Dukes County, Massachusetts - The whole text, 1911 (part 3 of 15)

In Great Baddow, as early as 1540, and doubtless a much earlier period, there lived a numerous family of the name of Pease, as evidenced by the frequent occurrence of the name in the parish registers of that place. In the entries of baptisms, marriages, and burials, this name occurs eighty-four times between 1540 and 1654, the earliest one recording the death of a daughter of Robert Pease "the Smythe." It will only concern us to consider the branch from which our John descends, and this line begins with John^ Pease the clothier, who was the son of John* "the Smythe," of the same parish.

He married Margaret, daughter of Richard Hyckes, June 23, 1560, and had two children, of record, namely Robert^ and a daughter Mary, who married Benjamin Carter in 1586. John the clothier died in November, 161 2, and Margaret, his wife, deceased in the previous month.

Robert^ Pease probably lived and certainly died in Great Baddow, where he was buried April 16, 1623, leaving a widow Margaret and several children. The following is a record of his children as taken from the parish registers. His marriage

Robert^ the father, made his will May 10, 1613, and it was proven June 12, 1623, two months after his death. In this testament he names his wife Margaret, sons Robert* and John^ daughter Elizabeth^ and her husband Abraham Page. The widow Margaret and her family continued to reside in Great Baddovv for ten years after the death of her husband. Robert*, the elder son, had married a wife named Lydia, and two children of theirs are recorded as baptized at Great Baddow, viz:. Robert^ April, 1630, and John^, Feb. II, 1631-2, both of whom will be referred to later.

The next we learn of the two brothers, Robert* and John* Pease, is when they embarked in the ship Francis^ which sailed in November, 1634, from Ipswich, a seaport town not far from Baddow. Their names are entered as follows: John Pease, twenty-seven years; Robert Pease, twenty-seven years (doubtless an error for forty-seven, as he was about twenty years older than his brother John) and Robert Pease, aged three years, the child whose baptism we have just noted. The widow Margaret remained in Great Baddow for some time, as her name appears as witness to a bond given in August, 1636, by William Vincent of Bromfield (a Parish adjoining Great Baddow), to be paid to Abraham Page when he should come of age. This minor was a gi'andson of the widow Margaret, the child of Abraham Page and Elizabeth Pease, whose marriage we have stated. (The young boy was then an orphan, his father having died in 1628.) It will thus be seen that the widow Margaret and her grandson, Abraham Page, were the only ones, in all probability, left of a numerous family in this little English Parish; and vre shall later hear of them both following her emigrant sons to the new world.

The ship Francis arrived in New England late in 1634, and landed her passengers at Boston. Where the two brothers, Robert* and John*, first took up their residence is not known, but early in 1637, they were at Salem, when the land of '^ Robert Pease and his brother" is mentioned in the early records of that town. The considerable difference in the ages explains this form of entry in the town books. On Jan. 2, 1636-7, Robert Pease was granted ten acres, and John Pease twenty acres of land. On the 23d of April, 1638, the town granted John Pease "five acres of land next adjoining to Samuell Cominge neer unto the watermill."' John was concerned in a maritime transaction in October, 1638, for which he was wanted as a witness in August, 1639;^ but he was absent from his place of abode as appears by the following record : -

It is ordered that wheras Mr Gervas Garford had a Cowe of John Pease for hire for a year, the tyme now being expired, and the said John Pease not returned whereupon the sd Mr Gervas requested advice from this Court wt to doe with hir: upon which the Court ordered him to keepe the Cowe untill the ptie shall returne upon the same tearmes he kept hir before.'

He may have been on a voyage to England to bring back his aged mother, as she appears for the first time in New England in that year (1639), when she was admitted a member of the church in Salem. She lived but a few years in her new home, and we may bring consideration of her to a close, in so far as her record has any bearing upon the person immediately concerned in our researches. She died in 1644 and her will, dated September i of that year, mentions only her grandchildren, Robert and John, the fatherless sons of her deceased son Robert. Of the elder brother Robert* we shall have but brief concern. He joined the Church in 1643, ^^^d on October 1 5 of that year three of his children were baptized. He died before his mother, the next year, as on Nov. 3, 1644, an inventory of the estate of Robert Pease of Salem, late deceased, was taken, and the widow Marie Pease appointed administratrix 3: 11 mo: 1644. Robert^ Pease was named as the eldest son of the deceased, and John^ Pease the second son. There were other young children by this second marriage.*

Thus of the Great Baddow family there were left John* and his nephew Robert^ who had come over with him in the Francis ten years previously. The further history of these two persons is all that will now engage our attention, as both became residents of the Vineyard, the first named being the progenitor of our island family, and the latter a temporary sojourner where his uncle had previously settled. At this date (1644) John* Pease was thirty-six, and Robert^ fourteen years of age. By order of the Court young Robert remained with his mother for a year, at the end of which time he applied for permission to learn a trade. In 1645 ^^ "^^^^ thereupon bound as an apprentice to Thomas Root of Salem, weaver, for the term of five years, to learn the art of linen and woolen weaving. This fact is of significance as will be shown later.

only to refer to a collateral incident occurring in this year (1645), which has a circumstantial relation to the subject. Abraham Page, the son of his sister Elizabeth^ before referred to, emigrated to Boston.^ The last reference to John Pease was under date of 1639, and related to his absence from Salem. The next recorded entry concerning him is under date of January 25, 1 641-2, when Elias Stileman, Sr., appears as plaintiff in a civil suit against him, and again under date of Dec. 26, 1643, 1"^^ appears as plaintiff in a civil suit against Thomas Trusler. ^ These suits indicate dealings in maritime business, and doubtless he was engaged in coastwise trading, which may account for the infrequent references to him, owing to absences on voyages. On June 18, 1644, John Pease sold to Richard Ingersoll of Salem "one house & 75 acres of Land adjoyning to the fearme whereon the said Richard dwelleth,"^ and thenceforth his name disappears completely from the Essex County and the town records of Salem. The next appearance of his name occurs in the records of Edgartowm two years later, under date of March 23, 1646-7, when he sold ten acres of land at Mattakeeset to Mr. John Bland, and we may safely conclude that following the disposal of this Salem land in 1644, he came hither with his family to settle. His eldest son James was born March 15, 1637, anci this presupposes his marriage in Salem or elsewhere, and the bringing of a wife and young children to take up their life work in the island home. The identity of this wife is fully established, in the opinion of the author, but this is a view which contravenes the conclusions to be found in the published genealogical accounts of the early Peases in Salem.* A court record dated Nov. 3, 1635, contains the following statement : -

Ordered that John Pease shalbe whipt & bound to his good behaviour for strikeing his mother [in law] Mrs Weston & deryding of her & for dyvers other misdemeanors & other evill carriages.^

^Suffolk Deeds, I, 53. This was "the one moytye of the fearme wch the towne of Salem graunted unto Frances Weston," and was probably held by Pease at this date.

^There are two genealogies of the Pease families. The first was compiled by Frederic S. Pease and printed in 1847, and this author adopts the legend of the landing of John Pease on the Vineyard in 1632. The second was prepared by Austin Spencer Pease and published in 1869, and is an enlarged and more critical work. This author discards the legend as improbable and advances many arguments to show the fallacy of it.

The compiler of the Pease genealogy, without any evidence cited or reason given, states that this particular John Pease was another one of the name residing in the same town. There is not a scintilla of proof that two of this name resided there 163 5-1 644, and the Salem records make no mention of a "Senior" or "Junior" John, which was absolutely necessary and customary for distinguishing persons bearing the same name involved in land grants or legal proceedings. Otherwise there would be inextricable confusion of titles to property. It is therefore certain that our John Pease married Lucy, daughter of Mrs. Margaret Weston, wife of Francis Weston of Salem, a fact which is of interest because of its collateral bearing on our subject. Weston was an early settler at Salem, originally a friend and supporter of Roger Williams, whom he followed in exile to Rhode Island. He was unfortunate, however, in his second marriage, as Mrs. Margaret Weston was afflicted with one of the religious whimsies of the period, and incurred the opposition of the authorities, not then famed for charity and tolerance, and she was made to sit in the bilboes for her schismatic "notions."^ The particular doctrines she imbibed were those promulgated by Samuel Gorton, for which he and others suffered persecution and were driven from Salem to seek an asylum in Rhode Island. The nature of these doctrines is imperfectly understood now, as they were a part of the abstruse hair-splitting theological controversies of that period. Sufficient to say they were regarded as heretical by ecclesiastical authorities, and that was enough to condemn those who subscribed to them. In a few years Weston himself became a disciple of Gorton, and his step-daughter, Lucy Pease, likewise joined the sect, all of which was doubtless to the disadvantage of John Pease, socially and commercially, in orthodox Salem. In addition to this Mrs. Weston was undoubtedly unbalanced mentally, and later became of hopelessly unsound mind.* We are thus enabled to see the environment of John Pease, and considering the stress of the times and the religious intolerance of the period may not harshly judge his unlawful chastisement of his mother-in-law. Doubtless she deserved forcible repression, and invited it by her actions. Weston was banished in March, 1638, from the jurisdiction of Massa- chusetts for promulgating the tabooed Gortonian doctrines, and took up his residence at Shawomet, Rhode Island, whence he continued to spread them by whatever means he could employ. The magistrates of the Massachusetts colony tolerated this defiance for five years, and then determined to silence him, by forcible measures if necessary, and place him under arrest for teaching heretical doctrines. John Pease heard of this in the fall of 1643 at Salem, and undertook to give his wife's father a warning of the approaching danger. The following account of this aft'air, written by Samuel Gorton himself, discloses John Pease in a highly favorable light considering all the circumstances. A letter dated Shawomet, Sept. 26, 1643, signed by Gorton and others of his sectaries, addressed to the military emissaries of Massachusetts, was sent by the hand "of one John Peise ivho lived amongst them in the Massachusetts, who having a father-in-law amongst us was willing to come and declare unto his father, out of the tenderness towards him, of the nearness of the soldiers approach, and as near as he could the end of their coming, to persuade his said father to escape for his life."* From this letter we glean the most convincing fact about John Pease vv'hich bears so conclusively upon his alleged settlement on this island before the coming of the Mayhews. Manifestly, he could not have been a prior settler here because as late as September, 1643, he *' lived amongst them in the Massachusetts."

This expedition resulted in the seizure and return of Weston as a prisoner to Boston, where he suffered incarceration with hard labor in the Dorchester jail.^ Doubtless this caused the wife of John Pease to consider her own safety, and shortly after her husband's return from the mission above related, she recanted her heretical views, as appears by the following records : - renounce Gortons opinions & confessing her fault in bloting out some things in the booke wch she brought & in showing the same before shee deUvered it & p'fessing shee was sorry for it, shee was dismissed for the p'sent to appear when she shall bee called for.^ [17 October 1643.]

'Simplicities Defence, London, 1647. The italics are used by the author to emphasize this important statement about John Pease. This letter was delivered to the Massachusetts Commissioners, who answered it, addressing their reply "To our friend John Peise."

From these facts and resulting conditions we are nowable to explain why John Pease left Salem to seek a home elsewhere outside the jurisdiction of Massachusetts. The religious atmosphere was too threatening and his wife would be constantly menaced with the fear of arrest, being held under bonds by the court for the future determination of her case. Consequently, he sold his property and that of his father-inlaw in the summer of 1644, and left Salem forever.

The removal of John Pease from Salem about 1644,. following the arrest of his wife, the death of his mother and elder brother, is a natural effect of causes easily understood, and the appearance of a John Pease on Martha's Vineyard immediately thereafter are consecutive facts too significant to be mistaken for mere coincidences. They might be classed as such but for a further confirmation of these evidences of identity afforded us in connection with the subsequent history of Robert^ nephew of John of Great Baddow and Salem. It will be remembered that this young lad had been apprenticed to a wTaver to learn that trade. His term of service expired in 1650, and records of his residence in Salem are extant^ showing that in 1652 and 1655 he was an inhabitant of that town. The next year a Robert Pease appears in Edgartown; and if anything were waiting to establish the relationship between him and the John Pease already a resident here, the following entry from the town records will furnish it : -

Richard Sarson will give Robert Pease 100 and half of fish every year so long as he liveth upon the Island and the same will be given him by John Burchard, Edward Lay, William Weekes, Thomas Burchard and Thomas Bays, "if the said Robert Pease doth Ingage to weave the Cloth of the town for such pay as the town can raise among them selves, except w^mpam."

What more natural thing could occur than this? The new settlement needed a weaver, and John Pease made it known to his nephew in Salem, and he forthwith came to continue his fortunes with an uncle whom he had accompanied from England as a boy and with whom he had been associated much of his life. Robert Pease remained here several years, but had removed before 1660. The connection between the Salem and Vineyard Peases thus seems to be established, and family tradition is not wanting, if it were needed, to sub- stantiate this. The late Captain Valentine Pease, an aged man in 1849, stated that he had heard his father and grandfather speak of James' and John^, the two eldest sons of John* as having lived in Salem or having come from that place. This is undoubtedly true, as these two boys must have been born in Salem, the only children (surviving at least) by his first wife.^ Accordingly, the demonstration of the identity of John of Great Baddow, Salem, Mass., and Martha's Vineyard is left at this point for the impartial judgment of the historical student. It is a clear trail.

On March 23, 1646, John Pease sold to John Bland "a Parcell of Land about Ten acres and Two acres of Meadow " at Mattakeeset.^ The circumstances surrounding this sale can only be surmised; whether it comprised all his property or a part of it, but the records afford us no further insight. It is probable that the former is most likely and that he left the island for Connecticut after this sale. He is next found at New London, in 1650, in connection with business matters, in which Governor John Winthrop of that colony was interested, but the historian of that town confesses that ''of John Pease little is known. "^ It will be remembered that about 1645 to 1650 the new settlements at Saybrook, New London, and New Haven were being founded and were attracting hundreds from the old towns in Massachusetts and probably our John Pease was prospecting and trying his fortune on the main land. Whether at this time or later, it is known that he acquired land at Mohegan, in the town of Norwich, Conn., and on it he probably established his second son, John, Jr., and it appears that he retained it until his death, bequeathing it to this son, "with that frame of a house I set up upon some part of that land,"* But the island proved to be more attractive to the father, and he returned here before March 5,

'In another branch of the family residing here in the latter part of the i8th century, a son was christened Robert, a distinctive name in the Salem branch, in honor of a great uncle who belonged to the Salem Peases.

'Caulkins, "History of Norwich," log. This author also wrote the "History of New London," and confounds John senior and John his son, who was a settler at Norwich, on the lot granted to the father in 1659. John junior was his second son, and probably not of age.

*There was a land grant in November, 1659, to John Pease of seven acres on a branch of the Yantic River, now called Pease's Brook, west of Norwich, now a settlement called Bozrahville. (History of Norwich, 193.) Whether this was to John, Sr., or John, Jr., depends on the age of the latter. James, the oldert son, was b. March 15, 1637, and unless John was born by November, 1638, he would not have been able to hold property then.

The town hath ended the case between John Pease and Edward Sales thus: that the sd John Pease is to enjoy that commonage that was first given Edward Sales and the said Edward Sales hath his old right of fish still.'

From this and other fragmentary references it seems certain that Pease bought his property on the Vineyard of Edward Sales, whether at his first coming or on his return from Connecticut cannot be determined in the absence of any existing records.^

On Nov. 7, 1653, he was elected constable, the only office he is known to have held in the town. In 1658 he was one of the appraisers of the estate of John Butler, and on Feb. 15, 1659, made a deposition concerning Thomas Mayhew's "Land at home which is in controversy." At the quarterly court in September of that same year, he was sued by Richard Raines, probably a coastwise trader, and the verdict of the court was that "John Pease shall pay the Court charge and sixty weight of leafe tobacco to the Plaintiff."' In 1662 he had further legal trouble with Edward Sales who sued him, an outcome of their previous differences. He was a member of the train band this year. On Oct. 3, 1662, the town selected him to represent the proprietors at the Plymouth County Court, "to answare the suite of John Doged comenced against the said towne," involving title to certain granted lands.* In 1665 his testimony was given and is of record concerning the nuncupative will of John Folger. The following seven years contain no further references to him until 1673, when he with nineteen others of the leading residents of the Vineyard, outside of the Mayhew party, signed the celebrated appeal to Massachusetts for annexation, and joined in the "Dutch Rebellion" of that and the following year. He was one of the first to be attacked in reprisal, five days after the petition was dated. The following is the record in the case : -

'Ibid., I, 120. "John Pease defendant: Lawfully bought of Edward Searles his ... . and all his meadow & upland." »Ibid., I, 140. ^Plymouth Colony Records, IV, 27.

John peas Being By the Govournour By his officer warned to appear to answer his misdemeanour for committing a Riott at Edgartown the Marshall Returneth answer that the warrant was by the said peas his wife taken from him and therefore he cannot Return his warrant: the said peas appearing Before the Govournour is Both person and estate Bound to answer at the next sessions of Triall held uppon the Duke his highness province and Territories for the said Riott committed and his wife for forcibly taking the warrant out of the marshalls hands.'

These are the only references to John Pease in the town and county records, except casual mentions not important enough for citation, with the usual drawing of lots at the regular divisions. In this connection it may be stated that he was the proprietor of one full share in the "Five and Twenty" and as such participated in every recorded division from 1653 to 1676 in the same equality with others.^

Imprimis: one house and house lot of ten acres of upland and 2 acres of meadow lying at the northermost end of the town Great Harbour, with a Cove of water on the north of the meadow and east of the harbour, the west with the land of Joseph Codman and on the South and Southeast the commons and main Island.

2d. - A dividend lying from beyond the plain containing twenty five acres more or less, called Mashakett, in the Cove of the Neck, bounded on the main pond on the South and southwest and the Pond on the southeast: the land of Thomas Daggett on the northeast: Richard Sarsons land on the west and northwest.

3d. - A little neck of land containing five acres of land, more or less, lying towards Sanchacontackett, bounded with the Salt Pond west, south and east: and with the meadow and beach on the north. 4th. - A lot of land upon Chapequideck Neck lying upon the higher land there, from water to water, cross the Neck: the harbour bounding it upon the north and on the south; the land of John Smith on the west, and William Weeks' lot on the east.

It is believed from all obtainable evidence that John Pease lived at first at Mattakeset and later, when the home lots were laid out, he drew the first one of the Five and Twenty,

^From an unrecorded document furnished to the author by Miss Harriet Marshall Pease. It came from the papers of the late Jeremiah Pease, Esq.

situated at north end of town at the place ever since known as Pease's Point. It consisted of ten acres, and by inheritance and acquisition from other heirs it came into the possession of his son Thomas, who sold it in 1692 to Mrs. Hannah (Mayhew) Daggett.^

John Pease was twice married. It is clear that the two eldest sons - James of Edgartown and John of Monhegan (Norwich) Conn., - were issues of Lucy, the first wife, and perhaps there was a daughter or daughters. When she died is not known, nor where she is buried. His second wife bore the Christian name of Marie or Mary, and was married to him as early as 1656.^ She was probably much younger than her husband, and calculations based on the birth of her children would place her own birth at about 1630. There is a family tradition that her maiden name was Browning, and presumably daughter of Malachi Browning of this town.^

It is not known when John Pease died. The last mention of him in the record is on Sept. 25, 1677, when he served as a juror,* at which time he was seventy years old and had already executed his last will and testament. This document is as follows : -

March the 4th. 1674. The last will land testament of me, John Peas, husbandman and inhabitant uppon Martins Vineyard in the Town called Edgartown, I John Peas having upon good consideration and being now in some measure in good health and perfect understanding and memory though I am striken in years andCrasy in respect of what formerly; I having had two wives one formerly deceased and by her have yet two sons surviving, James Peas, & John Peas and these two sonnes James the Elder, God hath been pleased to bless him in his labours & indeavours and I have been helpful! to him so that he is verry well to pass in his Estate farre beyond myself : I do therefore in this my last will and testament give to my Eldest Son James Peas twelve pence; My second son John Peas I have alreddy given unto and do hereby give unto him all tliat was given unto me at Mohegin, with that frame of a house I set up uppon some part of that land; I say I give it unto my son John Peas & his heirs forever: I having by my now living wife Mary Peas, four sonnes & four Daughters, my Sonnes Thomas Peas Jonathan, Samuell, and David and my Daughters

Abygaill Peas, Mary, Rebecca, and Sarah Peas unto these my four Sonnes and four Daughters I doe give all my landes and houseing that I have upon this Hand Martins Vineyard to be either equally devided or valued or sold or exchanged and the price thereof Equally devided to everyone of them alike and this to be performed at convenient age of them: or as my now living wife Mary shall see meet whome I make my full and whole Executrix to performe all this my last will and testament; and I give unto Mary Peas my wife all my cattle of every sort with all my household goodes whatsoever I ha\e more or less for her use and comfort and helpfulness bringing up my children at her disposing for Ever. In witness hereunto my hand and seal.

John Peas. Further I give and bequeath unto my second son John Peas twelve pence. Wee whose names are underwritten are witnesses to this will and testament.

His demise took place some time between September, 1677, and June 3, 1689, when his widow had already remarried, and on that date disposed of her interests in the estate of her late husband.^ Her second marriage was to a man named Creber, probably Capt. Thomas Creber of Portsmouth, N. H., master of the ketch John and Mary, engaged in the coastwise trade. ^ In 1669 he was the son-in-law of John Moses of Portsmouth, and this marriage to the widow, Marie Pease, was his second.^ She also outlived this husband, and was a widow again in 1695.* The date and place of her death yet remain unsolved. An Alice Shortridge, wife of Richard of Portsmouth, N. H., was the only surviving child of Thomas Crebar, late of Portsmouth (1721), deceased.^ These facts above outlined constitute practically all our knowledge of this prominent settler, the progenitor of one of our largest and best known Vineyard families.*^

®For the purpose of collating all the scattered references to him the following memoranda are here inserted for future investigators: "James Oliver constituted Richard Hogg of Boston in New England, tailor, his attorney to demand of John Pease and Nicholas Trevvorgie certain monies due. 5 (12) 1648." (Aspinwall Notarial Record, 194). In the inventory of the debts due estate of David Evans in 1663, that of John Pease is classed as among those "hoped good." (Gen. Reg., XI, 345-) and was listed as twentyeight years of age, but what relationship he bore to the person of the same name who became so prominent in the affairs of this town, cannot be surely stated/ The tailor was born in 1607, while our Richard was born in 1637, and the former might have been the father, as one authority states that the elder went to Nantucket.^ The first record of a Richard Sarson in this town is under date of Feb. i, 1656, in connection with an agreement made by the townsmen with Robert Pease, at which time Richard Sarson and five others agreed to give Pease "two and half of fish every year so long as he liveth upon the Island."' As our known Richard Sarson was born in 1637 he would have been only nineteen years old on this date, not able to make a legal contract, and we may assume that it was the elder Richard who came here, bringing a son of the same name, and that he was admitted on June 2, 1657, as townsman. Otherwise we should have to concede that our later Richard was admitted as such before he was of age.* This hypothesis of a father and son here seems applicable to the next record of Feb. 18, 1659, when Richard Sarson was chosen as arbitrator in a land controversy, a duty to which a young man just turned twenty-one would hardly be called, and on June 7, 1659, Richard Sarson was chosen constable, an office of some considerable dignity in those times. ^ If this theory be correct, we are obliged to dispose of the elder Richard ''without benefit of clergy" as there is nothing further to indicate when he died to relieve us of the doubt. There is scarcely a reference to a death or settlement of an estate on the Vineyard before 1660, and early vital statistics are entirely wanting, so that the disappearance of the elder Richard is not an unnatural conclusion to reach. As Richard Sarson

'Hotten, "List of Emigrants." In the same ship came Edward Seale and Jeremy Whitton, who are probably identical with the persons of those names living at the Vineyard in later years.

After this date the younger Richard could be responsible for all the acts of which we have knowledge in the records. He took part in the division of Crackatuxett April 21, 1660, and was named among the proprietors that year.^ He submitted to the Patentees Government in 1661, and in 1662 was one of the train band and in 1663 drew a lot at Quanomica.^ About this time he had obtained the favor of the elder Mayhew, and on June 30, 1663, he was chosen recorder of the Vineyard Records, land court and probate **and General Assemblys," a position he held till 1668.'* This relation resulted in a further connection of a more intimate character. The widow of Thomas Mayhew, Jr., had been in weeds for seven years, and being dependent on the charity of the Society for the Propogation of the Gospel for her maintenance, she accepted the suit of Richard Sarson, and a marriage was arranged some time after Dec. 20, 1664, when the widow disposed of her estate by gift to each of her children in anticipation of the event. She provided a loophole for herself by this clause, however: "in case this match go on betwixt Richard & I," evidently recognizing that there was uncertainty about affairs of the heart. ^ At this time the widow, Jane Mayhew, must have been about thirty-six years old, while Sarson was her junior by eight or nine years. The marriage took place, however, despite this and her uncertainty, and from that time the position of Richard Sarson was assured. By it he acquired control of the inheritances of the Paine interests descending to his wife and thus became a considerable property owner, and as stepfather of Matthew, Thomas, and Rev. John Mayhew he managed their affairs until they were old enough to look out for themselves. He became one of the governor's assistants shortly after the inauguration of the duke's government here, and remained on the bench for about thirty years, sitting with his two step-sons most of that time.^ This spectacle gave rise to much of the discontent among the people elsewhere described. On Oct. 2, 1694, he was licensed to retail liquor, not for drinking purposes, but as a convenience for the public.^

Richard Sarson lived on one of the "Five and Twenty" lots and his house was probably on North Water street, as the lot extended from Morse to Cottage and from the harbor to Pease Point way. This lot originally belonged to Thomas Paine, and after Sarson's death descended to Samuel his son, and thence to the heirs of Samuel, viz., Anne Belcher and Jane Little. The following is a list of land holdings: -

This Record May Sufficiently Testefy of the pertickeler parcells of Lands which followeth was Given By this Town to Searls and Sould by the Said Searls to Richard Sarson: one house Lott Being forty Poles Square with four acres of Land added to it with three acres of that Swomp Joyning to it: this Land and Swomp Near to the old School House Peter Foulger Two acre Lott on the North side, otherwise Common Round about: More one Devedent about thirty six acres More or Less Lying on the South side of the Plaine Bounded with John Peases Lands on the East, the Pond on the South, Thomas Bayes Land on the West, the Comon on the North: More an Island Lying In Sanchacantacket Pond Near the Harbour that Comes Into that Pond: with the fifth Lot at Quanomica Neck: with the thirty forth Lott att Felix Neck that Comes Into that Pond: More on(e) Lott of thach Meadow Lying at Mattecessett and Joyning to the weir Eastward. Also the Six and Twentyth part of fish and whale that Belongs to this town and with the above Mentioned pertickelers the seven and thirt3^[eth] part of this Town Shipp upon the Island Marthas Vineyard : with one Ten acre Lott upon the Line : also a Comonage and the Six and twentyth part of fish and whale: these Lands were Confirmed by the Town the 30th of Desember 63 and Recorded b}' me the same 30th of Desember 63:

Richard Sarson

Given to Richard Sarson By the town one half Comonage that is a half a thirty seventh part of the Lands and Comons that are undivided In this Town Bounds: with one Ten acre Lott upon the Line Being the Seventh from Quanomica: with half the thirty fourth at Meachemies feild: with half the Lott at Felix Neck.^

Besides this Sarson owned land in Chilmark and Tisbury. He was an owner of one-sixth of Homes Hole neck in 1667 (as one of those who helped evict Francis Usselton), but he sold it two years later.^ When he died he owned a tract of a hundred acres at Homes Hole, bought of an Indian.

^Dukes Co. Court Record, Vol. I. This is a curious instance of the homely life of the Vineyard at that time when a justice of the King's bench could be seen pouring out a gill of rum for a thirsty yeoman who perchance had sat in his court a few hours before as plaintifif or defendant.

Richard Sarson died sometime before October 2^, 1703, intestate, when administration of his estate was granted to Mrs. x\nne Sarson, widow of his son Samuel, and Mr. Thomas Lothrop, the husband of Mehitable Sarson, only daughter of Richard.^ An inventory of his personal effects amounted to ;^i 5-1-0, and his real estate was appraised on June 20, 1704, as follows : -

£163-0-^ It is to be understood that there being several small allotments supposed to belong to the said estate the apprisement thareof is deferred by reason of uncertainty until it be better known. ^

It is not known when Mrs. Jane (Paine) Mayhew-Sarson died, nor is there any record of the settlement of her estate. By the curious ante-nuptial document of 1664 she gave to her children her personal and real property, including the Paine homestead, whose northern boundary is the present Main street, and extending from the harbor to Pease Point way. The following is a copy of this deed of gift : -

To Matthew I give 5 pounds, which is in my fathers hand, and the hors colt: - and the half lot, which was betwixt my mother and me, with all the privileges thereto belonging,

I give unto John, and if any of these three die single, it shall be given to Jerusha and Jedida, unless I shall see occasion to dispose of it otherwise. This in case this match go on betwixt Richard & I.

That which is written in this paper I Jane Mayhew, of the Vineyard wicldow, did freely give unto my children, as I have expressed in this writing bearing date this 20th of December 1664: for the confirmation hereof and of all and every of the said gifts and also to testify the premises to whom it may concern, I have hereunto set my hand, the day and year abovesaid. This writing is not to be in force except she marrieth with Richard Sarson. Witness hereunto JANE MAYHEW.^

There were at least two children born to Richard Sarson and his wife Jane, namely Samuel, b. about 1667 and Mehitable who married Thomas Lothrop of Barnstable. If other children were born they died young, and the name became extinct w^ith Samuel, whose children were daughters that grew to marriageable age. The name, however, is perpetuated in the small island in Sanchacantackett, opposite the opening or ''gut" as expressed in the inventory of his estate, and is erroneously called on the charts "Sasons Island."

Benjamin Smith

''^ his marital connection with the ruling family he soon attained public ofhce, and ever after held high places in the gift of his relatives, or through their influence. Because of his prominence for many years in the political life of the island, from his coming here, about 1684, to his death, in 1720, the author has endeavored to satisfy the desire to know something definite of his antecedents. At the end of many extended investigations, which cannot be enumerated or explained, it is necessary finally to state the presumptions based on all that has been worked out. The author therefore gives as his opinion, that he is the son of Rev. John Smith of Barnstable and Sandwich, born January, 1658-9, in the former town. All other Benjamins in New England have been traced out, and this one offers the reasonable solution as regards age, condition, and propinquity.^ Only one confusion exists -

^Sandwich was closely connected with the Vineyard by emigration of its famih'es, as well as with the Mayhew family by marriage. Governor Mayhew's daughter Martha had married Thomas Tupper of Sandwich, and Joseph Wing of the same town had married (in 1682) Jerusha Mayhew, elder sister of Jedidah, the wife of our Benjamin Smith.

there was a Benjamin Smith in Sandwich having -children by a wife Elizabeth, 1687-1704/ while our Benjamin was here, and children were born to him 1685-1700. The Benjamin of Sandwich has been supposed to be the son of Rev. John, but of this, as in our case, there is absolutely no proof."* There were two Benjamin Smiths living in Sandwich in 1681, who were admitted as "townsmen" in that year, Shubael, John, and Benjamin "Senior," evidently the three sons of Rev. John, and Benjamin Smith, "son of Richard," so-called evidently to distinguish him from the other Benjamin. Richard Smith, the father of the latter named, was evidently in a humble walk of life. He had come to Sandwich about 1657, from Plymouth, where he is first heard of in 1643, and he was employed to keep the town cattle, and to have for his pay the use of ten acres of land and a peck of Indian corn for each creature put on the commons.^ In 1665, he was granted three acres of bog below his house, and after that his name does not appear in the records until 1684, when he was "deceased," and on Oct. 24 that year his son Benjamin was appointed administrator of the estate.^ In those days, social distinctions were well defined, and it is the stronger probability that Benjamin, the son of the Rev. John, would marry the daughter of Rev. Thomas Mayhew and grand-daughter of a governor, rather than Benjamin, the son of Richard, cattle keeper for the town of Sandwich.'^ It may be said in response, that our Benjamin was a "carpenter" by designation, but that does not militate against the social position of his family. A mechanical trade was sometimes specified as an occupation in early times for purposes of distinguishing individuals, especially

'The names of these children include Elkanah, Elisha, Peninah, Bathsheba, which are not known in the descendants of Rev. John's sons. The only names used in common are Ichabod and Ebenezer, which are found in the minister's immediate family.

^Plymouth Col. Records, VI, 145. Richard Smith had married Ruth Bonum, March 27, 1646, and she had died before 1684, as her estate was included in the administration letters granted to Benjamin.

*Rev. John Smith went to New Jersey with his family and acquired property there. Mrs. Jerusha (Mayhew) Wing of Sandwich, went there also with her husband, and resided at Shrewsbury in that province. This affords a possible and probable association of the Smith and Mayhew families about the time of the marriage. It is further to be noted that Shubael Smith, the elder brother of Benjamin, came to the Vineyard later in life and spent the remainder of his days here, (i 713-1734).

if they were a number of the same name/ There is evidence however, that he was a carpenter in fact as well as name during the earlier years of his life.

He had a grant of land in 1684 in this town adjoining a previous grant of unknown date, and it is now impossible to assign the exact time of his settlement, though it is certain that he had married Jedidah Mayhew, youngest daughter of the younger Thomas, before Feb. 8, 1683-4, and we may agree that 1683, when he was about twenty-four years of age, was the probable date, both of marriage and settlement.^ This alliance became a career for him, and his name dots the records frequently thereafter. He was attorney for the town in 1687, 1692; commissioner as King's Attorney for the county in 1691; selectman, 1693, 1696, 1697; county treasurer, 1698, 1 715; representative to the General Court, 1692, 1703; county commissioner, 1703, 1708, besides doing other less important work in town affairs up to the last years of his life. Notwithstanding his family associations it appears that he did not entirely approve of all the things that were done by his relatives in the government of the island, and in particular the head of the clan received his private condemnation, although he could not afford open opposition.^ From this we may conclude his sense of justice was keen, even if his strength of character was not enough to apply the corrective.

Parson Homes enters in his diary under date of July 10, 1720, "Mr. Benjamin Smith of Edgartown died last week. He died suddenly, July 4, 1720, being a Monday." The gravestone records the same date, and reads further, "in the 65 year of his age." This is probably an error of the cutter of the inscription for 63, which would bring his birth to about 1658, proximately that of Benjamin, son of Rev. John of Sandwich.''

'The number of "cordwainers" (shoemakers) who appear on the records, could make shoes enough for an army. It is not to be supposed that all followed this occupation - but they were proficient in it ancj could do so if required. They made their own shoes.

^Simon Athearn is our authority that Benjamin Smith told him privately, "that they of Edgartown" had consulted together to have Mayor Mayhew "discarded .... least he should destroy the place." Athearn adds: "I once asked Mr. Benjamin Smith why some Englishmen found stealing in Edgartown & that by the Sheriffe too," were not prosecuted, and Smith confessed he "did not know." (Sup. Jud. Ct. Mss., 4605.)

became the transmitters of his name unto this present time. Four daughters married leaders in the social and political circles of the period.

John Smith

It is a bold task to attempt the discrimination of the various Jghn Smiths who appeared early in New England, but as one of this name settled in the town it becomes necessary to individualize him if possible. All probabilities favor the theory that he first settled at VVatertown, where he married Deborah, daughter of George and Phebe Parkhurst of that town, who was baptized in Ipswich, England, Aug. i, 1619, and that he removed about 1644 to Hampton, N. H., at which place her aunt, Mrs. Ruth Dalton, wife of Rev. Timothy Dalton, then lived. ^ By this marriage he became later brother-in-law of Joseph Merry of Tisbury.

The earHest record found relating to him here is on June 6, 1654, when he was chosen as one of the magistrate's assistants.^ He may be the "Smith" who on May 8, 1653, drew a lot in the Planting Field.' Further mention of him occurs in 1656 and 1659,* and in the latter year he became connected with the movement to settle Nantucket. He was a witness to the deed of conveyance of that island July 2, 1659, and later in the same year was chosen one of the ten Associate Proprietors to settle on the land in equal shares with the original purchasers.^ Thenceforth he became active in the development of that island, although retaining his property interests here. He was of the Edgartown train band in 1662, and his name is mentioned in the town records in 1660, 1663, and 1664, either as drawing lots in the various divisions of the common land, or in other minor connections. After that it is believed he removed to Nantucket to spend his declining years.

*John Smith "of Martins Vin Yard" had a suit against Jonas Weed late of Southampton, L. I., in an action of debt in the Connecticut Courts 1657. (Mainwaring, Digest of Connecticut Wills, I, 113.)

"advanced years," as was a common phrase employed by the aged, and it may be assumed that he was not much beyond middle life when it was executed. It is as follows: -

I John Smith of Martin's Vineyard, being in perfect health and Soundness Both in body and Minde, doe make my Last Will and Testament this 14th day of Febua: in the year : 1670 : as foUoweth: -

Imprimis: I Give unto my two sonnes John and Samuell all my lands on the Hand of Nantuckett wth all privelledges thereto belonging to be equally devided between them : they paying to their two sisters Deborah and Abigaill unto either of them five pounds to be payed within one year after their Entrance and Possession thereof.

Item: I give unto my sonne phillip my land and house at Martin's Vineyard with all priviledges belonging to the aforesaid land, to be his after the decease of his mother; and in the mean time after my decease my will is that the said Phillip my sonne shall injoy two thirds of the said lands and privelledges. The true intent and meaning of this my Gift unto my sonne phillip is this : because the wise disposing hand of God hath ordered that my said Sonne at present is impotent in his understanding : that his weakness shall not alienate the lands from my familie : therefore my will is that the lands and priviledges as aforementioned shall be thus disposed : Namely : if he said phillip shall Marrie and have issue : then the lands are Given to him and his heirs for Ever : but if the said phillip shall dy without issue, then it shall at his decease fall to the next heir in the family : and farther I Give to my sonne phillip what drawing cattle are in being on the land or living aforesaid at my decease, with carts, plowes and all furniture belonging to the teame, and also two Cowes : and liberty to dwell in the house all the time of his Mothers life.

lie: I mak Deborah my wife whole Executor of tliis my last will, and I desire and appoint my Loving Friends Mr. Thomas Mayhew and Isaac Robinson at the Vineyard & Mr Edward Starbuck and Thomas Macy of Nantuckett overseers of this my last will and testament : and in case one or more of these friends dy or leave the country and their places vacant, then the Survivors or Remainers shall have liberty to chuse others to supply, and are desired so to doe : for the confirmation hereof I the said Testator have hereunto set my hand the day & year above written.^

It is not known when he died, but it was sometime before June 16, 1674, when his son John sold the Nantucket property.' This son returned to Hampton, N. H,, where descendants resided. He was a lieutenant and by trade a cooper.^ a True Record of the Lands now in the Possession of Phillip Smith of Edgartown upon Marthas Vineyard: Desembr 27th (1676.) Inprimus one House Lott Containing Ten acres more or Less Bounded By- Thomas Harlock on the East & South the Common on the West, Richard Arey on the North: It. one Lott at the Planting feild Being Ten acres More or Less Bounded By Thomas Daggett on the East & South, Richard Sarson on the North, Joana Bland on the North: It. one Devidant at the Great Neck Bounded By the Plain on the East, Joana Bland on the South, Mr. Mayhew on the West, the Pond on the North: with the 36 Lott at Pheli.x Neck: 25 Lott at Meachamus feild and the 28th Lott att Quanomica with the 25th of wood Lott that was Laid out By the Ponds : on the East : Mr. Mayhews on the South, Joseph Daggett on the West and Thomas Daggett on the North: with one share of meadow at Cracketuxett Being Two acres more or Less Bounded by Thomas Daggett on the South or South East: It. one Lott at Chapequidick Neck, Mr. Mayhew on the North west, John Pease South east: It. one thach Lott Lying By Mr. Sarsons Devidant that he Bought of Thomas ISIayhew: with one whole share of Commonage and one share of fish and whale and share of all undivided Lands.*

It is not known either when the widow Deborah died, but she probably survived till about 1686, when Philip sold the homestead to his brother Samuel, from which it is evident that the mental infirmity referred to in the father's will had been relieved, as Philip was marshal of the county at that time. Descendants through both these sons remained on the Vineyard, and now reside on the island in the tenth generation.

Thomas Trapp

The only Trapp positively known to have come to the Vineyard was Thomas Trapp, a late arrival (1659), who was born in 1634-5, according to his gravestone, and hence but a child at the time when alleged landing occurred. His choice of this place for a home was a natural one, probably because of the Burchards who were kinsmen of his and among the first settlers.^ The English home of Trapp is not known, although diligent search has located many of his name in various parishes of Essex, the county whence came the Brownings and Peases/ A Thomas Trapp Kved, married, and had children in Great Baddow, 1 639-1 659, the home of John Pease, ^ and our Thomas Trapp emigrated to New England in company with a husbandman of Purleigh, Essex, a parish only seven miles distant from Great Baddow.^ After his arrival in this country, in 1659, he evidently came directly to Great Harbor and established a residence in this town, for he was granted a ten-acre "lot on the line" in December of that year.^ This vvas north of Main street and west of Planting Field way, and he gradually increased his holdings in that vicinity northward to the pond which still bears his name. He also acquired land in the Great Swamp by purchase, and after 1670 shared in the division of the common land/

He held numerous and important minor ofhces in the town and county. He was marshal, water bailiff and crier in 1667; juryman, 1679; deputy sheriff, 1694-1700; and town clerk, 1700 till his death. This event occurred Oct. 15, 1719, in his 86th year, and he lies buried in the old cemetery. The maiden name of his wife Mary is not known, but by her he had at least nine children who grew to adult life, five sons and four daughters. '' These left a numerous posterity, who lived on the paternal acres until about 1800, when the last of the name had migrated, mostly to Norwich and other towns in Connecticut. The name is now extinct on the Vineyard, but is represented in the Norton and Pease families through marriage of his daughter.

'Trapps are to be found at this period in Ongar, Orselt, Bobbingworth, Chigwell, Greensteed, Bromfield, Great Baddow, and Good Easter, all in the county of Essex, and most of them near the home of John Pease. Doubtless a further search would definitely place Thomas Trapp in some contiguous parish. See Visitation of Essex, 1612, p. 506.

^Suffolk Co. Probate Records, X, 87, 88. This fellow passenger, Lewis Martin, died on the voyage and left all his property to John Andrews of Fenchurch Street, London, a linen draper who was a "cousen" to Thomas Trapp.

^He was voted "not of this town," on Oct. 22, 1660, but on Jan. 28, 1661, he is credited as owner of one lot. (Town records, I, 20, 22.) He forfeited a "lot on the line" before 1665, and it was granted to another. (Ibid., I, 35). It is certain however, that the Trapp property was in that section. (Ibid., I, 29).

'Edgartown Town Records, I, 20, 21. He also owned one-third of Homes Hole Neck, which he acquired by purchase, but sold same within a short time.

William Vincent

The antecedents of this early settler remain unknown to the author after much searching in this country and England. The association of the name of Vincent with the alleged landing of John Pease, before 1642, made it desirable that the Vincent should be identified. There were none of the name at Great Baddow in Essex, where John Pease lived, but in the adjoining parish of Bromfield, about four miles distant, a family of Vincents had long lived, when the Pease family emigrated to New England. One Robert Vincent, *'ane ancient man" of Butlers, an estate in the parish, died in December, 1632, and the property descended to his son Robert, who married Elizabeth Godsaffe on June 28, 1633, and on the same day William Vincent of Bromfield, singleman, married Mary Burr, daughter of the vicar of the parish.^ As our William Vincent was born in 1627, it is evident that he could not be the son of either of these persons.^ These people, however, had dealings with our Pease family and their connections, William Vincent, yeoman of Bromfield, gave a bond in August, 1636, to pay ;i^io to Abraham Page (nephew of John Pease), when he comes of age, "at or in the South Porch of the Church of great Baddow." The witnesses were Thomas Burre, vicar of Bromfield and Margaret Pease, widow, grandmother of young Page.^ When Page arrived in this country in 1645, he made Robert Scott of Boston his attorney, to collect "money from any Pson or Psons whatsoever within the Realme of England,"* and it will be noticed that it was at Robert Scott's house where Malachi Browning died some years later. These facts have a direct bearing upon the possible association of the Vincents with the group of people who lived in the sight of the church at Great Baddow.^

'Morant, "History of the County of Essex," II, 77. The Parish Registers of Bromfield contain no Vincent entries before the marriages just quoted.

^here was a William Vincent, a potter, of Salem, 1636, later of Gloucester, Mass., 1643, who died in i6qo, having married twice and had at least eight children, neither of whom could have been identified with this island. A William Vinson was of Providence, R.I., in 1666, but he is identified as a son of Thomas of Amesbury, Co. Wilts, baptized in 1638. (Savage, Gen. Diet., IV, 374-5; comp., Esse.x Antiquarian, passim.)

it, and a guess may be hazarded that this was our WiUiam, then a young man of twenty-four years, who was there at the time when John Pease was prospecting for a new location/ We may suppose that he returned to the Vineyard with Pease, in absence of a better hypothesis as to his whereabouts before coming to this town. His first appearance on our records is on March 15, 1655, when he bought of Robert Codman onehalf of the harbor lot on Starbuck's Neck, which Arey had sold to Codman, consisting of four acres.^ Whether he lived there is uncertain, but presumably he did, until the next year, on Feb. 18, 1656, when he bought of Edward Andrews "his house and land adjoyning to it twenty acres more or less bounded on the east side by the land of John Burchard: on the west Mamanekorn Neck: the one end butting upon the fresh pond, the other end upon the common."^ This was at Mashakommukeset, where he afterwards resided, and it remained Vincent property for generations. Before December, 1655, he had married Susannah, daughter of Malachi and Mary (Collier) Browning, and the young couple set up housekeeping in this beautiful region, overlooking the great pond. In December, 1659, he was a juror, and in 1660, he is recorded as one of the proprietors and began to draw lots as such.* He submitted to the Patentee's Government in 1661, was one of a committee appointed to evict the Indians living within the town bounds the same year.^ He was of the Train Band in 1662, and in 1663 he was sued by William Weeks for a small debt, and with three others built the general fence for the town under contract. He was credited with owning half a lot at this time, presumably the Arey-Codman lot above referred to.^ In 1664 he participated in land divisions, and on April 21, 1665, was chosen town constable." But little is heard of him for the next ten years, except in some minor land transaction until the "Dutch Rebellion," in which he took part and was fined therefor. In 1675 he sued Peter Jenkins for debt, and four years later had a suit against sundry Indians who had detained his share of a whale and some

*'Blober."^ In 1680 he was fined for felling trees and ''cutting wood for Mr. Mayhew," and in 1681 was a juror. ^ Various real estate transactions in 1682, 1684, and 1687, including further grants to him at Meshacket and Wintucket give us glimpses of his continued activity, and this brings us to May 10, 1690, when he made his will, then in his sixty-fourth year.^ By this time he had become estranged from his only son Thomas, to whom nine years before (Sept. 16, 1681), he had sold considerable of his property including one acre "by my shop."* His name appears on the records in 1693, when he made an affidavit; in 1694, when he sold land at Wintucket, and on March 15, 1694-5, when he was listed as a proprietor of one share in the town.

This is a true Record of the Petickeler parcells of Land which are now In the possession of WilHam Vinsin upon this Island as foUoweth: first one Neck Called Shockamockset adjoining to Quanomica on the West and so Runing by Marked Trees on the North, to Meshaket Neck on the East: and straight Down to the Pond on the South: this Neck meadow and upland Being Twenty five acres More or Less: wath two acres of Land at Quanomica Being the Sixth Lott: with one acre of meadow Lying att this Recorded by me the 24th of February 1663 Richard Sarson with that feild where the said Vinson fenced In Lying Near the Great Swamp Being five acres More or Less: this was Given May the Last Day: 64: with a full Right of all the allotments which Towonticut Sachem Reserved In the townshipp and was Bought of the said Sachem by Richard Sarson having Liberty by this town so to Do: the said Vinson hath paid for his part pt this foresaid purchas 2 :8.*

It is probable that William Vincent lived well into 1697, at which time he was three score and ten years of age, the Scriptural limit. His will was proven in court on July 14 of that year, and an abstract of it is as follows, being the first will recorded in the probate records of the county : -

I do give unto my son Thomas Vinson ten shillings to be paid within ten days after my burial if he demands it of my executor: but if not de- manded within the said ten days, then my will is, and I do give my s'd son Thomas Vinson only one shilling to be paid at demand after the said ten days, at any time within an hundred year after the day of my burial: and my reasons for so doing and giving my said son Thomas Vinson no more is this, first: I have gi\'en him near forty pounds: besides he my said son Thomas Vinson hath not demeaned himself well towards me nor his mother, to our sad great grief.

It is not known whether Thomas demanded the half crown or was content to be ''cut off with a shiUing," which was made available to him for the entire next century. It is pleasant to record that there is evidence of the repentance of Thomas and the restoration of confidence between the aged mother and her only son in later years. The widow Susannah Vinson survived her husband a quarter of a century, and must have been very aged when she died. She made her will April 2, 1720, "being sick and weak in body," in which she gives some bedding and a "white chest with lock & key" to her grandson, Thomas Vinson, Jr., and gives all the rest of her estate to her son Thomas and his nine children.^ It was proved May 10, 1722, and it will be safe to infer that she died a short time before that date, probably in the early part of that year. Assuming that she was twenty years old when her son was born, she was about eighty-five at her decease.

William Weeks

In the parish of Staines, on the north bank of the Thames in the County of Middlesex, about fifteen miles west of London, there lived during the early part of the 17th century a family bearing the name of Atwick alias Wickes.^ In 1638 Richard Wickes died, and hisAvill, dated August 4, was proved November 8, that year. In it he directs his executor "to pay to my son John Wickes now living in New England £200 at the feast of the birth of our Lord God next coming," and if he should die before its receipt the amount was to be divided equally among his minor children. This John Wickes was a friend of Samuel Gorton, and had lived at Plymouth in 1637, and later in Rhode Island at Portsmouth, on the island of Aquidneck, 1639, from whence he removed in 1643 with Gorton to Warwick across the bay/ His friendship for Gorton resulted in his arrest and imprisonment, but this did not last beyond a year, for on Aug. 8, 1647, his townsmen elected him a magistrate.^ He continued to reside there till his death, at the hands of the Indians, during King Philip's war, in November, 1675, aged sixty-six years. ^

Robert Wickes of Staines, gentleman, also left a bequest to another son reading thus: "To my son William, ;£3oo, as follows, ;^3o in three months and the remainder in three years and he to have ;^io paid him every half year in the meantime, and if he should die, or never come to claim it, then to be divided between my sons John and Robert and their children."^ In absence of direct proof it cannot be stated positively that this is the William Weeks whose name first appears in 1653 on the Vineyard records, but who must have been there at an earlier date to have participated at that time in a division of land. One son of Robert Wickes had already gone to New England as above stated, and it is evident that Wilham was either going away or was absent from England, creating a doubt about his return to claim the bequest. It is a fair presumption that one brother followed the other, and as our William was a sea-faring man, and did a packet business between Rhode Island and the Vineyard, it seems that we have here a presumptive connection established for William of Edgartown.^

'Savage, Gen. Diet., IV, 538. It is believed he is the same person who embarked at London in September, 1635, aged twenty-six years, with a wife and a daughter Ann. His daughter Ann married WilHam Burton of Rhode Island.

^The whole story may be read in Winthrop Journal, II, 140-149; Compare Mass. Col. Rec, II, 52. He must have personally known John Pease of the Vineyard.

^John Wickes of Rhode Island eould not liave been the father of our William, in all probability, as William must have been born before 1620 to take part in the business he did in later years.

a prior residence of some duration, and on April lo, 1655, was granted land "near the pines in the middle of the island." That he was married at this time is indicated by a deposition of Goodwife Weeks, dated Dec. 25, 1655, and it is probable that his children were either brought here when he settled or were born shortly after. His name occurs in 1656, 1657, 1659, and 1660, in which year on February 22, he was sued by one William Lambert. This same year he is mentioned as a proprietor of one share in the town and was elected constable. That he kept an ordinary or inn seems to be indicated by the following entry on the town records, as well as a later one to be referred to : -

William Weeks is fined for selling of strong liquor: paying ten shillings: to Thomas Mayhew 14 s. Sz: t(w)o bottles of liquor to the townsmen and further he doth promise for himself and family that they shall no more be sold by him or them. [28 January 1661] '

The next year Wiiham Weeks had some lawsuits on his hands, suing Thomas Jones for his passage from Rhode Island,^ and in turn was sued by Jones for weaving done. In both cases he received the verdict. His name is not in the train band Hst of 1662, perhaps he was exempted on account of his occupation, but he took part in the division of Quanomica the next year, and was plaintiff in a number of suits against Robert Codman, Richard Arey, Nicholas Norton, and William Vinson.

His name occurs in the records each year following in minor connections till 1667, when on November 18 of that year, while making a trading trip from the Vineyard in his "vessel of 15 tunnes, laden with corn, pork, hides, tobacco, wheat, vegetables and other miscellaneous freight," he was wrecked at Quick's Hole and his vessel was seized and looted by the Indians of the Elizabeth Islands. His son William was on board, and according to the story of their experiences testified to by them they were very badly treated. ''They tooke away a new hatt and a new paire of shooes from my Sonne," he said, and "a suite of cloathcs from me, 2 pre of shooes (and) all my tooles."^ John Dixey "brought the deponents with his sloop out of their bondage" and carried the news to the Governor of New York, who wrote back to

Governor Mayhew to deal with the piratical Indians for their unlawful acts and require restitution of the vessel and all the stolen cargo/ It was not until 1671 that he had his lands recorded on the town books, and the following is a copy of his estate as then held by him : - - ^

Desember the nth 1671 The Petickelers of the parcells of Land Granted unto William Weeks by the Inhabitance of Edgartown at the Great Harbour of Marthas Vinyard and Ordered to Be Recorded the Day above writ en one whole Comonage of the thirty seven Shears with all preveledges there unto Belonging as fish and whale: one house Lott of Twenty Poles Broad Bounded By Thomas Bayes on the South and Richard Sarson on the North Being Ten acres More or Less: to the Line Ten acres eleven Poles and a half Breadth Bounded By Thomas Bayes on the West Richard Sarson on the East: Land Bought of Peter Foulger one Neck Lying West to the Planting feild Being Eight acres More or Less: with one acre and a half of Meadow at Sanchacantackett one shear of Meadow:- one Shear at Felix Neck: another Shear at Meachemus feild: one Shear at Quanomica: one Shear at Cracketuxett: One Devidant Lying at the Great Neck Being Twenty five acres more or Less Lying betwixt Thomas Peases and Mrs Blands: with one thach Lott ajoyning Part upon my said Devidant at the Neck: at Chapequideck one Lott of three acres More or Less Bounded By John Pease on the North and young Mr. Mayhew on the South: two acres of Meadow Lying on the South East Side of Chapequideok More or Less: one acre of Meadow on the East Side of the Planting feild Lying Northward of Thomas Doggetts Be it More or Less: These all Granted By this Town and Purchased of Indians and one twenty fifth part

He had acquired some land at Homes Hole before the first record of it appears (Feb. 9, 1680), as that is the only way to account for his appointment on a committee in Tisbury on Jan. 16, 1678, to view every man's lot and equalize it in the matter of swamp lands. ^ It is likely he was on the committee as an outsider, wnth Isaac Chase and Thomas Mayhew, to deal impartially as arbitrator. The next year he was juryman at Nantucket, and w^as plaintiff in a suit against John Daggett for trespass.^ In 1680 he served again as a juror, and in 1681 Arthur Biven entered a complaint against Weeks as follows: The "said Buiven caled for a gill of Rum & they brought half water and the said Weekes had no lodge-

^Tisbur}' Records, 10; compare Dukes Deeds, I, 227, where he bought land of the Sachem Ponit and I, 377, a sale of land at Homes Hole, Feb. 9, 1681, by Thomas Mayhew. This is the only reference to him in the Tisbury Records.

ing for him nor food for his horse. "^ This complaint shows that Weeks was still keeping a tavern. The town and county records give evidence of his activities in business and litigation in 1684, 1685, and 1687, not necessary here to enumerate. He sold to Isaac Chase on July 25, 1688, his real estate interests at Homes Hole, and his last appearance on the records is another sale on December 29, same year. Between that date and Aug. 3, 1689, he had died, as his widow Mary sold the home lot and he is referred to as then deceased.^ This sale of her interest to Simon Athearn resulted in litigation with the sons, William and Richard, who claimed ownership, and the court gave them possession.^ There is no record of a will or administration of William Weeks' estate. His son Samuel had a grant of land in the town in 1681, consisting of ten acres on the north side of the old mill path, but he sold it in 1688 to Benjamin Smith, and is not further known as a resident here.*

With the death of William, Senior, the family name ceased on the island until 17 10, when Joshua Weeks came here and brought the house lot formerly owned by George Martin of Edgartown and Newport. Joshua later settled in Tisbury, and his descendants resided there and in Chilm.ark until within recent years.

Thomas Wollen

This settler was a late comer and is another of the sons-inlaw of Nicholas Norton, attracted to a residence here by one of his daughters. Where he lived before 1681, when his land is mentioned, is an unsettled question.^ There was a Thomas Wallen or Walling of Providence (1645), who died in 1674 leaving a wife Mary and son Thomas with other children. This Thomas Junior, married in 1669, Margaret Caldwell, and he may be the one who came to this town and took a second wife, as above. He lived near the Mile Brook, on the Sanchacantacket Path as late as 1722, but nothing further is known of him. His only known son Elisha, continued the family name in Edgartown to the middle of that century.

^Edgartown Records, I, 29. See also Dukes Deeds, I, 81, 255 and 259, where he disposes (1686) of the interest he had in his father's lot bought the year before.

Early Transient Residents

As distinguished from the settlers who made permanent homes here, hved their Hves and reared famiUes; whose descendants developed what the pioneers had opened to the settlement of white men, there were a goodly number of transient residents who remained but a few years and then sought homes elsewhere. These men have their place in our history, but the interest in them does not call for extended notice beyond the record of their brief doings while here.

Edward Andrews

This person was one of the early "transients," of whom we know but little. He was, possibly, a settler at Newport in 1639, later admitted as freeman at Warwick, in 1655, but before Feb. 13, 1656, he had acquired from Thomas Layton the property of Philip Tabor at Mashakommukeset, and called himself a ''now inhabitant on Martin's Vineyard." ^ He had been in possession of the property but a few months when he sold it on the last mentioned date to William Vincent, and left the island, soon after in all probability. He was sued in the town court, June 24, 1656, by John Burchard. He removed to Portsmouth, R. I., and later to Warwick in the same colony. He was a shoemaker by occupation, and his wife's name was Bridget.^

Joshua Barnes

This person was an early resident of Boston, and on Sept. 4, 1632, he was apprenticed to Mr. [William] Paine "for five years from his landing," and we may presume that he was sent over, by his parents perhaps, for that purpose.^ Upon the expiration of his service he removed, probably, to Yarmouth, as we find him named on a committee, March 5, 1639, with Philip Tabor, to divide the planting lands in that town, and on June i, 1641, he was entered as an applicant for citizenship.* In 1642 he was fined for scoffing at religion and disturbing public worship.-' His connection with the

Vineyard is of a transient nature. It is inferred that he came hither with his fellow townsman, Peter Tabor, who was here before 1647, and the date of his acquiring a lot may be placed anywhere after 1644 when the township was established. As to the location of this lot we way suppose it to be the harbor lot on Starbuck's Neck, later owned by Thomas Daggett, who had succeeded before 1660 to the possessions of Barnes.^ It requires some adjustment of facts to place this person as a settler at Southampton, Long Island, before 1642, as the author of the history of that town classifies him in his lists, in view of previous residence known at Yarmouth.^ He may have gone there from Yarmouth following his court experience at Plymouth, and returned to the Vineyard to acquire a lot here. However, he finally became a settler at Easthampton in 1649, and continued to reside in that locality till his death, sometime after Sept. 13, 1696, and his descendants remained there. ^

William Elliston

This person first appears in Edgartown, in 1663, when he was "freed" from a bond and his "master." He was plaintiff in actions for debt against Nicholas Norton in 1663 and William Weeks in 1665, and defendant in similar action brought in 1663 by the widow of John Folger. He had a lot between the "line" and "home" lots which came into possession of Isaac Norton before 1681.

John Freeman

John Freeman was a blacksmith, and lived here, in Cleveland Town, in 1677, but the time of his coming or going or his antecedents are not known. ^ He was fined, in 1678, for "an unseemly act in the governour's house," during a trial.

Samuel Goodman Henry Goss

He is first mentioned in 1659, when he was chosen as referee in a land dispute between John Daggett and Thomas Bayes, and the same year he sued Nicholas Norton for some dispute about a ''cure" for "Gousses" child. The next year he sued the Indian Sachem Cheeshachamuck, and in 1662, accounts between him and Edward Leader are presented for trial. A John Goose was witness in 1681. Nothing is known of either of them beyond these items, and no land is credited to their name.'

Edward Hathaway

In 1689, and for some time previous, this person held the tenure of the home lot at the north side of Jones' Hill. There is no record of the manner in which he acquired it nor of the disposal of it by him after the date mentioned. It may have been a forfeited grant. ^ We may suppose that this person was that Edward Hathaway, b. Feb. 10, 1663-4, the son of John and Hannah (Hallett) Hathaway of Barnstable.

Edward Lay

This settler was one of the Connecticut contingent which furnished several additions to our island population between 1650 and 1660. He is first heard of at Hartford in 1640, and later at Saybrook in 1648, where he was living on the East side of the Connecticut river in the present town of Lyme. He was associated there with our Robert Codman, as appears by the following record of a court held Aug. 12, 1657: -

The Court considering the ingagement of Edward Lay to this Jurisdiction of Robert Codmans Estate, that the said Lay should appear several years since at Hartford to answer at the Courte his abusive carriage and expressions before several of Seabrooke, which to this time he hath not attended, they order that upon the payment of ;^5 to the Treasr by said Codman, hee shall be free from the aforesaid seizure of Robert Codmans estate in his hands; and the said Edward Lay shall be free from the forfeiture of bond and contempt therein, which ;^5 being paid by Codnam for Edward Lays disappearance according to ingagement, the judge that Edward Lays estate should satisfy Codnum for the same.'

Edward Lay's ''disappearance" from the Connecticut ''several years since" is accounted for by his migration to Martha's Vineyard. He removed to this town some time prior to May 8, 1653, when he had been here long enough to be one of the proprietors and participate in the division of the Planting Field. ^ He owned at this time the sixth lot from Pease's Point, fronting the harbor and, presumably, lived there. ^ He is mentioned with his wife, whose name was Martha, in connection with a neighborhood "slander case early in 1655, and on Feb. i, 1656, is one of those who entered into an agreement with Robert Pease about his settlement.^ In June, 1656, Lay and his wife had a case against John Pease for slander, in which he recovered damages.* He was fined for leaving town meeting before it was adjourned in August, 1659, and the next year, Oct. 22, 1660, is rated as a proprietor and drew lots on his share. ^ In 1661 or 1662 he removed to Rhode Island and took up a residence at Portsmouth, where he became an important citizen. He sold on Oct. 18, 1662, the following described property, which represented his real estate holdings acquired here in ten years : - thomas Layton (of Portsmouth) these parcells of Land with all the housin upon them first: a Lott of Eight acres of Land more or less with a Dwelling house upon the same which Land and house as all other parcells in this Deed and Sale lyeth upon the Island called Marthas Vineyard: as also I sell twenty acres of Land more or less Lying near the path Going (to) Meshackett and adjoyning to a parcell of Land of thomas Bayeses in the same Neck: as also one acre and half acre of Land Lying upon Chappaquiddick neck a Lott there be the Land more or Less and Lying between John Daggetts Land on the one side and thomas Mayhews on the other: as also ten acres of Land more of less Lying between the Land of thomas Harlock and the Land of Robert Codman Butting upon the highway to the plain: as also two acres of meadow more or Less Lying Between the land of John Pease Butting upon Mortles neck from the Sea: as also one acre of Land more or Less Lying att Crackatuxett att the going in of the next to the Land of thomas Burchards there: as also one thach Lott Joyning to peter folgers Land on the South Beach: all those above mentioned parcells of Land together with all my write of Commonage fish and whale.^

After settling in Portsmouth, he was of the Grand Jury in 1663, Constable 1665, Deputy to the General Court 1667 and 1677, besides holding minor offices in the town. He was licensed to keep a public house in 1675.^ His wife Martha died in 1682, and he died in 1692, aged eighty-four years. No descendants of his are known to have lived here.

This person who bought the property of Edward Lay, in 1662, was from Portsmouth, R. I., where he was first settled in 1638, and in 1655 was made a freeman.^ He is found in this town on Aug. 16, 1662, when he appears in the list of members of the train band, and a few months later he made his purchase of the Lay estate.^ It seems probable that there is a confusion of the names Lawton and Layton in the records, as it appears there were two men of similar names in Portsmouth, Thomas Lawton and Thomas Layton. both of whom had property interests here. This Thomas Layton did not long remain here, but sold all he had purchased from Lay, as previously detailed, on June 26, 1664, when he became once more a resident of Portsmouth. He became interested with Peter Tallman of Newport in purchasing the Indian rights of Homes Hole Neck about this time, and it caused a vast amount of trouble to Governor jMayhew to disestablish the tenant whom Tallman and Layton had put there. It is here that confusion exists as to the names of Lawton and Layton. Isaac Lawton, who had married the daughter of Tallman, bought three of the shares of Homes Hole Neck and later disposed of them, while Thomas Lawton of Portsmouth, by his will of June 6, 1674, proved Sept. 29, 1681, bequeathed to his son Isaac "all rights at Marthas Vineyard."^

George Martin

The first reference to him is under date of April 14, 1681, when he was granted "ten acres of land between the line of the ten-acre lots .... with the privilege of firewood and

^Austin, Gen. Diet, of R. I., art. Lawton. There were no "rights" belonging to a Thomas Lawton on this island, but there were speculative "rights" vested in Thomas Layton, unless some Rhode Island record contains a sale of such from Layton to Lawton.

to Live [thereon] four years.'" The next important reference to him is as follows: Dec. 15, 1685, he was ordered to take into his possession all goods "belonging to Marget lord alias Raincr late desesed," as administrator.^ What significance this has is not apparent by any further search, as this is the only reference to Margaret Lord. Whether she was born Lord and married Rainer, or vice versa, is to be construed according to facts which may develop. Neither name appears on the Vineyard Records before or after this, and where Martin got his authority is a mystery. It is possible she was Margaret, daughter of William and Jane Lord of Salem, born 1660, who on Jan. 23, 1683-84, conveyed property to her brother-in-law, and of whom no further trace is found.

On April 28, 1687, the town of Edgartown agreed with George Martin as to the keeping of "Widow" Jones, the widow of Thomas Jones. This transaction may have been without significance of relationship, a "farming out" of the town's poor.

Following this chronologically is a deposition of George Martin of Newport, under date of Sept. 18, 1690, relative to certain facts in a case then pending, together with one on same subject by Abigail Martin of Newport.^ On Nov. 3, 1690, George Martin and Abigail, his wife, both of Newport, sold the house lot granted to him in 1681, and as far as known this ends his relation with the Vineyard.

In the second decade of the next century a Thomas Martin, or Martain, appeared at Edgartown, married and raised a family, living on the lot granted to George Martin. How he acquired it is not Imown, perhaps by redeeming a mortgage on it. The bounds of it were run in 1722, entered on the Proprietor's Records as belonging to Thomas Martin, "being a grant of ten acres from the town to his father, George Martin deceased."

Thomas (2) had six children recorded, of whom five were sons - Peter, Brotherton, Thomas, Lemuel, Benjamin. In 1773, Thomas (3), "gentleman," was of Lebanon, Conn., and Brotherton of Horton, Kings County, Nova Scotia. Thomas (2) was living in 1736, but died intestate before Oct. i, 1739, w^hen he was styled "gentleman," an unusual title on the

As to the origin of George Martin, he may have been son of George and Susanna (North) Martin of Salisbury, born 1648, several inhabitants of that town having gone to the Vineyard before 1700. Or he may be that George Martine who came to New England in the Hannah and Elizabeth, arriving at Boston, Aug. 10, 1679.'

Peter Nash

He was the son of William Nash of Charlestown, Mass., born about 1632, and he appears to have been a mariner. The author finds him as witness to a deed of Edward Cottle in Salisbury, 1660, again at Haverhill in 1662, and a witness to a deed here in 1665 in connection with Stephen Codman.^ Later, in 1671, he bought a ten acre lot on the ''line" of Codman, which he held for many years, though probably not residing on it, and it became a part of his estate at his decease, Sept. 3, 1695, ^^ Charlestown.^ This lot was sold in 1709 to Thomas Trapp by Elias Brigden and wife Margaret, of Charlestown."

Francis Newcomb

In 1 68 1, a person of this name was granted ten acres of land "near the pond" which was later "changed," and he obtained thirteen acres adjoining the grant to Andrew Newcomb, which later became the homestead of Mr. Jonathan Dunham.^ What relation, if any, he bore to Andrew is not known. A Francis Newcomb lived at Braintree, 1635 to 1692, and had eight children of record, but no Francis appears as his son. Our settler remained here about four years and sold his house lot on Aug. 11, 1685, and we hear no more of him on the island or elsewhere.*^ the Vineyard. How long he had Hved there is uncertain, but his first wife Esther died there July ii, 1655, and he married again the following year. On Nov. 6 and 9, 1658, he sold all his property in that town; house, orchard, land, and proprietory interests in commons, and removed to the Vineyard.^ It is more than probable that he came here with Norton, as we have found that the latter is first mentioned in our records early in 1659; and taking into account the occupation of Roe with what is known of Norton, the author thinks that both came to carry on their trade, one as a tanner and the other as a currier. He was granted a ten-acre lot on the "line" on Aug. 22, 1659, and twenty acres as a dividend at Mile Brook. It is evident that he did not show symptoms of remaining permanently, for on Oct. 22, 1660, the town voted that he "did not have right to sell or otherwise dispose of that land" granted to him.' Shortly after he removed to Hartford, Conn., where he was admitted an inhabitant, Sept. 2, 1661, as a currier, and in 1674 he again removed, this time to Suffolk, where he died Aug. 5, 1689, leaving a widow and several married children.^

This man was one of the early settlers at Great Harbor, coming here within the first decade after the younger Mayhew^ and under various spellings of Sales, Sarle, Searles, Scale, and Sale his name appears in the records from 1653 to 1663 continuously. Undoubtedly, he had been here for some time prior to March i, 1653, when there was a "case" between him and John Pease, in which it was decided "that the said Edward Sales hath his old right of fish still."* Whence came the settler may be determined, probably, from the following facts relative to a person or persons, bearing his name earlier in the history of the Massachusetts Bay Colony: An Edward Sale, aged twenty- four years, embarked in the Elizabeth and Ann, April 27, 1635, from London, and in the same vessel was

^Hampshire Probate Records, I, 267. Contemporaneously with Hugh Roe there lived, in Gloucester, Mass. (1651-1662), one John Roe, who had land once owned by Nicholas Norton in that town. John had a son Hugh born about 1640, and as the baptismal names are similar in both families it may be inferred that John was an elder brother of our Hugh.

Richard Sarson and Jeremiah Whitton, both early residents here.* In 1637 he was probably a resident of Salem or Marblehead, with his wife Margaret, who in that year was tried and convicted of gross immorality and banished from the colony. At the same time ** Edward Scale for his beastly drunkennes was censured to bee set in the bilboes till the end of the Court & then to bee severely whipt."^ An Edward Scale was of Rehoboth in 1643 ^^^ ^^^ estate was appraised at ;^8i-oo-co that year, but whether an older Edward or the same one cannot be stated with confidence.^ The next occurrence of the name is in our records under date of February 6, 1653, when it is entered : -

This house lot was a ten-acre grant "forty Poles square," near the Great Swamp, half way between the West Tisbury road and Meshacket path. It is known to this day as the "Sarson Lot," now owned intact by Mr. Clement Norton. In May, 1653, Edward Sale drew lot number 3 in the Planting Field, and was fined for absence from town meeting.^ On June 6, 1654, he was received as "townsman," and was elected as an Assistant to the Chief Magistrate.*^ There is no further m.ention of him except incidentally until 1659, when he was witness to the sale of Nantucket to the "Ten Associates" July 2 of that year,^ and on December 2, same year, a commonage and a ten-acre lot on the line was granted to "Brother Sale."^ In 1660 there is a further record about his lands, and on Dec. 23, 1661, he submitted to the Patentees Government.^ He had a suit against John Pease, elsewhere referred to, in 1662, and the next year was granted the small island in Sanchacantacket, now known as Sarson's island. ^° The last

'Court of Assistants, I, 197, 2co; comp., Winthrop, "Journal," II, 349. There was a John Sayle bound out to service with his daughter Phebe in 1633 (Ibid., I, 99).

record of him personally is under date of April 8, 1663, when he acted as a juror, and before December 30, same year, he had sold all his lands and estate in the town and thenceforth disappears from the records.^

Whither he went is not positively known, but again at Rehoboth is found a record that Goodman Searle was accepted as inhabitant July 3, 1663, and granted a home lot, and we may assume that he returned thither, where twenty years before an Edward Sales had lived. ^ It further appears that Jared Ingraham, son of Richard of Rohoboth, married in Boston, May 28, 1662, Rebecca, daughter of an Edward Searles, from which, in connection with the fact that Christopher Gibson of Boston speaks of "my brother Eddward Sealle," we may infer that Gibson was her uncle, and that we here have further clues to this Sales family and its descendants.' We may have a final view in old age of our first settler in the person of Edward Sale of Weymouth, who died before Oct. 6, 1692, when an inventory of his estate was taken, and on April 13, 1693, administration was granted to John Rogers of Weymouth.*