636 Constab,1637 Fence viewer,1634

John Gilbert Bratton, 30 May 1630 (50) Wiltshire 1630-1637 4 Dec 1638 x 1637 Taunton

John Gill Ashford, 3 June 1637 Kent 1637-1640+ x x x

Jonathan Gillette Chaffcombe, 30 May 1630 Somerset 1630-1636 6 May 1635 x 1636 Windsor

Nathaniel Gillette QMiicimhe 30 May 1630 Somerset. 1630-1635 14 May 1634 x 1635 Windsor

John Glover Rainhill, 30 May 1630 1630-1650 bef 1630 Select, 1636 Lancashire 1637, 1638 1638, 1639 Deputy, 1637 1637, 1637 1637, 1638 1638, 1638 1639, 1639 1639, 1640 1640 Survey, 1638 1639 Fence 1637 vidwer,1639 John Gomel 1 Devon Jun 1630 1630-1675 10 May 1643 x x

Matthew Grant Hadleigh, 30 May 1630 1630-1635 18 May 1631 Fence Essex viewer,1634 Survey, 1635 1635 Windsor 1635

John Greenway Southwark, 30 May 1630 1630-1652 18 May 1631 Select, 1638 Surrey Fence viewer,1633 x Andrew Hallett Abbots Stoke, 5 May 1635 1635-1639 x x (28) Dorset 1639 Yarmouth William Hannum Dorchester, 30 May 1630 1630-1637 x x Dorset 1637 Windsor Edmond Hart Dorset 30 May 1630 1632-1636 14 May 1634 x 1636 Weymouth Thomas Hatch Wye,. Kent 1634 1634- 1639 14 May 1634 x 1639 Scituate William Hathorne Binfield, Jun 1630 1630-1636 14 May 1634 Select, 1634 Berkshire Deputy, 1635 1636 Salem 1636 Rater, 1636

Richard Hawes Missenden, Nov 1635 1635- 1640 2 May 1638 Fence x (29) Bucks viewer,1637

Thomas Hawkins Whitechapel, 1632 1632-1639 22 May 1639 Select, 1639 x London Deputy, 1639

John Hayden Hinton-Blewetj Jun 1630 1632-1636 14 May 1634 x 1636 Braintree Somerset

William Hayden Hinton-Blewet, 30 May 1630 1630-1636 x x 1636 Windsor Somerset John Hill Chatcombe, 24 Jul 1633 1633-1640+ 2 May 1649 Fence x Somerset viewer,1639

William Hill Lyme Regis, 30 May 1630 1630-1638 5 Nov 1633 Select, 1636 1638 Windsor

Dorset 30 May 1630 1630-1635 14 May 1634 x 1635 Windsor Thomas Holcomb Warwick 24 Jul 1633 1633-1640+ 7 Dec 1636 Select, 1638 John Holland Fence viewer,1639

John Holman Swyre, 30 May 1630 1630-1652 Select, 1636 Dorset 1637, 1638 Survey, 1639 Fence 1637 viewer,1638 1639

William Horsford Dorchester, 24 Jul 1633 1633-1636 1 Apr 1634 Fence 1633 1636 Windsor Dorset viewer,1634

John Hoskins Beaminster. 30 May 1630 1630-1636 18 May 1631 Fence 1636 Windsor Dorset viewer,1634

John Hoskins, Jr, Beaminster, 30 May 1630 1630-1640+ 14 May 1634 x (19) Dorset

Thomas Hoskins Beaminster, 30 May 1630 1630-1636 6 May 1635 Fence 1636 Windsor (20) Dorset viewer,1633

Jeremy Houchin Harleston, 1638 1638-1640+ 13 May 1640 x x Norfolk

Simon Hoyte Upway, Dorset 6 Sep 1628 1630-1635 18 May 1631 Fence 1633 1635 Scituate viewer,1634 1639 Windsor William Hulbert Jun 1630 1630-1636 2 Apr 1632 x 1636 Windsor

George Hull Crewkerne, 30 May 1630 1630-1636 4 Mar 1633 Select, 1633 1636 Windsor (40) Somerset 1636 Deputy, 1634 1636 Rater, 1633 ' 1634

Jonas Humphrey Wendover, Sep 1637 1637-1640+ 13 May 1640 x x Bucks

Thomas Jeffreys Lympsham, 1634- 1638 14 May 1634 x 1638 New Haven, Somerset

Richard Jenkins Ashford, 3 Jun 1637 1637-1640+i x x x Kent

Richard Jones Dinder, 5 May 1635 1635- 1641 x x x Somerset

Thomas Jones Essex 1635 1635-1667 13 Mar 1639 Select, 1636 x 1637, 1638 1639 Deputy, 1638 1639 Fence viewer,1639

Henry Kibby St. Bennet, 1639-1640+ 18 May 1642 x X London

Thomas Kimberly Wotten sub Edge 1635-1639 x 1639 New Haven Gloucester

John Kingsley Hampshire 1635-1648 x x x William Lane Yorkshire 1635 1635-1640+ " x x x

Richard Leeds Gt. Yarmouth, 8 Junel637 1637-1640+ May 1645 x x (32) Norfolk

Richard Lippincott Devon 1629 1630-1644 13 May 1640 x X

Bernard Lombard Thorncombe; 30 May 1630 1630-1635 1 Apr (22) Devon 1634 x 1635 Scituate

Thomas Lombard Thorncombe, 30 May 1630 1630-1639 18 May 1639 Barnstable Devon 1631 x

Roger Ludlow Maiden Bradley 30 May 1630 1630-1636 bef 1636 Windsor (40) Wiltshire 1630 Select, 1636

Thomas Makepeace Burton-Dassett 1635 1635=1639 x Fence 1637 1639 Weymouth (43) Warwick viewer,1638

Thomas Marshall Alford, .1634 1634- 1636 6 May 1636 Windsor Lincoln 1635 x

Thomas Marshfield Exeter, 30 May 1630 1630-1636 x 1636 Windsor Devon x

John Mason London 30 May 1630 1630-1635 4 Mar 1635 Deputy, 1635 1635 Windsor 1635

Richard Mather Toxteth, 17 Aug 1635 x 1635- 1669 x x (39) Lancashire

John Maverick Beaworthy, 30 May 1630 1630-1635 18 May 1631 Select, 1633 x Devon Moses Maverick Huish, 30 May 1630 1630-1634 3 Sep 1634 x 1634 Salem Devon Gabriel Mead Wisbeach, 1636 1636-1640+ 2 May 1638 x (49) Cambridge

John Maudes ley . Maudesley, Nov 1635 1635-1640+ 14 Mar 1638 x Lancashire

Henry Maudes ley Maudes ley, Nov 1635 1635-1639 6 May 1646 x 1639 Braintree (24) Lancashire

un Alexander Miller Coggeshall, J 1630 1630-1640+ 2 May 1638 x Essex

Thomas Millet Southwark, 1635 1635-1640+ 17 May 1637 (30) Surrey

George Minot Saffron-Walden,30 May 1630 1630-1671 1 Apr 1634 Select, 1634 x (35) Essex 1636, 1636 1638 Deputy, 1636 1636, 1636 1637 Fence viewer,1637

John Moore Southwold, 30 May 1630 1630-1636 18 May 1631 Select, 1638 1636 Windsor Suffolk Fence 1634 viewer,1637

Thomas Moore Southwold, 30 May 1630 1630-1636 18 May 1631 Fence 1636 Windsor Suffolk viewer,1634

George Moxan Wakefield, 1636 1636-1637 7 Septl637 x 1637 Springfield (34) Yorkshire

Edmund Munnings Denge, Essex 8 Oct 1635 1635-1640+ x Samuel Newman Banbury, 1636 1636- 1638 13 May 1639 (36) Oxfordshire

Anthony Newton Colyton, 1637 1637- 1640+ x x Devon

Elias Parkman Sidmouth, 24 Jul 1633 1633-1636 6 May 1635 x 1636 Windsor Devon 1637-1638 1638 Boston

John Pearce Panington, Jun 1630 1630-1642 18 May 1631 Select, 1633 x Gloucester 1636, 1638 1639 Rater, 1634 Deputy, 1639 Fence viewer,1638

George Phelps Porlock, 30 May 1630 1630-1635 6 May 1635 Select, 1634 1635 Windsor (24) Somerset

Richard Phelps Porlock, 30 May 1630 1630-1635 x x 1635 Windsor Somerset

William Phelps Porlock, 30 May 1630 1630-1636 18 May 1631 Select, 1633 1636 Windsor (31) Somerset Deputy, 1632 1634, 1635 Rater, 1633 Survey, 1634 1633, 1634 1635 Fence viewer, 1635

George Phillips Dorset 30 May 1630 1630-1636 18 May 1631 Fence 1636 Windsor viewer,1634 John Phillips Jun 1630 1630-1645 7 Aug 1632 Delect, 1636 x 1638 Survey, 1637 1639 Fence 1637 viewer,1638

Humphrey Pinney Broadway; 30 May 1630 1630-1636 14 May 1634 x 1636 Windsor Somerset

Andrew Pitcher Kenton, 1634 1634-1661 2 Jun 1641 x X Devon

John Plumbe Gt. Yeldham, 30 May 1630 1630-1635 x 1635 Wethersfield (36) Essex

Eltweed Pomeroy Beaminster, 30 May 1630 1630-1636 4 Mar 1633 Select, 1633 1636 Windsor (45) Dorset Rater, 1633 Constab,1634

Robert Pond Groton, Jun 1630 1630-1637 18 May 1642 x x Suffolk

William Pond Groton, Jun 1630 1630-1640+ x x Suffolk

John Pope Ashford, 1633 1633-1646 3 Sep 1634 Select, 1638 Kent Fence viewer,1637

John Porter Felstead, Jun 1630 1630-1635 5 Nov 1633 x 1635 Windsor Essex

William Preston Giggleswick, Nov 1635 1635-1639 x 1639 New Haven (44) Yorkshire

ON Oliver Purchase, Jr. Dorchester, 24 Jul 1633 1633-1640+ 7 Dec 1636 x x Dorset Edward Rainsford Staverton, Jun 1630 1631-1632 17 Apr 1637 x Northampton 1632 Boston

Philip Randall Allington, 24 Jul 1633 1633- 1636 14 May 1634 x Dorset 1636 Windsor

Thomas Rawlins Nazing, Jun 1630 1634- 1640+ 18 May 1631 X Essex x

William Read Newcastle, 1635 1635- 1639 2 Sep 1635 Deputy, 1636 (48) Northumberland 1638 1639 Rohobeth Fence 1637 viewer,1638

Thomas Richards Pitminster, 30 May 1630 1630-1638 13 May 1640 1639 Weymouth Select, 1633 (40) Somerset

Richard Rockett Dorchester, 24 Jul 1633 1633-1639 x 1639 Braintree x Dorset

William Rockwell Fitzhead, 30 May 1630 1630-1636 18 May 1631 1636 Windsor x (39) Somerset

Bray Rossiter Dorchester, 30 May 1630 1630-1636 18 May 1631 1636 Windsor Rater, 1634 Dorset

Edward Rossiter Combe, 30 May 1630 1630-1630 bef 1630 x x Somerset

Hugh Rossiter Combe, 30 May 1630 1630-1637 x 1637 Taunton x Somerset

Thomas Sanford Stansted 1634 1634=1639 9 Mar 1637 1639 Hartford x Montfichet, Essex Mathias Sension London 1634 1634- 1638 3 Sep 1634 x 1638 Windsor

Nicholas Sension London 1635 1635- 1640 x X 1640 Windsor

Henry Smith Dorchester, 30 May 1630 1630-1636 Select, 1634 1636 Springfield Dorset Fence 18 May 1631 viewer,1633

John Smith Devon 30 May 1630 1630-1640+ x x x John Smith Toxteth, 17 Aug 1635 1635-1678 x x Lancashire

Matthew Smith Sandwich, 3 Jun 1637 1637-1640+ 25 May 1636 x x Kent

Richard Southcote Mohums-Ottery, 30 May 1630 1630-1631 3 May 1645 x x Devon

Thomas Southcote Mohuns-Ottery, 30 May 1630 1630-1631 18 May 1631 x x Devon

Thomas Starr Canterbury, 3 Jun 1637 1637-1641 bef 1630 x x Kent

Israel Stoughton Coggeshall, 24 July 1633 1633-1644 x Select, 1636 x Essex 1637, 1637 1638, 1637 Deputy, 1634 1636 5 Nov 1633 Thomas Stoughton Coggeshall, 30 May 1630 1630-1636 Select, 1634 1636 Windsor (30) Essex Deputy, 1635 Rater, 1634 Constab,1630 Fence 18 May 1631 viewer,1634 John Stowe Cranbrook, 17 May 1634 1634-•1643 3 Sep 1634 Deputy, 1639 X Kent 1639

George Strange Littleham, 13 Nov 1634 1634-•1639 6 May 1635 X 1639 Hingham Devon

John Strong Plymouth, 30 May 1630 1630- 1635 9 May 1637 X 1635 Hingham (25) Devon 1638 Taunton 1648 Windsor

William Sumner Bicester, 1635 1635-•1640+ 17 May 1637 Select, 1637 X (30) Oxfordshire 1638, 1638 Fence 1637 viewer,1638 1639

Thomas Swift Dorchester, 1633 1633-•1640+ 6 May 1635 X X (33) Dorset

Richard Sylvester Northover, 30 May 1630 1630-•1633 1 Apr 1634 X 1633 Weymouth Somerset

Stephen Terry Dorchester, 30 May 1630 1630-•1636 18 May 1631 Fence 1636 Windsor (22) Dorset viewer,1634

John Tilly Chilthorne 1624 1630-•1636 4 May 1635 X 1636 Windsor Domer, Somerset

Ralph Tompkins Gt.Missenden, Nov 1635 1635-•1642 2 May 1638 X X (50) Bucks

Thomas Treadwell St. Giles, Nov 1635 1635-1638 7 Sep 1638 X 1638 Ipswich (30) London

Francis Twitchell Chesham, 1634 1634-•1640+ X X X Bucks Joseph Twitchell Chesham, 1633 1633-1640+ 14 May 1634 x x Bucks

Thomas Trowbridge Taunton, 1636 1636-1639 x 1640 New Haven Somerset

Nicholas Upsal Dorchester, 30 May 1630 1630-1640+ 18 May 1631 Select, 1638 x Dorset Survey, 1635 Bailiff,1634 Tax col,1634

Richard Wade Symondsbury, 5 May 1635 1635-1637 9 Mar 1637 x 1637 Lynn (60) Dorset

Nathaniel Wales Lancashire 17 Aug 1635 1635-1651 2 Nov 1637 (49)

John Warham Exeter, 30 May 1630 1630-1636 18 May 1631 Select, 1633 1636 Windsor (35) Devon Fence viewer,1633

Thomas Waterhouse Codenham, 1639 1639-1640 13 May 1640 (39) Suffolk

Henry Waye Ailington, 30 May 1630 1630-1640+ x x (43) Dorset

George Weeks Salcombe Regis 1635 1635-1650 13 May 1640 x Devon

John Whipple Booking, 16 Sep 1632 1632-1638 13 May 1640 1638 Ipswich Essex

John Whitcomb Taunton, 1635 1635-1639 3 Jun 1652 1639 Scituate Somerset

Edward White Cranbrook, 8 Oct 1635 1635-1640+ 7 Dec 1636 x x (42) Kent Zachariah Lee, Bucks Nov 1635 1635-1640+ x Fence x Whiteman viewer,1636

Richard Williams Sinwell, 1633 1633-1637 x x 1637 Taunton Gloucester

Roger Williams Harptree, 30 May 1630 1630-1636 18 May 1631 Select, 1634 1636 Windsor Somerset 1636 Rater, 1634

David Wilton Topcroft, Jun 1630 1630-1635 11 Jun 1633 Fence 1635 Windsor Norfolk viewer,1633

John Wiswall London 1635 1635-1640+ 14 Marl639 Select, 1639 x Fence 1639 viewer,1639

Thomas Wiswall London 1635 1635-1657 x Fence x viewer,1638

John Witchfield St. Mary, 16 Sep 1632 1632-1636 11 Jun 1633 x 1636 Windsor London or Exeter, Devon

HenrycWithington Atherton, 17 Aug 1635 1635-1667 x Select, 1636 x Lancashire 1638 Fence viewer,1637

Henry Wolcott Tolland, 30 May 1630 1630-1636 bef 1630 Select, 1634 1636 Windsor (52) Somerset Rater, 1633 Fencd 1634 viewer,1634

Henry Wolcott,Jr. Tolland, 30 May 1630 1630-1636 1 Apr 1634 x 1636 Windsor (23) Somerset

Henry Woodward Gt. Woolton, 17 Aug 1635 1635-1658 10 May 1643 x x Lancashire 142

SELECTIVE BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. Primary Sources

1. Contemporary Sources

Ames, William. The Marrow of_Sacred Divinity. London, 1642.

Baillie, Robert. A Dissuasive from the Errours of the Time. London, 1645.

Blith, Walter. The English Improver, improved. London, 1653.

Bradford, William. "Letter Book," The Mayflower Descendant, VII (January, 1905), 79-82.

' History of Plymouth Plantation, 1620-1647. Boston: Massachusetts . Historical Society, 1912.

Camden, William. Britannia, or a Chorographic description of the flourishing Kingdomes of England, Scotland and Ireland and the Islands adjacent. London, 1806.

Cotton, John., A Coppy of a letter of Mr. Cotton of Boston, in New-England, sent in answer of certaine Objections made against their Discipline and Orders there, directed to a Friend. London, 1641

. A Letter of Mr. John Cottons, Teacher of the Church in Boston, in New-England, to Mr. Williams a Preacher"there, Wherein is shewed, that those ought to be received into the Church who are Godly, though they , doe not see, nor expresslly bewaile all the pollutions in Church- fellowship, Ministery, Worship, Government. London, 1643.

. A Sermon Preached by the Reverend Mr. John Cotton Deliver'd at Salem, 1636. Boston, 1713.

_. A Treatise I. Of Faith. II. Twelve Fundamental Articles of Christian Religion. III. A Doctrinal Conclusion. IV. Questions and answers upon Church-Government. Boston, 1713.

. An abstract or the Lawes of New England, As they are now established.

London, 1641.

. Gods Promise to His Plantation. London, 1630.

. The Grounds and Ends of Baptisme oj[ the Children of the Faithfull, Opened in a familiar discourse by way of a dialogue. London, 1647. Mi3j

. The Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven, and Power thereof, According to the Word of God. Jjjondon, 1644.

. The New Covenant, or a Treatise unfolding the order and manner of giving and receiving the Covenant of Grace. London, 1654.

. The True Constitution of a particular visible Church, proved by Scripture wherein is briefly demonstrated by questions & answdrs what officers, worship and government Christ hath ordained in his Church. London, 1642.

. The Way of Congregational Churches Cleared; in two treatisies. London, 1648.

Gardiner, Henry. New Englands Vindication. London, 1660.

Gerard, Thomas. The Particular Description of the County of Somerset, 1630. Edited by E. H. Bates. London, 1900.

Gorges, Sir Ferdinando. A Brief narration of the original undertakings of of the advancement of plantations into the parts of America. London, 1658.

Harrison, William. The Description of England. Edited by Georges Edelen. Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell University Press, 1968.

Higginson, Francis. New-Englands Plantation, or a Short and True Description of the Commodities and Discommodities of the Countrey. London, 1630.

Hooker, Thomas. A Survey of the Summe of Church-Discipline. London, 1648.

. "Rev. Thomas Hookers' Letter, in Reply to Governor Winthrop,"

Connecticut Historical Society, Collections, I (1860), 1-18.

. The Poor Doubting Christian drawn to Christ. London, 1629.

. The Soules effectual calling to Christ. London, 1637. Johnson, Edward. Wonder-Working Providence. Edited by J. Franklin Jameson. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1910.

Lechford, Thomas. Plain Dealing: or, Newes from New-England. London, 1642.

Leland, John. The Itinerary of John Leland in or about the Years 1535-1543. Edited by Lucy Toulin Smith. Carbondale, 111.: Southern Illinois University Press, 1964.

Markham, Gervase. The English Husbandman. London, 1635.

Mascall, Leonard. The government of cattel. London, 1620. 144

Mather, Richard. An Apologie of the Churches of New-England for Church- Covenant. London, 1643.

. An Answer of the Elders of the severall Churches in New-England unto Nine Positions sent over to them. London, 1643.

Maverick, Samuel. "A Briefe discription of New England and the Severall Townes therein," New England Historical and Genealogical Register, XXXIX (1885), 34-48.

Morrell, William. New-England; or, A Brief enarration of the ayre, earth, water, fish and fowles of that country,with a description of the natures, orders, habits, and religion of the natives. London, 1625.

Morton, Thomas. The New England Canaan. Boston: The Prince Society, 1883.

Norden, John. England; an intended guyde for English Travailers. London, 1625.

Piatt, Sir Hughj Diverse new sorts of Soyle. London, 1594.

Plattes, Gabriel. Practical Husbandry Improv'd. London, 1656.

Rathband, William. A Dissuasive from the Errors of the Times. London, 1645.

Shepard, Thomas. . "Thomas Shepard's Election Sermon, in 1638," New England Hisf rical and Genealogical Register, XXIV (1870), 361-366.

Westcote, Thomas. A View of Devonshire in 1630. Edited by G. Oliver and P. Jones. Ex eter, 1845.

/White, John/. The Planters Plea. London: William Jones, 1630.

Wilson, Thomas. A Christian Dictionary, Opening the signification of the chiefe wordes dispersed generally through Holie Scriptures of the • Old and New Testament, tending to increase Christian Knowledge. London: W. Jaggard, 1612.

Winthrop Papers. Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1931.

Winthrop, John. The History of New England from 1630 to 1649. Edited by James Savage. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1853.

. The Hist#ry of New England, 1630-1649. Edited by James Kendall Hosmer. New'York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1908.

Wood, William. New Englands Prospect. London, 1634.

Young, Alexander. Chronicles of the First Planters of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay from 1623 to 1636. Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1844. 145

2. Printed Documents

Calender of State Papers, Colonial Series, 1574-1660. London: Longman, Green, Longman, & Roberts, 1860.

Connecticut Probate Records, Edited by Charles William Manwaring. Hartford: R. S. Peck and Co., 1904.

The Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut. Edited by J. Hammond Trumbull. Hartford: Brown & Parsons, 1850.

Records of the First Church at Dorchester in New England, 1636-1734. Boston: George H. Ellis, 1891.

Fourth Report of the Record Commissioners of the City of Boston 1880. Dorchester Town Records. Boston: Rockwell and Churchill, 1883.

Dorchester (Mass.) Town Records, in New England Historical and Geneal• ogical Register, XXI (1867), 163-168, 269-277, 329-338; XXII (1868), 48-55.

Force, Peter. Tracts and Other Papers, Relating Principally to the Origin, Settlement, and Progress of the Colonies in North America, from the Discovery of the Country to the Year 1776. New York: Peter Smith, 1947.

Thomas Hutchison. A Collection of Original Papers Relative to the Colony of Massachusetts Bay. Boston: Thomas and John Fleet, 1769.

The Laws and Liberties of Massachusetts, Reprinted from the Copy of 1648 Edition in the Henry Huntington Library. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1729.

R'i2coti3s£(5f BhehGovernor and Company of Massachusetts Bay in New England. Edited by Nathaniel B. Shurtleff. Boston: William White Press, 1853.

Colonial Justicd in Massachusetts, 1639-1702. Edited by Joseph H. Smith. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1961.

Suffolk Deeds, 17 April 1629 to 23 December 1697. Boston: Rockwell and Churchill, 1880. 146

3. Atlases, Gazetteers, and Geographies.

The Atlas of Britain and Northern Ireland. Planned and directed by D. P. Bickmore and M. A. Shaw. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963.

Britton, John, and Edward Wedlake Brayley. The Beauties of England and Wales; or, Delineations, Topographical, Historical, and Descriptive, of Each County. London: Thomas Maiden, 1803.

Bunting, Brian T. The Geography of Soils. London: Hutchinson & Co., 1965.

Coppock, J. T. An Agricultural Atlas of England and Wales. London: Faber and Faber, 1964.

Hitchcock, Edward. Report on the Geology, Mineralogy, Botany, and Zoology of Massachusetts. Amherset: J. S. and C. Adams, 1835.

Hitchcock, Edward. Final Report on the Geology of Massachusetts. North• ampton, Mass.: J. H. Butler, 1841.

Howell, J. Pryse. An Agricultural Atlas of England and Wales. Southampton: Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, 1925.

Lewis, Samuel. A Topographical Dictionary of England.. London: S. Lewis & Co., 1844.

The Parliamentary Gazetteer of England and Wales, Forming a Complete County-Atlas of England. London: A. Fullarton and Co., 1845.

Percival, James G. Repoot on the Geology of the State of Connecticut. New Haven: Osborn & Baldwin, 1842.

Shirlaw, D. W. Gilchrist. An Agricultural Geography of Great Britain. London: Pergamon Press, 1966.

Soil Survey Manual. Prepared by the Soil Survey Staff, Bureau of Plant Industry., Soils and Agricultural Engineering. Washington, D. C. : United States .Department of Agriculture, 1962.

Speed, John. John Speed's England: A Coloured Facsimile of the Maps and Text from the Theatre of the Empire of Great Britaine. London: Phoenix House, 1954.

Watson, J. Wreford, and J. B. Sissons. The British Isles: A Systematic Geography. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1964. 14:7

II. Secondary Sources

1. Books

Adams, Charles Francis. Three Episodes of Massachusetts History: The of Boston Bay, The Antinomian Controversey, A Study of Church and Town Government. 2 Vols. New York: Russell & Russell, 1965.

Adams, Herbert Baxter. The Germanic Origin of New England Towns. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1883.

Adams, James Truslow. The Founding of New England. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1949.

Adams, Sherman W., and Henry R. Stiles. The History of Anpient Wethers- field, Connecticut. 2 Vols. New York: The Grafton Press, 1904.

Aiken, William Appleton, and Basil Duke Henning, ed. Conflict in Stuart England: Essays in Honour of Wallace Notestein. London: Jonathan Cape, 1960.

Akagi, Roy Hidemichi. The Town PropEietors of the New England Colonies: A Study of their Development Organization, Activities and Contro• versies, 1620-1770. Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, 1963.

Andrews, Charles M. The Colonial Period in American History. Vol. II: The Settlementsa. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1934.

. The River Towns of Connecticut: A Study of Wethersfield, Hartford, and Windsor. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1889.

Ashley, Maurice. Life in Stuart England. London: B. T~, Batsford, 1964.

Ashley, Sir William, The Bread of Our Forefathers: An Inquiry in Economic History. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1928.

Bardsley, Charles Wareing. Curiosities of Puritan Nomenclature. London: Chatto & Windus, 1897.

Baring-Gould, S. A Book of Devon. London: Methuen & Co., 1920.

Barnes,GThdmasBGardeo. Somerset, 1625-1640: A County's Government During the "Personal Rule." Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1961.

Bacon, Leomard. The Genesis of the New England Churches. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1874.

Bainton, Roland H. Christian Unity and Religion in New England. Boston: "Beacon Press, 1964. 148

Barton, William E. Congregational Creeds and Covenants. Chicago: Advance Publishing Co., 1917.

Battis, Emery. . Saints and Sectaries: Anne Hutvhinson and the Antinomian Controversy in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. . Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1962.

Bidwell, Percy Wells, and John I.. Falconer. History of Agriculture in the Northern United States, 1620-1860. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institute, 1925.

Black, Robert C. The Younger John Winthrop. New York:.Columbia University Press, 1966.

Blake, James. Annals of the Town of Dorchester. Boston: Dorchester Anti• quarian and Historical Society, 1846.

Bolton, Charles Knowles. The Founders: Portraits of Persons Born Abroad Who Came to the Colonies in North America before the Year 1701. Boston, 1919.

. The Real Founders of New England: Stories of their Life Along the Coast, 1602-1628. Boston: F. W.: Faxon Co., 1929.

Bridenbaugh, Carl. Vexed and Troubled Englishmen, 1590-1642. New York: Oxford University Press, 1968.

• Burrage, Champlin. The Early English Dissenters in the Light of Recent Research, 1550-1641. 2 Vols. New Yprk: Russell & Russell, 1967.

Calder, Elizabeth M. Letters of John Davenport, Puritan Divine. New Haven: . Yale University Press, 1937.

. Activities of the Puritan Faction of the Church of England, 1625-33. London: S. P. C. K., 1957.

Carroll, Peter N. Puritanism and the Wilderness: The Intellectual Significance of the New England Frontier, 1629-1700. New York: Columbia University Press, 1969.

Channing, Edward. Town and County Government in the English Colonies of North America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1884.

Clark, Alice. Working Life of Women in the Seventeenth Century. London: Frank Cass & Co., 1919.

Coleman, Roy V. Roger Ludlow in Chancery. Westport, Conn., 1934.

. Conant, Frederick 0. Life of Roger Conant. Salem, 1926. 149

Covey, Cyclone. The Gentle Radical; A Biography of Roger Williams. New York; , Macmillan Co., 1966.

Dale, R. W. History of English Congregationalism. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1907.

Darby, H. C., ed. An Historical Geography of England before 1800. Cambridge: The University Press, 1961.

Davies, Horton. The Worship of the English Puritans. Westminster: Dacre Press, 1948.

DeJong, Peter Y. • The Covenant Idea in New England Theology, 1620-1847. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Cp., 1945.

Deming, Dorothy. The Settlement of the Connecticut Towns. Hartford, 1933.

Dexter, Franklin Bowditch. A Selection from the Miscellaneous Historical Papers of Fifty Years. New Haven: Tuttle, Morehouse & Taylchr..Co., 1918.

Dexter, Henry Martin. The Congregationalism of the Last Three Hundred Years, as seen in Its Literature. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1880.

Committee of the Dorchester Antiquarian and Historical Society, History of the Town of Dorchester. Boston: Ebenezer Clapp, Jr., 1859.

Drake, Samuel G. The History and Antiquities of Boston, from Its Settlement in 1630, to the Year 1770, Boston: Luther Stevens, 1856.

Dunning, Albert E. Congregationalists in America. Boston: Pilgram Press, 1894.

Ellis, George E. The Puritan Age and Rule in the Colony of Massachusetts Bay, 1629-1685. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Co., 1891.

Emerson, Everett H. John Cotton. New York: Twayne Pub., 1965.

Erikson, Kai T. Wayward Puritans: A Study in the Sociology of Deviance.

New York: John Wiley &: Soms, 1966.

Ernie, Lord. English Farming, Past and Present. London:. Frank Cass & Co., 1961.

Eusden, John Dykstra. Puritans, Lawyers, and Politics in Early Seventeenth- Century England. New Haven:. Yale University Press, 1958.

Evans, George Ewart. The Pattern under the Plough: Aspects of the Folk- Life of East Anglia. London: Faber & Faber, 1966. 150

Felt, Joseph Barlow. Ecclesiastical History of New England, 1602-1678. 2 Vols. Boston:; Congregational Library Association, 1855-1862.

Fiejd, Edward. The Colonial Tavern: A Glimpse of New England Town Life in the 17th and 18th Centuries. Providence: Preston and Rounds, 1897.

Fleming, Sanford. Children and Puritanism: Children in the Life and Thought of the New England Churches, 1620-1847. New Haven:; Yale University Press, 1933.

Foster, Frank Hugh. A Genetic History of New England Theology. New York: Russell & Russell, 1963.

French, Allen. Charles I and the Puritan Upheaval; A Study of the Causes of the Great Migration. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1955.

Friis, Astrid, Alderman Cockayne's Project and the Cloth Trade; The Commercial Aspects of England in Its Main Aspects, 1603-1625. London: Oxford University Press, 1927.

George, Charles H., and Katherine George. The Protestant Mind of the English Reformation, 1570-1640. Princeton, 1961.

Gray, Howard Levi. English Field Systems. London: Harvard University Press, 1959.

Hall, Edwin. The Puritans and Their Principles. New York: Baker and Scribner, 1846.

Haller, William, Jr. The Puritan Frontier; Town Planting in New England Colonial Development, 1630-1660. New York; Columbia University Press, 1951.

Haskins, George. Law and Aufefcority in Early Massachusetts. New York: Macmillan Co., 1960.

Heaton, W. J. The Puritan Bible and other contemporary Protestant Versions. London:. Francis Griff iths , 1913.

Higginson, Thomas W. • Life ofaFrancis Higginson; First Minister in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. New York: Dodd, Mead, and Co., 1891.

Hill, Christopher. Society and Puritanism in Pre-Revolutionary England. London:. Seeker & Warburg, 1964.

Hoskins, W. G. Local History in England. London; Longmans, Green & Co., 1959.

. Old Devon. Newton Abbot; David and Charles, 1966. 151

Hubbard, William. A General History of New England, from the Discovery to MDCLXXX. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1815.

Hulbert, Archer Butler. . Soil, Its Influence on the History of the United States, with special reference to migration and the scientific study of local history. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1930.

Hutchinson, Thomas. The History of the Colony and Province of Massachusetts Bay. Edited by Lawrence Shaw Mayo. . Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1936.

Hutton, William Holden. The English Church from the Accession of Charles I to the Death of Anne, 1625-1714. London: Macmillan and Co., 1903.

Johnston, Alexander. The Genesis of a New England State, Connecticut. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1883.

Jones, Mary Jeanne Anderson. Congregational Commonwealth: Connecticut 1636-1662. Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan University Press, 1968. Kerr, Barbara. Bound to the Soil:. A Social History of Dorset, 1750-1918. London: John Baker, 1968.

Kerridge, Eric. The Agricultural Revolution. New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1968.

Laslett, Peter. The World We Have Lost. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1965.

Lauer, Paul E. Church and State in New England. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1892.

Leach, Douglas Edward. The Northern Colonial Frontier, 1607-1763. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966.

Levy, Babette. Preaching in the First Half Century of New England History. Hartford, 1945.

Lipson,, E. The History of the Woollen and Worsted Industries. London: Frank Cass & Co., 1965.

Love, William DeLoss, The Colonial History of Hartford, gathered from the original records. Hartford: William D. Lovas, 1914.

MacCaffrey, Wallace. Exeter, 1540-1640: The Growth of an English Country Town. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1958.

Mather, Cotton. Magnalia Christi Americana; or, The Ecclesiastical History of New-England from Its First Planting in the Year 1620, unto the Year of our Lord 1698. London: Thomas Parkhurst, 1702. 152

Mather, Richard. Journal, 1635, and, His Life and Death, 1670. Boston: David Clap &.Son, 1850.

Miller, Perry. Orthodoxy in Massachusetts. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1933.

. Tfle New England Mind: The Seventeenth Century. New York, 1939.

Morgan, Edmund S. Roger Williams, The Church and State. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1967.

. The Puritan Family: Essays on Religion and Domestic Relations in Seventeenth Century New England. Boston, 1944.

Morgan, •admVisi&le Saintes*;. ThenHistfelry ofuayPuritan Idea. New York: New York University press, 1963.

Morison, Samuel Eliot. Builders of the Bay Colony. New York: Houghton Mifflin Co. , 1930.

. The Founding of Harvard College. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1935.

. The Puritan Pronaos: Studies in the Intellectual Life of New England in the Seventeenth Century. New York, 1946.

Neal, Daniel. The History of New-England. 2 Vols. London: A. Ward, 1747.

Nuttall, Geoffrey F. • Visible Saints: The Congregational Way, 1640-1660. Oxford: The University Press, 1957.

Oberholtzer, Emil, Jr. Delinquent Saints; Disciplinary Action in the Early Congregational Churches of Massachusetts. New York: Columbia University Press, 1956.

Ogg, David. New England and New College, Oxford: A Link in Anglo-American Relations. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1937.

Oppenheim, M. M. The Maritime History of Devon. Exeter: University of Exeter, 1968.

Orwin,, C.. S. and C. S^ Orwin. The Open Fields. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967.

Page, William, ed. The Victoria County History of the County of Devon. 2 Vols. London: James Street, 1906.

., ed. The Vistoria County History of the County of Dorset. 2 Vols. London: Archibald Constable, 1908.

., ed. The Vistoria County History of the County of Somerset. 3 Vols. Kondon: James Street, 1906. 153

Palfrey, John Gorham. History of New England. . 5 Vols. Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1859.

Parslow, Guy. The English Country Town. London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1932.

Pearson,. A. F. Scott. Thomas Cartwright and Elizabethan Puritanism, 1535- 1603. Cambridge: The University Press, 1925.

Perley, Sidney. The History of Salem, Massachusetts. 3 Vols. Salem, Mass.: Perley, 1924.

Pettit, Norman. The Heart Prepared;. Grace and Conversion in Puritan Spiritual Life. New Haven; Yale University Press, 1966.

Phillips, James Duncan. Salem in the Seventeenth Century. Boston; Houghton Mifflin Co., 1933.

Powell, Sumner Chilton. Puritan Village; The Formation of a New England Town. Garden City, N. Y.: Anchor Books, 1965.

Powers, Edwin. Crime and Punishment in Early Massachusetts, 1620-1692. Boston: Beacon Press, 1966.

Powys, A. R. The English Parish Church. London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1930.

Preston, Richard Arthur. Gorges of Plymouth Fort: A Life of Sir Ferdinando Gorges. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1953.

Redstone,. Vincent B. Memorials of Old Suffolk. London: Bemrose & Sons, 1908.

Reps, John W. Town Planning in Frontier America. Princeton: University Press, 1969.

Roberts, George. The Social History of the People of the Southern Counties of England in Past Cenuries. London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longman, and Roberts, 1856.

. Rogers, W. H.. Hamilton. Memorials of the West, Historical and Descriptive, collected on the borderland of Somerset, Dorset, and Devon. Exeter: James G. Commin, 1888.

Rose-Troup, Frances. John White: The Patriarch of Dorchester and The Founder of Massachusetts, 1575-1648. New York; G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1930.

. The Massachusetts Bay Company and Its Predecessors. New York; Grafton Press, 1930.

. Rowse, A. L. Tudor Cornwall; Portrait of a Society. London: Macmillan, 1969. 154

Rutman, Darrett B. Husbandmen of Plymouth: Farms and Villages in the Old Colony, 1620-1692. Boston: Beacon Press, 1967.

. Winthrop's Boston; A Portrait of a Puritan Town, 1630-1649. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1965.

Schneider, Herbert Wallace. The Puritan Mind. New York: Henry Holt, 1930.

Seebohm, M. E. The Evolution of the English Farm. George Allen & Unwin, 1927.

Shorter, A. H., and W. L. D. Ravenhill and K. J. Gregory. Southwest . England. London: Thomas Nelson, 1969.

Shuckburgh, E. S. . Emmanuel College; London: F. E. Robinson &. Co., 1904.

Simpson, Alan. Puritanism in Old and New England. Chicago:. Univerity of Chicago Press, 1955.

Sinnott, Edmund W. Meeting House and Church in Early New England. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963.

Sly, John Fairfield. Town Government in Massachusetts, 1620-1930. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1930.

Stearns, Raymond P. Congregationalism in the Dutch Netherlands; The and Fall of the English Congregational Classis, 1621-1635. Chicago: Univdrsity of Chicago Press, 1940.

Supple, B. E. Commercial Crisis and Change in England, 1600-1642. Cambridge: The University Press, 1964.

Sylvester, Herbert Milton. Indian Wars of New England. Boston: W. B. Clarke Co., 1910.

Taft, Lewis A., Profile of Old New England: Yankee Legends, Tales and Folklore. New York: Dodd and Mead, 1965.

Tate, W.. E. The English Village Community and the Enclosure Movements. London: Victor Gollancz, 1967.

Taylor, E. G. R. Late Tudor and Early Stuart Geography, 1583-1650. London: Methuen & Co., 1934.

Taylor, John M. Roger Ludlow, The Colonial Lawmaker^ New York: G. P. Putnam's Soms,1900.

Thirsk, Joan. English Peasant Farming: The Agrarian History of Lincoln• shire from Tudor to Recent Times. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1957. 155

Thirsk, Joan. The Agrarian History of England and Wales, 1500-1640. Cambridge: The University Press, 1967.

Thomas, J.. H. Town Government in the Sixteenth Century.- London: George Allen & Unwin, 1933.

Trevor-Roper, H. R. Archbishop Laud, 1573-1645. London: Macmillan & Co., 1963.

Trotter, Eleanor. Seventeenth Century Life in the Country Parish, with special reference to local government. London: Frank Cass & Co., 1968.

Trow-Smith, Robert. English Husbandry: From the Earliest Times to the Present Day. London: Faber & Faber, 1951.

Trumbell, Benjamin. A Complete History of Connecticut, Civil and Ecclesias• tical. 2 Vols. Hartford, 1818.

Walker, George Leon. History of the First Church in Hartford, 1633-1883. Hartford: Brown & Gross, 1884.

. Thomas Hooker: Preacher, Founder, Democrat. New York: Dodd, Mead, and Co., 1891.

Walker, Williston. Ten New England Leaders. New York: Silver and Burdett, 1901.

' The Creeds and Platforms of Congregationalism. Philadelphia: Pilgram Press, 1969.

Webb, Sidney, and Beatrice Webb. English Local Govdrnment from the Revolu• tion to the Municipal Corporations Act: The Parish and the County. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1924.

Winslow, Ola E., . Meetinghouse Hill, 1630-1783. New York: Macmillan, 1952.

Winsor, Justin. The Memorial History of Boston, 1630-1880. 4 Vols. Boston: James R. Osgood and Co., 1881.

Winthrop,. Robert C. The Life and Letters of John Winthrop Governor of the Massachusetts-Bay Company at their Emigration to New England, 1630. Boston: Ticknor and Fields, 1864.

Wrigley, E.. A., ed. An Introduction to English Historical Demography from the Sixteenth to the Nineteenth Century. New York: Basic Books, 1966.

Ziff, Larzer. John Cotton on the Churches of New England. Cambridge, Mass.:' Harvard University Press, 1968.

. The Career of John Cotton: Puritanism and the American Experience. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1962.

Zimmerman, Joseph F. The Massachusetts Town Meeting. Albany: University of New York Press, 1967. 156

2. Unpublished Thesis

Beebe, David Lewis. "The Seals of the Covenant: The Doctrine and Place of the Sacraments and Censures in the New England Puritan Theology underlying the Cambridge Platform of 1648." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Pacific School of Religion, 1966.

Cross, Wilfred 0. . "The Role and Status of the Unregenerate in the Massa• chusetts Bay Colony, 1629-1729." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1957.

Fulcher, John Rodney. "Puritan Piety in Early New England: A Study in Spiritual Regeneration from the Antinomian Controversy to the Cambridge Synod of 1648 in the Massachusetts Bay Colony." Unpub• lished Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University, 1963.

Hasler, Richard Albert. "Thomas Shepard: Pastor-Evangelist (1605-1649) A Study in the New England Puritan Ministry." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Hartford Seminary Foundation, 1964.

Lockridge, Kenneth Alan. "Dedham, 1636-1736: The Anatomy of a Puritan Utopia." Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Princeton University, 1965.

MacLear, Anne Bush. "Early New England Towns: A Comparative Study of Their Development." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1908.

Shantz, John Henry. "Church and State in the Massachusetts Town Meeting." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1911.

Shepard, Douglas H. "The Wolcott Shorthand Notebook Transcribed." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Iowa, 1957.

3. Genealogical Sources

Banks, Charles Edward. The Planters of the Commonwealth, 1620-1640. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1930.

_. The Winthrop Fleet of 1630. Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1961.

. Topographical Dictionary of 2885 English Emigrants to New England, 1620-1650. Baltimore:: Southern Booke Co., 1957.

Burt, Henry M. The First Century of the History of Springfield: The Offical Records from 1636 to 1736, with anyHistsrlcal Review and Biographical Mention of the Founders. 2Vols. Springfield: Henry M. Burt, 1898.

Drake, Samuel. The Founders of New England. Baltimore: Genealogical Pub• lishing Co., 1963. 157

Eliot, John. A Biographical Dictionary. Boston, 1809.

Farmer, John. A Genealogical Register of the First Settlers of New England. Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1964.

Fuller, Thomas. The Worthies of England. London: George Allan & Unwin, 1952.

Holmes, Frank: R. Directory of the Ancestral Heads of New England Families, 1620-1700. New York: American Historical Society, 1923.

Hotten, John Camden, Our Early American Ancestors: The Original Lists of Persons of Quality. Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1962.

Hurd, D. Hamilton. History of Essex County, Massachusetts. Philadelphia: J. W.. Lewis & Co. , 1888.

. History of Norfolk County, Massachusetts. Philadelphia: J. W. Lewis & Co., 1884/

Kuhns, Maude Pinney. The "Mary and John": The Story of the Founding of Dorchester, Massachusetts, 1630. Rytland, Vt.: Tuttle Co., 1943.

Paige, Lucius. History of Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1630-1877, with a Genealogical Register. Cambridge, Mass.: Riverside Press, 1877.

Pope, Charles H. The Pioneers of Massachusetts.

Sherwood, George. American Colonists in English Records. (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1961.

Smith, Sarah Saunders. The Founders of the Massachusetts Bay Company. Pitfesfield, Mass.: Sun Printing Co., 1897.

Stiles, Henry R. The History and Genealogies of Ancient Windsor, Connecticut. Hartford: Case, Lockwood & Brainard, 1891.

. The History of Ancient Wethersfield, Connecticut. New York: Grafton Press, 1904.

4. Articles

Adams, Charles Francis. "The Genesis of the Massachusetts Town, and the Development of Town-Meeting Government." Massachusetts Historical Society, Proceedings, series 2, VII (1892), 172-263.

Adamson, J.. W. "The Extent of Literacy in, England in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries: Notes and Canjectures." The Library, fourth series, X (1930), 163-193. 158

Ahlstrom, Sidney E. "Thomas Hooker - Puritanism and Democratic Citizenship." Church History,. XXXII (1963), 415-431.

Allan, D. G.. C. "The Rising in the West, 1628-1631." Economic History Review, second series, V. (1952), 76-83.

Andrews, Charles M. . "On. Some Aspects of Connecticut History." New England Quarterly, XVII (1944), 3-24.

Baber, A. F. C. "A Pilgram Father's Village: The Records of Kempsey, Worces• tershire, Family Home of Edward Winslow." History Today, IX (1959), 170-175.

Banks, Charles E. "Religious 'Persecution' as a Eactor in Emigration to New England, 1630-1640." Massachusetts Historical Society, Proceedings, LXIII (1930), 136-151.

Barnes, T. G. "County Politics and a Puritan Cause Celebre: Somerset Churches, 1633." Transactions, Royal Historical Society, fifth series, IX (1959), 103-122.

Bennett, M. K. "The Food Economy of the New England Indians, 1605-1675." Journal of Political Economy, LXIII (1955), 369-397.

Brennan, Ellen Elizabeth. "The Massachusetts Council of Magistrates." New England Quarterly, IV (1931), 54-93.

Buffington, Arthur H. "New England and the Western Fur Trade, 1629- 1675." Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Publications, XVIII • (1916), 160-192.

Burg, B. Richard. "The Ideology of Richard Mather and Its Relationship to English Puritanism Prior to 1660." Journal of Church and State, IX (1967), 364-377.

Chester, Joseph Lemuel. "The Influence of the County of Essex on the Settlement and Family History of New England." Essex Archaeological Society, III (1889), 37-47.

Choate, Isaac Bassett. "The Town Guild." New England Histgrical and Genealogical Register, LVII (1903), 168-177.

Crouse, Nellis M. "Causes of the Great Migration, 1630-1640." New England Quarterly, V (1932), 3-36.

Demos, John. "Notes on Life in Plymouth Colony." William and Mary Quarterly, XXII (1965), 264-286.

East, Robert A. "Puritanism and New Settlement." New England Quarterly, XVII (1944), 255-264. 159

Finberg, H. P. R. "The Open Field in Devonshire." Antiquity,. XXIII, no. 92, 180-187.

Fisk, Carl F. "The English Parish and Education at the Beginning of American Colonization." The School Review, XXIII (1915), 433-449.

Foster, Stephen. "The Massachusetts Franchise in the Seventeenth Century." William and Mary Quarterly,. XXIV (1967),

Fussell, G.. E. . "Farming Methods in the Early Stuart Period." Journal of Modern History, VII (1935), 1-21, 129-140. '

- "Social and Agrarian Background of the Pllgram Fathers." Agricultural History, VII (1933),.183-202.

Genthe, Martha Krug. "The Valley Towns of .Connecticut." American Geographical Society, Bulletin, XXXIX (1907), 513-544.

Gray, Stanley, "The Political Thought of John Winthrop." New England Quarterly, III (1930), 681-705.

Greven, Philip J. "Family Structure in. Seventeenth-Century Andover, Massachusetts." William and Mary Quarterly, third series, XXIII (1966), 234-256.

. 'jl01.d;,Wo,rlXj'Patterns in the. New World: The Distribution.'.of Land in 17th"Century Andover." Essex Institute, Historical Collections, CI (1965), 147-158.

Harris, T. M. "Chronological and Topographical Account of Dorchester." Massachusetts Historical Society, Proceedings, first series, IX (1804), 147-199.

Heimart, Alan. i "Puritanism, The Wilderness, and the Frontier." New England Quarterly, XXVII (1953), 361-382.

Henretta, James A. "Economic Development and Social Structure in Colonial Boston." William and Mary Quarterly, third series, XXII (1965), 75-92.

Higbee, Edward C. "The Three Earths of New England." Geographical Review, . XLII (1952), 425-438.

Hunnewell, James F. "An American Shrine: The First Church in Charlestown." New England Genealogical and Historical Register, XXIV (1870), 273-285.

Jones, Howard M. "The Colonial Impulse: An Analysis of the 'Promotion' Literature of Colonization." American Philosophical Society, Pro• ceedings, XC (1946), 131-161. 160

Kerridge, Eric. "Agriculture, 1500-1793." Victoria County History of Wiltshire. . Edited Elizabeth Crittall. London: Oxford Univer• sity Press, 1959.

• Lockridge,. Kenneth. "Land, Population and the Evolution of New England Society,. 1630-1790." Past and Present,, XXXIX (1968), 62-80. -

• "The History of a Puritan Church, 1637-1736." William and Mary Quarterly,. XL (1967), 399-424.

. "The Population of Dedham,. Massachusetts,, 1636-1736." Economic History Review, second series, XIX (1966), 318-344.

, and Alan Kreider. "The Evolution of Massachusetts Town Govern• ment, . 1640-1740." William and Mary Quarterly, third series, XXIII (1966), 549-574.

M'Clure, David. "Settlement and Antiquities of the Town of Windsor in Connecticut." Massachusetts Historical Society, Collections, first series, V (1798), 166-171.

Merton, Robert" K. "Science and Technology in Seventeenth-Century England." Osiris,, IV (1930), 360-432.

Miller, Perry. "Thomas Hooker and the Democracy of Early Connecticut." New England Quarterly,. IV (1931), 663-712.

Morison, Samuel E. "William Pync hon, the Founder of Springfield." Massa• chusetts Historical Society, Proceedings, LXIV (1930-32), 67-107.

Park, C. B. "Friendship as a Factor in the Settlement of Massachusetts." American Antiquarian Society, Proceedings,. XXVIII (1918), 51-62.

Parker, Joel. - "The Origin, Organization, and Influence of the Towns of New England." Massachusetts Historical Society,- Proceedings,. IX (1866),14-65.

Pease, Jane H. "On Interpreting Puritan History: Williston Walker and the Limitations of the Nineteenth-Century View." New England Quarterly, XLII (1969), 232-252.

Porter, Noah. "The New England Meeting House.11 The New Englander, XLII, 301-319.

Rich. E. E. "The Population of Elizabethan England." Economic History Review, second series, II (1950), 247-265.

Rossiter, Clinton. "Thomas Hooker." New England Quarterly, XXV (1952), 459-488.

Schofield,, Edna. "The Origin of Settlement Patterns in Rural New England. " Geographical Review, XXVIII (1938), 652-663. 161

Seidman, Aaron B. "Church and State in the Early Years of the Massachusetts Bay Colony." New England Quarterly, XVIII (1945), 211-233.

Seybolt, Robert F. "The Ministers at the Town Meetings in Colonial Boston." Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Publications, XXXII (1938), 300-304.

Stearns, R. P. "New England Church 'Relations' and Continuity in Early Congregational History." American Antiquarian Society, Proceedings, LXXV (1963), 13-35.

Stimson, Dorothy. "Puritanism and the New Philosophy in 17th Century England." Institute of the History of Medicine, Bulletin, III (1935), 321-344.

Tarbox, I. N. "Ruling Elders in the Early New England Churches." Congre• gational Quarterly, XIV (1872), 401-416.

Trewartha, Glenn T. "Types of Rural Settlements in Colonial America." Geographical Review, XXXVI (1946), 568-596.

Tucker, G. S. L. "English Pre-Industrial Population Trends." Economic History Review, second series, XVI (1963), 205-218.

Walcott, Robert R. "Husbandry in Colonial New England." New England Quarterly, IX (1936), 218-252.

Waters, John. "Hingham, Massachusetts, 1631-1661: An. East Anglian Oligarchy in the New World." Journal of Social History, I (1968), 351-370.

Zimmerman, Joseph F. '""Genesis of the Massachusetts Town." Social Sciences, XLI (1966) 76-83.

. Zuckerman, Michael. "The Social Context of. Democracy in Massachusetts." William and Mary Quarterly, third series, XXV (1968), 523-544.