Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Puritan farmers or farming puritans : physical geography and agricultural practices in New England community… Maroc, Donald E. 1970

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1970_A8 M37.pdf [ 8.36MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0102320.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0102320-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0102320-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0102320-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0102320-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0102320-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0102320-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0102320-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0102320.ris

Full Text

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 I n p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r a n a d v a n c e d d e g r e e a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I a g r e e t h a t t h e L i b r a r y s h a l 1 m a k e i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e a n d s t u d y . I f u r t h e r a g r e e t h a p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by t h e H e a d o f my D e p a r t m e n t o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l n o t be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . D e p a r t m e n t o f H > 5 T Q / - < - |  T h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a V a n c o u v e r 8, C a n a d a D a t e 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 i t i s essential that they share certain aspirations, needs and experiences. The form of this new society results from an effort to f u l f i l l 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 f i t 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 f r u i t producing sections. At the time the Dorchester settlers l e f t 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 c i t i e s such as Dorchester, in Dorset, and Exeter, i n 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 c r i s i s situation was selected for study. Buring 1635 and 1636 one-third of Dorchester's population moved to the Connect-icut River Valley. As with a l l of New England's history this event has been interpreted on the basis of either i t s religious or p o l i t i c a l significance. The people of Dorchester have been portrayed as fleeing from an increasingly rig i d 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 i n 1636 did not f i t 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 i n the river-bottom meadows and higher pastures grew in red sandstone-based loams, reminiscent of the best soils in Somerset and Dorset. It i s concluded that i t was cattle, not religious doctrine or p o l i t i c s , which s p l i t the Dorchester community and resulted in the foundation of Windsor, Connecticut. It i s suggested that while religion and po l i t i c s were important to seventeenth-century New England husbandmen, as social determinants these were decidedly subordinate to the s o i l and the agricultural use of that s o i l . 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 BIBLIOGRAPHY 104 142 Migration and Labour are expressions of one of the basic instincts of a l l livi n g 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 i s false. Data, collected i n support of this widely accepted theory; f e l l into a heap of impossible conclusions because the assumption rested upon an over-intellectualized analysis of a rather restricted body of evidence. Further, i t s 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 a l l the early settlers at Massachusetts Bay engaged in some form of farming. The New England town, from i t s inception,was an agricul-tural community. The needs of an agricultural society provided a framework for i t s 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 l i f e 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, wil l s , 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 a l l 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 i n 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, i n 1963. According to Akagi the New England town, was at f i r s t 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 f i r s t town meeting held was the meeting of these proprietors for the better ordering of their land and i t s divisions.^ Akagi decided the "simple land community" gave way to a separate p o l i t i c a l community — which he quietly surrendered to the historians of Puritanism. Akagi's limitation was his p o l i t i c a l - i n s t i t u t i o n a l approach to history. The proprietors were merely a lower order of p o l i t i c a l 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 i t s growing administration structure. The usual h i s t o r i c a l 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 f u l f i l l a common need. This method assumed that the human community would be accurately reflected in i t s institutions. It i s 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 i t s constituency and certainly does not reflect the human community from which i t sprang. Further, there i s l i t t l e 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 i s 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 c r i s i s situation. Dorchester, one of the original Massachusetts Bay towns, was the community selected for study. The c r i s i s 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, i t 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 c r i s i s and decision. However the decision-forming process functioned in seventeenth-century New England family units, i t was the adult males of the population who took the public actions. Therefore, a biographical f i l e 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 i t was possible to discern the kind of community the emigrant came from i n England and the associations he made after settlement in New England. From previous studies, i t had been expected that the 1636 division of Dorchester would have revealed a s p l i t 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 s p l i t 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 f u l f i l l e d 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 f i r s t 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 r i g i d 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 i t 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, i n both c i v i l and religious matters, met in the Crown i t was d i f f i c u l t 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 l i t t l e 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 c i v i l 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 c i v i l 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 i l l 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 e v i l l , 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 a l l 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 i n d i v i s i b i l i t y of church and state in seventeenth-century England, was a p o l i t i c a l 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 j u s t i f i e 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, " i t is the remaining of the thorne i n the midst of the flesh which torments; the plucking 3 i t out, and casting i t 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 l i v i n g , would expose himself and family to the hazards of such a journey and unpredictable future? "Pardon them," he begged, " i f they take such Ministers as they may have, rather than 2 none at a l l . " 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 a l l the emigrants of 1630, i t 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. 2 I b i d . 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 i n 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 a f f l i c t i n g 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. Specifically s prices outran incomes and numbers of people out-stripped employment and housing p o s s i b i l i t i e s . Although the wild but f e r t i l e 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 c i t i e s 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 f i r s t half of the seventeenth century, prices rose approximately 50 percent.^ The surplus labour l e f t the countryside and inundated the c i t i e s , already crowded with unemployed men. The religious inclinations and economic and social status of individual emigrants prior to leaving England i s d i f f i c u l t 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 f e r t i l e Vale of Taunton Deane. A l l 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 i t s land and the use to which the land was put.-*- Although relatively l i t t l e 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 A l l 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, a l l 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 s t i l l 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 t i l l e d , with the remaining two-thirds in pasture, rarely i f 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 s o i l 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 A l l Saints. J Though by 1634 Archbishop William Laud could r a i l 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 l i e 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 i t 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 li v i n g 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 c i r c l e . After the death of his f i r s t 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 f i f t i e s . 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 M i f f l i n Co., 1930), 89. 19 2. Somerset Emigrants The populous county of Somerset contributed nineteen adult males to the Mary & John's passenger l i s t . 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 f e r t i l e 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 i t is doubtful i f 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, i t 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 i n 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 H i l l s , 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 i n 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 s t i l l 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 f i f t y or sixty parishes were affected by parliamentary enclosure. 1 Somerset was a very populous county and prosperity was real, i f 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 til l a g e and those between convertible. The lands of the Vale were enclosed and common fields unknown. Nearly a l l 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 i t s 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 H i l l s are a formidable barrier to northern intercourse, the barren Exmoor blocks the northern passage, and the Blackdown H i l l s 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 l i f e 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 i t s 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, f e r t i l e 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 1^892()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 Fi r s t  Planters of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay (Boston: Charles C. L i t t l e 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 s p i r i t but not the self-conscious and aggressive puritanism commonly associated with East Anglia. The bishop faced l i t t l e 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 s p i r i t which prevailed. Charity veered away from passive r e l i e f 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 l i t t l e sense at a l l 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 f e r t i l i z e r s , and careful t i l l a g e . 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 i t s Gentry (Exeter: William Roberts, 1845), 50. ^Westcote, A View of Devonshire, 55-57; Darby, Historical Geography  of England,, 354; and,- A. H. Shorter, ejt a l , Southwest England (London: Thomas Nelson,. 1969), 138. ^ h irsk, Agrarian History, 74-75. 26 The areas along the established trade routes, such as the f e r t i l e coast lands and river valleys, responded f i r s t 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 f r u i t lands in the Vale of Exeter and the valley of the Exe river, the l i t t o r a l of Torbay, the South Hams d i s t r i c t , and the area around Bideford and Barnstaple. Athwart the path of moisture-carrying Atlantic winds, Devon had a cool, wet climate, with generally heavy r a i n f a l l . Along the coast and in the narrow river valleys, on slaty s i l t 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 l i v i n g 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 s t i l l 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 f e r t i l e 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 l i t t o r a l , on the other hand, were husbandmen accustomed to t i l l i n g fields of barley,wheat;and peas. A l l 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 a l , 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 a l l 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 a l l three western counties during the f i r s t 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 lik e l y they were escaping high rents and a chronic land shortage in rural areas and unemploy-ment in the cit i e s and countryside. 29 I I I . 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 s a i l his large ship into the island-strewn, harbour without an experienced pil o t . 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 1 6 3 0 , 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 c i v i l government of Massachusetts Bay,.the Court of Assistants became the provincial legislative body and the highest ju d i c i a l organ. After creation of the Deputies to represent the growing number of freemen in the General Court, and the consequent r i f t between the Deputies and the Assistants in 1 6 3 4 , 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 f i t 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 i t Dorchester. The bounds of the new town were not yet la i d out but i t was of large extent, both on the Neck and the mainland.-^ Facing the sea the town had two f a i r 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 t i l l a g e and pasturage, and meadow land for hay.-* The f i r s t five pages of the Town Records were lost and with them the exact c r i t e r i a used for the i n i t i a l 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, f i r s t 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 like l y , a combination of these considerations. The "great l o t " for tillage and pasturage i n i t i a l l y granted to each adult male householder decided his share in the commons. . Each proprietor's share in the commons became his proportion for a l l 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 t i l l a g e , the land d i s t r i -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 i t 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, i t 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 c i v i l matters was unique in the Bay Colony. In no other New England town during the f i r s t decade did a clergyman hold a c i v i l office or officiate in town government affa i r s . These activities were, however, quite in line with what might be expected i n 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 c i v i l 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 a f f a i r s . 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 i t 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 H i l l : 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 o f f i c i a l s 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 c r i t e r i a for freeman-ship at the f i r s t 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 f u l l citizenship, became a function of: (1) real-property ownership and rights to commons (proprietorship), and (2) at least local religious orthodoxy. A l l 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 f i l t e r i n g process. Each had to be accepted by a l l 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 ro l l s are the only means of establishing church membership during the town's f i r s t 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; i t was not unt i l May 1631 that the Court admitted new freemen. Andrews noted that 108 men responded when "an invitation was extended to a l l 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 f i t 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 A l l 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 a l l 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 a l l , like Blackstone, clergymen of the established Church.3 William Trask,- an "old planter" and a Salem church member at the f i r s t 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 f i r s t wife Abigail were members of the Dorchester church.6 ijames D.- Phillips, Salem in the Seventeenth Century (Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n Co., 1933),.350-351. 2Mass. Col. Rec.,. I,. 367. 3 l b i d . , 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 f a i l i n g 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 unt i l 1636 and John Holman of Dorset unt i l 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, i t i s certain that on 18 May 1631 at least twenty-eight men from Dorchester, including twenty of the October applicants, became.freemen and f u l l citizens of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. 1 A l l of the new freemen were proprietors and holders of commons rights and a l l 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 c r i t e r i a 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, i t is assumed that See Appendix I for l i s t of Dorchester freeman, 18 May 1631. 38 a l l 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 o f f i c i a l s one week before the May 1631 meeting of the General Court. There is no surviving record of membership for the f i r s t Dorchester Board of Selectmen, established 11 May 1631, "to order a l l 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 f i r s t freemen met on 18 May 1631. It i s 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 i n i t i a l 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, i n 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 i t was not unti l 1637 that the Town ordered the Selectmen to present their decisions to Dorchester's freemen for approval after one of the weekly lectures. It i s clear from the 1633 order regulating town meetings that a l l 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<i-ixl|i;I.O Also, the term "Mooneday" does not seem to be related r to phases of the moon. Dr. Michael Ovenden, of the Geophysics Department at U.B.C., calculated the phases of the moon for three dates, 8 October 1633, 3 November 1633, and 6 January 1634, each designated as "Mooneday" in the Dorchester Town Records. Tuesday, 8 October 1633.,was the day of the f u l l moon, but Saturday, 3 November 1633,was eleven days after the new moon and approximately four days before a f u l l moon, and Monday, 6 January 16 34^ was a l i t t l e less than halfway from the new to the f u l l moon. 2 Rutman, Winthrop's Boston, 61; C. M. Andrews, The River Towns of  Connecticut (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1889), 83; Ola E. Winslow, Meetinghouse H i l l , 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 i s 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 affair s . 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 i t , . . . 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 i t . " 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 a l l 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 a l l 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 c a l l 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 a l l 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 o f f i c i a l s . "A generall meeteing of.the:inhabi-tants," would have included a l l the inhabitants, free inhabitants and chief inhabitants. Webb and Webb, The Parish and the County,15. 2 Mass. Col. Rec., I, 115. 3Ibid. 4 I b i d . , 116. 5 I b i d . 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 c i v i l polity of the town. Although Dorchester had a Board of Selectmen in May 1631, the town's f i r s t 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 a l l 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 c i v i l affairs of the town was unique in early New England. With Warham and Maverick seated on the Board of Selectmen i t s meetings assume the appearance of English select vestry meetings. The Town Meeting with the ministers present as community o f f i c i a l s 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 l i s t s 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, a l l 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 a l l 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 f i r s t 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 A l l 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 a l l 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 m i l i t i a 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, b a i l i f f 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 f i r s t 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 f i r s t 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, i t 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, I 5 7 V 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 b a i l i f f , 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 f i r s t 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 i s 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 f a i r 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 o f f i c i a l s . 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 o f f i c i a l s 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 p o l i t i c a l 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 a l l c i v i l offices. Combined they held 50 percent of the town's major positions; The other West Country group, from Devonshire, though i t had i t s f a i r share of freemen, was grossly under-represented in town p o l i t i c s . They held only two of twenty, or 10 percent, of the offices of importance. If the timefj,period: i s 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 a l l 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 f i l l e d 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 c i v i l offices in Dorchester, Nicholas Upsal, Thomas Ford, Thomas Newberry, and Eltweed Pomeroy, a l l arrived aboard the Mary & John in 1630. Upsal and Ford became freemen i n May 1631, Pomeroy in 1633 and Newberry in 1634. Ford, Newberry, and Pomeroy were a l l elected selectmen. Upsal served in appointive positions as tax collector, b a i l i f f 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 a l l 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 Fir s t Church at Dorchester  in New England, 1636-1734 (Boston: George H. E l l i s , 1891), y, 3; Kuhns, The Mary and John, 82; and, NEHGR, XXXIV (1880), 21, XV (1861), 250. 2 S t i l e s , 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 affair s , Roger Ludlow, William Phelps, George Hull, William Gaylord, and Henry Wolcott, also a l l arrived aboard the Mary & John. A l l but Mr. Hull were freemen by May 1631, and a l l 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 fe r t i l e Vale of Taunton Deane, Wolcott held positions as selectman,, tax assessor and fence viewer. 1 After attending B a l l i o l 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 o f f i c e s . 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. 3 I t 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 f e r t i l e 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 f i r s t 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 po l i t i c s 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 C i v i l War," Jurdain was lord mayor of Exeter i n 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 f a i l i n g 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 P o l i t i c a l l y 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 i t s 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: L i t t l e , 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, f u l l 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 u n t i l 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; f i r s t decade in New England was f u l l 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 c i v i l and religious orthodoxy. The Crown's actions in February 1634, which stopped a l l 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 i t s return from New England. After the shipping was released, Charles I, at' Laud's suggestion, appointed the Lords Commissioners for Plantations in General with f u l l 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 p o l i t i c a l 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 i t s e l f 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 a l l 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 i t s 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 i t s freemanship r o l l s 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 p o l i t i c a l preference. It is even more puzzling why their p o l i t i c a l fortunes did not improve after most of the Dorset and Somerset families had departed for the Connecticut Valley in 1636. The :phenomenon of the p o l i t i c a l 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 i t was to their advantage to move to Connecticut, l e f t Massachusetts Bay in spite of the fact that they held p o l i t i c a l 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 i s d i f f i c u l t 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 a l l persons li v i n g i n 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 p o l i t i c a l treason. There is not the slightest evidence that any of the leaders or lesser individuals, either lay or c l e r i c a l , 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 a l l 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 i s 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 c a l l 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 f i f t y 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 l i t t l e 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 i t 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 " f i r s t 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 f i r s t 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. A l l 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 s t r i c t discipline of Bishop Laud, i t 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, f i r s t 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 a l l 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 i s suggested they gathered their church in imitation of their neighbors after settling in Massachusetts Bay and that the Westcountrymen who controlled Dorchester l i f e were at most moderate non-Conformists, not yet committed to a particular form of church organization and, therefore, flexible enough to f i t 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 i l l s . The Plymouth Separatist reported that, while caring for the sick, n e 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 a l l 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 i t was s t i l l 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 w i l l or a b i l i t y 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 i s not suggested that Warham was of the stature, intellectually or in spiritual leadership, of Hooker or Cotton, or even of Shepard. Similarly, 1 S t i l e s , 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 i t i s 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 i t 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 a l l travelled to New England in the Mary & John, a l l became members at the original gathering of the church, a l l were admitted freemen on 18 May 1631, and a l l 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 unt i l after re-organization in 1636. This means one of the major responsibilities and powers of the elder, that of taking the in i t i a t i v e 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, i f 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 w i l l be minimal. In 1631, the f i r s t 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 c i v i l and religious affairs during Dorchester's f i r s t years were emigrants from Somerset and Dorsetshire. Their dominance was manifested in control of the p o l i t i c a l 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 c r i s i s situations, when the dominant minority asserted and sol i d i f i e d i t s control. Supra, 34-38. See Tables I, II, and III, on pages 4 6 - 4 9 . 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 c i v i l as well as church o f f i c a l s . 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 fric t i o n 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 l i t t l e 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 i t s e l f at so early a stage in i t s development. His caution did not receive support throughout the settlements. An "old planter" from Derbyshire, John Oldham, with three others l e f t Watertown for the Connecticut Valley in late summer, 1633. Hos-pitably treated by the Indians along their 160-mile trek overland they returned the f i r s t 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 t r a i l s 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. 2 I b i d , I, 118. 70 The reports of f e r t i l e , a l l u v i a l lands bordering the Connecticut River now devoid of i t s 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 i n 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 b i t of appeasement was too l i t t l e 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 f a l l s 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 f e r t i l e and spacious river valley."'' But f i r s t , according to Colony regulations, i t was necessary to gain the consent of the General Court. With a f u l l 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 a l l 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 s p i r i t s 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 i t , 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 unt i l 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-b i l i t i e s and powers. Although many were s t i l l 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 i t 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 i t s only grain m i l l 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 f e r t i l i z e r 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 w i l l , protested the/election of Haynes, offending enough of the electorate in the process to be l e f t 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 i t s 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 br i e f l y at the Plymouth fort the Dorchester advance party turned north and explored the river banks beyond the f a l l s . 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, i t was a l l 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 t r a i l 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 a l l 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 f i r s t 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 i l l 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 i f the ground were "manured and husbanded" properly i t yielded more English grain, such as wheat, rye, and oats, than he had expected. But he was dub-ious enough of i t s long-term potential that he suggested fishing and other 2 trades be developed to supplement farming. Goodman Pratt bowed to the w i l l 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 f o l -3 lowed their Dorchester neighbors to the meadows of Connecticut. History i s a needle for putting men to sleep anointed with the poison of a l l 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 s o i l 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 a l l 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 " f e r t i l e land and wider pastures.""'" Andrews then, in an inexplicable s h i f t , turned to "the p o l i t i c a l 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 i t s 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. 2 l b i d . 3 Ibid. 79 himself later joined the migration and became the f i r s t 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 f e r t i l e land were substantial, but argued that they failed "to.explain why these particular congregations should have been the f i r s t to move out."''" To establish his conclusion that the removal "was the f i r s t 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 riva l r i e s 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 i n 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 til l a g e and the breeding of cattle. Miller then pointed Clinton Rossiter, "Thomas Hooker," New England Quarterly, 'xxv (1952), 466. 2Ibid., 467. . 3 l b i d . , 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 s o i l . " 1 With that reported Miller promptly dropped a l l 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-tri n a l religious differences as the motivation for the s p l i t 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 p i t f a l l s by eschewing nearly a l l but religious motivation in the formation of New England society. Not only was i t 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., i t a l i c s 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 of f i c a l s of the King and Archbishop.3. She concluded that, "land shortages, personal r i v a l r i e s , disquiet within . the Bay Colony, and the threatened interference from abroad a l l 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. E^dmund 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 f i r s t 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 i t 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, l e f t 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 p o l i t i c a l 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 p o l i t i c a l 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 p o l i t i c a l 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 Po l i t i c a l 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 of f i c a l s , 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 -- b a i l i f f , 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 i t 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 a l l 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 p o l i t i c s before 1636. Perhaps the most significant characteristic of the non-Westcountrymen whoemigrated to Windsor was that they were a l l 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 s t a t i s t i c a l 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 s p l i t 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 s p l i t 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 f r i c t i o n 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 i n Massachusetts Bay. There i s not.the slightest hint of internal dissention within the Dorchester church or congregation, nor between the church and i t s 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 p o l i t i c a l e l i t e 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 p o l i t i c a l 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 i t s 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 un t i l caught up in the English C i v i l 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 f a i l i n g in his bid for the governor's office. His con-f l i c t , 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 p o l i t i c a l activity to provincial p o l i t i c s . It i s quite reasonable to assume that Ludlow, once an opponent of group migrations, decided to "throw i n " with those planning to go to Connecticut after ruining his chances of gaining elective- office in~Massa-chusetts. It i s not at a l l reasonable to suppose!) that a group of settled, married men with families,"'"who"''were in f u l l control of their local affairs, would suddenly decide to follow a disgruntled p o l i t i c i a n 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 f u l l citizenship. Nothing in the contemporary documents indicates dissatisfaction in Dorchester with the relative monopoly of p o l i t i c a l 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 s p l i t 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 i t contains, i t would be impossible to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between the actions of the Court and "the removal, or to accept p o l i t i c a l 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 p o l i t i c a l 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 f i r s t anddforemost agricultural.• From the very f i r s t 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 f i r s t year for which there i s 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 m i l l . 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 till a g e 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 h i l l . Two orders set the salary for m i l i t i a captain John Mason. In addition,.the-town meeting ordered a warehouse built at the grain m i l l and a fish trap constructed on the Naponset river to catch alewives for f e r t i l i z e r . It also provided a regulation for the pricing and sale of the fish, set rules for the election of selectmen' and town b a i l i f f , 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, i t would be d i f f i c u l t 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 i s 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 s o i l , 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 s o i l 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 i t was agreed to build a double-r a i l 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), s o i l 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 l i s t 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 l i s t 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 d r i f t 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 H i l l , 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, i n contrast to the Dorset-Somerset people, were accustomed to t i l l i n g the s o i l , 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 i f some shall desire to plant and others to keep Cattle, the Minor parte shall' fence agaynst the Major that i s the Minor parte w i l l improve \ their propriety to Come.and the lik e , and the Major parte to cattle, the Minor shall fence agaynst the Major at his own p e r i l l , and-so the like i f the Minor w i l l keepe Cattle, -and the Major plant, they must secure the Majors Corne, and be lyable to pay dammage i f they doe not. 1 The majority was determined by a head-count and not according to the number of acres. This order i s 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 a l l of Dorchester's Devonshiremen came, river valleys and south coastal areas, were noted for corn and f r u i t production. On the strong red loams of the lush Vale of Exeter and the s i l t y slate s o i l 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 a l l came from l o c a l i t i e s 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 t i l l e r s of the s o i l . 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 a l l 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 a l l 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, f e r t i l e loams.^ Of a l l 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 a l l 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 r a i n f a l l 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 f e r t i l e 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 p o l i t i c a l pressures, forced them out of the Bay Colony. Cattle, not doctrine or p o l i t i c s , s p l i t Dorchester and founded Windsor. 5. Red Sandstone Meadowlands When the Newtowners f i r s t 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 s o i l 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 f u l f i l l e d 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 a l l u v i a l s o i l 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 s o i l 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 f e r t i l e s o i l . In addition to the right kind of vegetation and a familiar s o i l , the migrants found an extensive bed of marl on the Farmington River, just west of 4 . 5 Windsor. Marl was the Dorset-Somerset farmers f i r s t choice for f e r t i l i z e r . 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 i s 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 f e r t i l e 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 s o i l . 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 l i t t l e 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 s o i l of the Connecticut Valley, the s o i l 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 s o i l 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 f e r t i l i z e r , 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 s o i l for cereals and garden crops Dorchester, geographically the largest town in Massachusetts Bay Colony, offered extensive acreage of f a i r to good land. For dairymen and cattlemen interested in raising and fattening milk and beef animals i t 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., f i r s t 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 s o i l they were accustomed to in England; (4) the lack of familiar conditions at Dorchester; (5) the s o i l 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, i t provides a far more plausible basis for decisions by members of an agricultural community than do abstract concepts such as religious or p o l i t i c a l 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 i s 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 i s knowledge in their work and occupation.! Upon examining a handful of s o i l , such a farmer might have praised the Eternal Provider with sincerity and d e v o t i o n — i f i t f i t his idea of f e r t i l e 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 po l i t i c s 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 t i t l e s , trespass, commons regulations, water rights, etc. While i t is not claimed that religion, p o l i t i c s and social values were unimportant to the seventeenth-century husbandman, they were decidedly subordinate determinants to the s o i l and the agricultural use of that s o i l — even in "Puritan" communities of New England. Appendix I 104 DORCHESTER RESIDENTS ADMITTED FREEMEN OF THE COLONY OF MASSACHUSETTS BAY. 18 MAY 1631 Name Mr. John Maverack"*" Mr. John.Warham Capt. Rich. Southcote Thomas Stoughton Bray Rossiter Biggott Egglestone John Benham Stephen Terre George Phillips Roger Williams John Moore John Hoskins Mathew Grant Simon Hoytt Henry S mith Thomas Ford Thomas Rawlins Davy Johnson County of origin Devon Devon Devon Essex Dorset Norfolk Devon Dorset Dorset Somerset Suffolk Dorset Essex Dorset Dorset Dorset Essex Date of arrival 30 May 1630 30 May 1630 30 May 1630 30 May 1630 30 May 1630 30 May 1630 30 May 1630 30 May 1630 30 May 1630 30 May 1630 30 May 1630 30 May 1630 30 May 1630 6 Sept 1628 30 May 1630 30 May 1630 Jun® 1630 30 May 1630 Names are li s t e d in the'form and order they appear in the Colony Records. Appendix I 105 Name Nicholas Upsall Mr. John Burslyn John Peirce George Dyer William Rockwell Thomas Moore John Grinnoway Thomas Lumberd William Gallerd William Felpes County of origin Dorset Devon Gloucester Dorset Somerset Suffolk Surrey Devon Somerset Somerset Date of Arrival 30 May 1630 Sept 1623 June 1630 30 May 1630 30 May 1630 30 May 1630 30 May 1630 30 May 1630 30 May 1630 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." Appendix II 107 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 Name County of origin Date of arrival Admitted 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 Humphrey Atherton Lancashire Lancashire bef 1630 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 ~ ' 18 May 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 F i l e r * 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 P h i l l i p s * 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. and office Name County of origin Admitted 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 B a i l i f f 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 F i l e r * 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 b a i l i f f Walter F i l e r * 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 F i l e r * 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 b a i l i f f Joseph Flood Essex X ^Removed to Windsor, Connecticut. Date of elect, and office Name County of origin Admitted 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 H i l l 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 B a i l i f f 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, and office Name . County of origin Admitted freeman 13 Feb 1639 Robert Deeble Dorset 6: May 1635 b a i l i f f 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 b a i l i f f 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. Appendix VI 119 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 4 4 4 4 5 6 6 4 2 4 4 Norfolk 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 2 2 2 London 1 i l 3 4 6 10 9 7 8 7 5 Kent - - - 2 5 7 6 • 11 11 11 9 Bucks 2 2 . 2 3 4 7 7 8 8 7 7 Surrey 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 Hertford - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Hampshire - - - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 Gloucester 1 1 1 2 2 4 4 4 3 3 2 Berkshire 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 2 Warwick 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 Oxford - - -• - - 1 2 2 2 1 1 Northampton 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 - ,4-; Lincoln 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 Yorkshire - - - - - 2 3 3 2 2 1 Lancashire 1 1 1 1 1 13 13 13 13 13 12 Northumberl 'd - - - - - 1 1 1 1 1 Totals 84 88 91 108 123 164 150 120 111 100 83 Appendix VII 120 DORCHESTER FREEMEN County of origin Dorset Somerset Wiltshire Devon Essex Suffolk Norfolk London Kent Bucks Surrey Hertford Hampshire Gloucester Berkshire Warwick Oxford Northampton Lincoln Yorkshire Lancashire Northumberl'd Totals 1630 1631 1632 . 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 1638 1639 1640 9 5 1 7 3 2 10 5 1 5 3 2 13 6 1 7 5 2 1 1 20 11 1 11 7 2 1 2 4 1 .1 1 1 1 1 1 1 24 14 1 13 9 3 1 4 4 1 1 1-1 1 1-1 1 2 22 12 1 11 6 5 5 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 11 3 10 4 3 5 1 2 1 1 1 31 29 40 68 83 76 1 1 3 49 9 3 9 5 1 2 5 3 2 1 1 1 7 1 9 4 1 3 7 3 3 1 1 1 50 7 1 52 7 1 9 4 2 1 2 5 4 3 1 1 1 51 Appendix VIII 1'21 1632-33 Dorset Somerset Devon Other 1634 Dorset Somerset Devon Other 1635 Dorset Somerset Devon Other 1636 Dorset Somerset Devon Other 1637 Dorset Somerset Devon Other 1638 Dorset Somerset Devon Other 1639 Dorset Somerset Devon Other DORCHESTER TOWN OFFICES: DISTRIBUTION. OF OFFICE HOLDERS BY COUNTIES OF ORIGIN Deputies Fence Town to Gen. Ct. Selectmen Raters* viewers Surveyors B a i l i f f 3 of 7 2 of 6 4 of 9 1 of 2 2 of 2 2 of 7 3 of 6 1 of 9 1 of 7 2 of 9 1 of 2 4 of 10 1 of 9 4 of 10 1 of 1 2 of 3 2 of 10 3 of 9 1 of 10 1 of 10 2 of 9 1 of 3 3 of 10 2 of 9 3 of 10 2 of 11 1 of 9 4 of 10 1 of 4 2 of 11 4 of 9 1 of 10 1 of 4 1 of 11 1 of 9 1 of 10 1 of 4 6 of 11 1 of 9 4 of 10 i of 4 2 of 13 2 ofl 9 3 ofl 13 4 of 13 1 of 9 3 of 13 2 of 13 1 of 9 7 of 13 4 of 13 . 5 of 9 3 of 22 2 of 16 1 of 15 1 of 22 6 of 15 6 of 22 1 of 16 8 of 15 11 of 22 11 of 16 4 of 30 1 of 5 3 of 14 1 of 1 1 of 30 3 of 11 5 of 30 1 of 5 3 of 14 8 of 11 15 of 30 3 of 5 6 of 14 1 of 11 1 of 2 1 of I 1 of 13 1 of 7 1 of 11 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 Name and age on arrival Samuel Allen (42) Peter Aspinwall Humphrey Atherton Parish and county of origin Bums tead Steeple,Essex Toxteth, Lancashire Atherton, Lancashire William Barber Ludgate H i l l j London William Bartholomew London Thomas Bascombe Fordington, Dorset Arrived •  N.' Eng. 30 May 1630 17 Aug 1635 17 Aug 1635 18 Sep 1634 30 May 1630 Freeman-Years in church Dorchester member 1630-1636 6 May 1635 1635-1650 1635-1640+ 2 May 1638 1638-1639 1634-1640+ 4 Mar 1635 1630-1635 x Dorchester Town offices Select, 1638 1639 Deputy, 1638 1639 Auditor,1638 x Deputy, 1635 1635 1636 1637 1638 1638 1639 Migration in New England  year destination 1636 Windsor x 1639 Marblehead x 1635 Windsor ro CO James Bates (48) Lydd, Kent 1635 John Benham William Blake (36) Edward Breck Edward Bullock (27) Jonathan Burr (35) John Burs ley Nicholas Butler John Cable Bernard Capen (62) John Capen Plymouth, Devon Pitminster, Somerset Ashton unddr Lyne, Lanca-shire Barkham, Berkshire Redegrave, Suffolk Exeter, Devon Ashford, Kent 30 May 1630 30 May 1630 17 Aug 1635 1635-1639 Sep 1623 3 Jun 1637 Essex Dorchester, Dorset Dorchester, Dorset Jun 1630 24 Jul 1633 24 Jul 1633 William Boston, Cheeseborough (36) Lincoln Jun 1630 1635-1640+ 7. Dec 1636 Select, 1637 1638 1638 Rater, 1638 1630-1640 18 May 1631 x 1640 New Haven 1630-1636 14 May 1639 1637-1640+ 1635-1641 22 May 1639 Fence viewer, 1639 1636 Springfield 1641 Lancaster 1635-1649 x x X 1639-1641 x 1631-1635 18 May 1631 1637-1639 14 Mar 1639 1630-1636 x 1633-1638 25 May 1636 x Fence viewer, 1639 x x 1636 Weymouth 1639 Edgartown 1636 Springfield 1633-1692 14 May 1634 1630-1639 18 May 1631 Select, 1638 Rater, 1638 x 1639 Braintree Edward Clap Salcombe Regis, Devon 1633 Nicholas Clap Venn Ottery, 1636 (24) Devon Roger Clap Salcombe Regis,30 May 1630 (21) Devon Joseph Clarke Westhorpe, Suffolk Thomas Clarke Westhorpe, 1636 Suffolk William Clarke Plymouth, 1634 (25) Devon Augustine Clement Reading, 3 Jun 1635 Berkshire John Cogan .. Exeter, 24 July 1633 Devon Richard Collecott Barnstaple, 30 May 1630 (27) Devon 1633- 1665 7 Dec 1636-1640+ x 1630-1686 14 May 1634- 1637 4 Mar 1636-1643 14 May 1634- 1659 22 May 1635- 1674 25 May 1633-1640 5 Nov 1630-1659 3 Mar 1636 Select, 1637 1638 Fence 1637 viewer, 1638 x 1634 Select, 1637 1638 Rater, 1638 Tax collect,1634 Fence 1634 viewer, 1639 1635 x 1638 x 1639 x 1636 Select, 1636 1633 x 1633 Rater, 1634 Select, 1636 1636, 1637 1638 Deputy, 1636 1637, 1637 Fence viewer, 1638 x x 1637 Windsor x x x x x i—' Gilbert Crackbone Henry Cunliffe Robert Deeble Thomas Deeble Nicholas Denslow Thomas Dewey Thomas Dickerman Thomas Dimmock John Drake (30) Nathaniel Duncan London Great WooIton, Lancashire Weymouth, Dorset Weymouth, Dorset Allifgton, Dorset Sandwich, Kent Southwark, Surrey Chesterblade, Somerset Winscombe, Somerset Exeter, Devon 8 Oct 1635 17 Aug 1635 24 July 1633 5 May 1635 30 May 1630 24 Jul 1633 1636 1635 30 May 1630 30 May 1630 1635-1636 7 Dec 1635-1640+ 29 May 1633-1640+ 6 May 1635- 1637 17 May 1630-1636. 4 Mar 1633-1635 14 May 1636- 1658 14 Mar 1635-1638 25 May 1630-1636 x 1630-1645 6 May 1636 x 1644 x 1635 Bailiff,1638 1639, 1639 1637 x 1633 x 1634 x 1639 x 1636 Select, 1636 Survey.1635 x 1635 Select, 1634 1636, 1636 1637, 1638 1638, 1639 Deputy, 1635 1636, 1636 1637, 1637 1638, 1638 1638, 1640 Survey, 1635 Auditor,1638 1637 Cambridg x x 1637 Windsor 1636 Windsor 1635 Windsor x 1638 Hingham 1636 Windsor x George Dyer (51) Dorchester, 30 May 1630 Dorset William Dyer John Eels Bigod Egglestone (43) Robert Elwell Joseph Farnsworth Barnabas Farr Benjamin Fenn Walter F i l e r Joseph Flood (45) Strand, London Aldenham, Hertford Norfolk 30 May 1630 (Settrington, Yorkshire) Abbots Stoke, Dorset Toxteth, Lancashire Bristol, Gloucester Bucks Northampton Essex 1634 17 Aug 1635 17 Aug 1635 30 May 1630 30 May 1630 8 Oct 1635 1630-1672 18 May 1631 Select, 1636 x 1638 Rater, 1636 Cons tab,1632 Fence 1637 viewer, 1638 1635-1637 3 Mar 1636 x 1638 Portsmouth 1633-1640 14 May 1634 x 1640 Hingham 1630-1635 18 May 1631 x 1635 Windsor 1634- 1638 13 May 1640 x 1638 Salem 1635- 1640+ 14 Mar 1639 Fence. x Viewer, 1637 1639 1635-1644 x Rater, 1638 x 1630-1638 x x 1638 New Haven 1630-1636 14 May 1634 Fence viewer, 1634 1634 1635-1638 x Bailiff,1636 1638 Lynn Thomas Ford Dorchester, 30 May 1630 (43) Dorset Hopestill Foster Stephen French Richard Frye Humphrey Gallop John Gallop (40) William Gaylord (45) Biddenden, Kent Devon Exeter, Devon Mosterton, Dorset Mosterton, Dorset Chilterne Dum-mer, Somerset 1635 30 May 1630 13 Nov 1634 30 May 1630 30 May 1630 30 May 1630 Giles Gibbs South Perrot, 30 May 1630 Dorset 1630-1635 18 May 1631 1635-1676 22 May 1639 1630-1637 14 May 1634 1634-1640+ x 1630-1636 x 1630-1635 1 Apr 1634 1630-1638 18 May 1631 1630-1636 4 Mar 1632 Select, 1633 1636 TaK col-lector ,1634 Survey, 1635 Fence 1634 viewer,1634 x x x x x Select, 1636 1636, 1638 Rater, 1636 Deputy, 1632 1635, 1636 1636, 1637 Survey, 1638 Select, 1634 Rater, 1633 1635 Windsor x 1637 Weymouth x 1636 Windsor 1635 Boston 1638 Windsor 1636 Windsor Christopher Gibson Wendover, Bucks 30 May 1630 John Gilbert Bratton, 30 May 1630 (50) Wiltshire John G i l l Ashford, 3 June 1637 Kent Jonathan Gi l l e t t e Chaffcombe, 30 May 1630 Somerset Nathaniel Gi l l e t t e QMiicimhe 30 May 1630 Somerset. John Glover Rainhill, 30 May 1630 Lancashire 1630-1648 x Select, 1636 1648 Boston 1638 Rater, 1638 Survjiy, 1636 Constab,1637 Fence viewer,1634 1630-1637 4 Dec 1638 x 1637 Taunton 1637-1640+ x x x 1630-1636 6 May 1635 x 1636 Windsor 1630-1635 14 May 1634 x 1635 Windsor 1630-1650 bef 1630 Select, 1636 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 Matthew Grant Devon Hadleigh, Essex Jun 1630 30 May 1630 John Greenway Andrew Hallett (28) William Hannum Edmond Hart Thomas Hatch William Hathorne Southwark, Surrey 30 May 1630 Abbots Stoke, 5 May 1635 Dorset Dorchester, Dorset Dorset Wye,. Kent Binfield, Berkshire 30 May 1630 30 May 1630 1634 Jun 1630 Richard Hawes (29) Thomas Hawkins John Hayden William Hayden Missenden, Bucks Whitechapel, London Hinton-Blewetj Somerset Nov 1635 1632 Jun 1630 Hinton-Blewet, 30 May 1630 Somerset 1630-1675 10 May 1630-1635 18 May 1630-1652 18 May 1635-1639 x 1630-1637 x 1632-1636 14 May 1634- 1639 14 May 1630-1636 14 May 1635- 1640 2 May 1632-1639 22 May 1632-1636 14 May 1630-1636 x 1643 x 1631 Fence viewer,1634 Survey, 1635 1635 1631 Select, 1638 Fence viewer,1633 x x 1634 x 1634 x 1634 Select, 1634 Deputy, 1635 1636 Rater, 1636 1638 Fence viewer,1637 1639 Select, 1639 Deputy, 1639 1634 x x x 1635 Windsor x 1639 Yarmouth 1637 Windsor 1636 Weymouth 1639 Scituate 1636 Salem x x 1636 Braintree 1636 Windsor John H i l l Chatcombe, Somerset 24 Jul 1633 William H i l l Lyme Regis, Dorset Thomas Holcomb Warwick John Holland John Holman Swyre, Dorset William Horsford Dorchester, Dorset John Hoskins Beaminster. Dorset John Hoskins, Jr, (19) Beaminster, Dorset Thomas Hoskins (20) Beaminster, Dorset Jeremy Houchin Harleston, Norfolk Simon Hoyte Upway, Dorset 30 May 1630 30 May 1630 24 Jul 1633 30 May 1630 24 Jul 1633 30 May 1630 30 May 1630 30 May 1630 1638 6 Sep 1628 1633-1640+ 2 May 1649 Fence viewer,1639 x 1630-1638 5 Nov 1633 Select, 1636 1638 Windsor 1630-1635 14 May 1634 x 1633-1640+ 7 Dec 1636 Select, 1638 Fence viewer,1639 1635 Windsor 1630-1652 Select, 1636 1637, 1638 Survey, 1639 Fence 1637 viewer,1638 1639 1633-1636 1 Apr 1634 Fence 1633 viewer,1634 1636 Windsor 1630-1636 18 May 1631 Fence viewer,1634 1636 Windsor 1630-1640+ 14 May 1634 x 1630-1636 6 May 1635 Fence viewer,1633 1636 Windsor 1638-1640+ 13 May 1640 x x 1630-1635 18 May 1631 Fence 1633 viewer,1634 1635 Scituate 1639 Windsor William Hulbert Jun 1630 George Hull (40) Crewkerne, 30 May 1630 Somerset Jonas Humphrey Thomas Jeffreys Richard Jenkins Richard Jones Thomas Jones Wendover, Bucks Lympsham, Somerset Ashford, Kent Dinder, Somerset Essex Sep 1637 3 Jun 1637 5 May 1635 1635 Henry Kibby Thomas Kimberly John Kingsley St. Bennet, London Wotten sub Edge Gloucester Hampshire 1630-1636 2 Apr 1630-1636 4 Mar 1637-1640+ 13 May 1634- 1638 14 May 1637-1640+i x 1635- 1641 x 1635-1667 13 Mar 1639-1640+ 18 May 1635-1639 x 1632 x 1633 Select, 1633 1636 Deputy, 1634 1636 Rater, 1633 ' 1634 1640 x 1634 x x x 1639 Select, 1636 1637, 1638 1639 Deputy, 1638 1639 Fence viewer,1639 1642 x 1636 Windsor 1636 Windsor x 1638 New Haven, x x x X 1639 New Haven 1635-1648 x x x William Lane Yorkshire 1635 Richard Leeds Gt. Yarmouth, 8 Junel637 (32) Norfolk Richard Lippincott Devon 1629 Bernard Lombard Thorncombe; 30 May 1630 (22) Devon Thomas Lombard Thorncombe, 30 May 1630 Devon Roger Ludlow Maiden Bradley 30 May 1630 (40) Wiltshire Thomas Makepeace Burton-Dassett 1635 (43) Warwick Thomas Marshall Alford, .1634 Lincoln Thomas Marshfield Exeter, 30 May 1630 Devon John Mason London 30 May 1630 Richard Mather Toxteth, 17 Aug 1635 (39) Lancashire John Maverick Beaworthy, 30 May 1630 Devon Moses Maverick Huish, 30 May 1630 Devon 1635-1640+ " x 1637-1640+ May 1630-1644 13 May 1630-1635 1 Apr 1630-1639 18 May 1630-1636 bef 1635=1639 x 1634- 1636 6 May 1630-1636 x 1630-1635 4 Mar 1635- 1669 x 1630-1635 18 May 1630-1634 3 Sep x 1645 x 1640 x 1634 x 1631 x 1630 Select, 1636 Fence 1637 viewer,1638 1635 x x 1635 Deputy, 1635 1635 x 1631 Select, 1633 1634 x x x X 1635 Scituate 1639 Barnstable 1636 Windsor 1639 Weymouth 1636 Windsor 1636 Windsor 1635 Windsor x x 1634 Salem Gabriel Mead (49) Wisbeach, Cambridge 1636 John Maudes ley . Maudesley, Nov 1635 Lancashire Henry Maudes ley Maudes ley, Nov 1635 (24) Lancashire Alexander Miller Coggeshall, J u n 1630 Essex Thomas Millet Southwark, 1635 (30) Surrey George Minot Saffron-Walden,30 May 1630 (35) Essex John Moore Southwold, Suffolk 30 May 1630 Thomas Moore Southwold, Suffolk 30 May 1630 George Moxan (34) Wakefield, Yorkshire 1636 Edmund Munnings Denge, Essex 8 Oct 1635 1636-1640+ 2 May 1638 x 1635-1640+ 14 Mar 1638 x 1635-1639 6 May 1646 x 1639 Braintree 1630-1640+ 2 May 1638 x 1635-1640+ 17 May 1637 1630-1671 1 Apr 1634 Select, 1634 1636, 1636 1638 Deputy, 1636 1636, 1636 1637 Fence viewer,1637 x 1630-1636 18 May 1631 Select, 1638 Fence 1634 viewer,1637 1636 Windsor 1630-1636 18 May 1631 Fence viewer,1634 1636-1637 7 Septl637 x 1636 Windsor 1637 Springfield 1635-1640+ x Samuel Newman (36) Banbury, Oxfordshire 1636 Anthony Newton Colyton, Devon 1637 Elias Parkman Sidmouth, Devon 24 Jul 1633 John Pearce Panington, Gloucester Jun 1630 George Phelps Porlock, 30 May 1630 (24) Somerset Richard Phelps Porlock, 30 May 1630 Somerset William Phelps Porlock, 30 May 1630 (31) Somerset George Phillips Dorset 30 May 1630 1636- 1638 13 May 1639 1637- 1640+ x 1633-1636 1637-1638 1630-1635 1630-1635 1630-1636 6 May 1635 6 May 1635 x 18 May 1631 x Select, 1633 1636, 1638 1639 Rater, 1634 Deputy, 1639 Fence viewer,1638 Select, 1634 x Select, 1633 Deputy, 1632 1634, 1635 Rater, 1633 Survey, 1634 1633, 1634 1635 Fence viewer, 1635 1630-1642 18 May 1631 x 1636 Windsor 1638 Boston x 1635 Windsor 1635 Windsor 1636 Windsor 1630-1636 18 May 1631 Fence viewer,1634 1636 Windsor John Phillips Jun 1630 Humphrey Pinney Andrew Pitcher John Plumbe (36) Eltweed Pomeroy (45) Robert Pond William Pond John Pope John Porter William Preston (44) Broadway; Somerset Kenton, Devon Gt. Yeldham, Essex Beaminster, Dorset 30 May 1630 1634 30 May 1630 30 May 1630 Groton, Jun 1630 Suffolk Groton, Jun 1630 Suffolk Ashford, 1633 Kent Felstead, Jun 1630 Essex Giggleswick, Nov 1635 Yorkshire 1630-1645 7 Aug 1632 Delect, 1636 1638 Survey, 1637 1639 Fence 1637 viewer,1638 x 1630-1636 14 May 1634 x 1636 Windsor 1634-1661 2 Jun 1641 x X 1630-1635 x 1635 Wethersfield 1630-1636 4 Mar 1633 Select, 1633 Rater, 1633 Constab,1634 1636 Windsor 1630-1637 18 May 1642 x x 1630-1640+ x x 1633-1646 3 Sep 1634 Select, 1638 Fence viewer,1637 1630-1635 5 Nov 1633 x 1635 Windsor 1635-1639 x 1639 New Haven ON Oliver Purchase, Jr. Dorchester, 24 Jul 1633 Dorset Edward Rainsford Staverton, Jun 1630 Northampton Philip Randall Thomas Rawlins William Read (48) Allington, Dorset Nazing, Essex Newcastle, Northumberland 24 Jul 1633 Jun 1630 1635 Thomas Richards (40) Richard Rockett William Rockwell (39) Bray Rossiter Edward Rossiter Hugh Rossiter Thomas Sanford Pitminster, Somerset Dorchester, Dorset Fitzhead, Somerset Dorchester, Dorset Combe, Somerset Combe, Somerset Stansted Montfichet, Essex 30 May 1630 24 Jul 1633 30 May 1630 30 May 1630 30 May 1630 30 May 1630 1634 1633-1640+ 1631-1632 1633- 1636 1634- 1640+ 1635- 1639 1630-1638 1633-1639 1630-1636 1630-1636 1630-1630 1630-1637 1634=1639 7 Dec 1636 17 Apr 1637 14 May 1634 18 May 1631 2 Sep 1635 13 May 1640 x 18 May 1631 18 May 1631 bef 1630 x 9 Mar 1637 x x x X Deputy, 1636 1638 Fence 1637 viewer,1638 Select, 1633 x x Rater, 1634 x x x x 1632 Boston 1636 Windsor x 1639 Rohobeth 1639 Weymouth 1639 Braintree 1636 Windsor 1636 Windsor x 1637 Taunton 1639 Hartford Mathias Sension Nicholas Sension Henry Smith London London Dorchester, Dorset 1634 1635 30 May 1630 John Smith John Smith Matthew Smith Richard Southcote Thomas Southcote Thomas Starr Israel Stoughton Devon Toxteth, Lancashire Sandwich, Kent 30 May 1630 17 Aug 1635 3 Jun 1637 Mohums-Ottery, 30 May 1630 Devon Mohuns-Ottery, 30 May 1630 Devon Canterbury, 3 Jun 1637 Kent Coggeshall, 24 July 1633 Essex Thomas Stoughton (30) Coggeshall, Essex 30 May 1630 1634- 1638 1635- 1640 1630-1636 1630-1640+ 1635-1678 1637-1640+ 1630-1631 1630-1631 1637-1641 1633-1644 1630-1636 3 Sep 1634 x 18 May 1631 x 25 May 1636 3 May 1645 18 May 1631 bef 1630 x 5 Nov 1633 18 May 1631 x X Select, 1634 Fence viewer,1633 x x x x x x Select, 1636 1637, 1637 1638, 1637 Deputy, 1634 1636 Select, 1634 Deputy, 1635 Rater, 1634 Constab,1630 Fence viewer,1634 1638 Windsor 1640 Windsor 1636 Springfield x x x x x x x 1636 Windsor John Stowe Cranbrook, Kent 17 May 1634 1634-•1643 3 Sep 1634 Deputy, 1639 1639 X George Strange Littleham, Devon 13 Nov 1634 1634-•1639 6 May 1635 X 1639 Hingham John Strong (25) Plymouth, Devon 30 May 1630 1630- 1635 9 May 1637 X 1635 1638 1648 Hingham Taunton Windsor William Sumner (30) Bicester, Oxfordshire 1635 1635-•1640+ 17 May 1637 Select, 1637 1638, 1638 Fence 1637 viewer,1638 1639 X Thomas Swift (33) Dorchester, Dorset 1633 1633-•1640+ 6 May 1635 X X Richard Sylvester Northover, Somerset 30 May 1630 1630-•1633 1 Apr 1634 X 1633 Weymouth Stephen Terry (22) Dorchester, Dorset 30 May 1630 1630-•1636 18 May 1631 Fence viewer,1634 1636 Windsor John T i l l y Chilthorne 1624 Domer, Somerset 1630-•1636 4 May 1635 X 1636 Windsor Ralph Tompkins (50) Gt.Missenden, Bucks Nov 1635 1635-•1642 2 May 1638 X X Thomas Treadwell (30) St. Giles, London Nov 1635 1635-1638 7 Sep 1638 X 1638 Ipswich Francis Twitchell Chesham, 1634 1634-•1640+ X X X Bucks Joseph Twitchell Chesham, Bucks 1633 Thomas Trowbridge Taunton, Somerset 1636 Nicholas Upsal Dorchester, Dorset 30 May 1630 Richard Wade (60) Symondsbury, Dorset 5 May 1635 Nathaniel Wales (49) Lancashire 17 Aug 1635 John Warham (35) Exeter, Devon 30 May 1630 Thomas Waterhouse (39) Codenham, Suffolk 1639 Henry Waye (43) Ailington, Dorset 30 May 1630 George Weeks Salcombe Regis Devon 1635 John Whipple Booking, Essex 16 Sep 1632 John Whitcomb Taunton, Somerset 1635 Edward White (42) Cranbrook, Kent 8 Oct 1635 1633-1640+ 14 May 1634 x x 1636-1639 x 1640 New Haven 1630-1640+ 18 May 1631 Select, 1638 Survey, 1635 Bailiff,1634 Tax col,1634 x 1635-1637 9 Mar 1637 x 1637 Lynn 1635-1651 2 Nov 1637 1630-1636 18 May 1631 Select, 1633 Fence viewer,1633 1636 Windsor 1639-1640 13 May 1640 1630-1640+ x x 1635-1650 13 May 1640 x 1632-1638 13 May 1640 1638 Ipswich 1635-1639 3 Jun 1652 1639 Scituate 1635-1640+ 7 Dec 1636 x x Zachariah Whiteman Lee, Bucks Nov 1635 Richard Williams Sinwell, Gloucester 1633 Roger Williams Harptree, Somerset 30 May 1630 David Wilton Topcroft, Norfolk Jun 1630 John Wiswall London 1635 Thomas Wiswall London 1635 John Witchfield St. Mary, London or Exeter, Devon 16 Sep 1632 HenrycWithington Atherton, Lancashire 17 Aug 1635 Henry Wolcott (52) Tolland, Somerset 30 May 1630 Henry Wolcott,Jr. Tolland, 30 May 1630 (23) Somerset Henry Woodward Gt. Woolton, 17 Aug 1635 Lancashire 1635-1640+ x 1633-1637 x 1630-1636 18 May 1631 1630-1635 11 Jun 1633 1635-1640+ 14 Marl639 1635-1657 x 1632-1636 11 Jun 1633 1635-1667 x 1630-1636 bef 1630 1630-1636 1 Apr 1634 1635-1658 10 May 1643 Fence viewer,1636 x Select, 1634 1636 Rater, 1634 Fence viewer,1633 Select, 1639 Fence 1639 viewer,1639 Fence viewer,1638 x Select, 1636 1638 Fence viewer,1637 Select, 1634 Rater, 1633 Fencd 1634 viewer,1634 x x x 1637 Taunton 1636 Windsor 1635 Windsor x x 1636 Windsor x 1636 Windsor 1636 Windsor x 142 SELECTIVE BIBLIOGRAPHY I. Primary Sources 1. Contemporary Sources Ames, William. The Marrow of_Sacred Divinity. London, 1642. B a i l l i e , 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 a l l 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 Fait h f u l l, 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; i n 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 i n or about the Years 1535-1543. Edited by Lucy Toulin Smith. Carbondale, 111.: Southern I l l i n o i s 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  H i s f r i c a l 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: L i t t l e , 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 F i r s t Planters of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay from 1623 to 1636. Boston: Charles C. L i t t l e 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 F i r s t Church at Dorchester in New England, 1636-1734. Boston: George H. E l l i s , 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: L i t t l e , Brown and Company, 1949. Adams, Sherman W., and Henry R. Stiles. The History of Anpient Wethers-f i e l d , 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 H i l l : 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 F i f t y 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. E l l i s , George E. The Puritan Age and Rule in the Colony of Massachusetts  Bay, 1629-1685. Boston: Houghton, M i f f l i n 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 i n 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. F r i i s , 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; F i r s t Minister in the  Massachusetts Bay Colony. New York: Dodd, Mead, and Co., 1891. H i l l , 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. . S o i l , Its Influence on the History of the United  States, with special reference to migration and the sci e n t i f i c  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 F i r s t 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 F i r s t 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. M o r g a n , •admVisi&le Saintes*;. ThenHistfelry ofuayPuritan Idea. New York: New York University press, 1963. Morison, Samuel E l i o t . Builders of the Bay Colony. New York: Houghton M i f f l i n Co. , 1930. . The Founding of Harvard College. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1935. . The Puritan Pronaos: Studies in the Intellectual Life of New England i n 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: L i t t l e , 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. Phil l i p s , James Duncan. Salem in the Seventeenth Century. Boston; Houghton M i f f l i n 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 i n 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 i n 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 H i l l : 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 F a i r f i e l d . Town Government in Massachusetts, 1620-1930. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1930. Stearns, Raymond P. Congregationalism in the Dutch Netherlands; The  and F a l l 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, C i v i l and Ecclesias-t i c a l . 2 Vols. Hartford, 1818. Walker, George Leon. History of the F i r s t 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 H i l l , 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. Z i f f , 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 M i f f l i n 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 F i r s t 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 E l i o t , John. A Biographical Dictionary. Boston, 1809. Farmer, John. A Genealogical Register of the F i r s t 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 i n 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, f i f t h series, IX (1959), 103-122. Bennett, M. K. "The Food Economy of the New England Indians, 1605-1675." Journal of P o l i t i c a l 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 P o l i t i c a l 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 i n 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, f i r s t 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 F i r s t 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 C r i t t a l l . 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, f i r s t 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 i n 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 i n 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. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0102320/manifest

Comment

Related Items