Dukes County, Massachusetts - The whole text, 1911 (part 1 of 15)

Published By George H. Dean

Having now brought forward the narrative of events from the beginning of time, through the first occupation of the Vineyard by Enghshmen for a permanent residence, and presented the story of its progress as a whole to our own day, the subsequent annals of the island, under its new tenants in segregated communities, will be considered in detail. Separate histories of each township growing out of the initial settlement, commencing with Edgartown, the eldest, taking each in turn according to its chronological relations to the parent towns, will follow, and the local developments of each one be particularly treated. In order to maintain this plan, however, certain arbitrary limitations will be necessary in its application to simplify the relation, owing to the divisions of Edgartown, to form Cottage City (now Oak Bluffs) ; of Chilmark to form Gosnold; and of Tisbury, to form West Tisbury. Therefore, for the purposes of definite historical study of these towns, the present boundary limits of each, although at one time a part of another, will be considered as originally belonging to the later incorporated community. For example, all that relates to persons and events in the present territorial limits of Oak Bluffs, although enacted when a part of Edgartown, will be related as happening in the history of that section now called Oak Bluff's. This topographical plan will prevent duplication of statements and constant explanation of the relation of events and places to each other, and give proper credit to the scenes enacted on each one's particular soil.

In the quotations from the early records, which will be found in the text of the work in each volume, the reader may miss the familiar word '^ye" a fantastic affectation of the ignorant to indicate the definite article " the," as if our ancestors were in the habit of using, or even ever used, such absurd expressions as "ye house" or "ye cow." In the early days of printing the Saxon th was represented by a symbol which looked like a 3' or ^, and when the Roman alphabet was employed exclusively there was no symbol to represent this th sound and the letter y was used as a substitute ; but always pronounced as th and not as ye, as it looks. This explanation may help to correct an absurd error which is perpetuated by persons unfamiliar with the true reason for the apparent archaism.

The reader is also reminded of the differences in the calendar in the Colonial period before 1752, by which there occurred the "double dating" between January ist and March 25th of each year. An explanation of this is given in Vol. I., pp. 489-90, and an understanding of it is required to interpret dates correctly when a double date occurs.

It has not been deemed practicable, in view of the necessity of economy of space, to supplement the Annals v/ith long and dreary lists of town officers which have but little meaning to most people; nor to extend the details of present-day affairs to the extent of composing a business and social directory for future reference. All that can be done in such a comprehensive work as this is to bring down the narrative of events to the memory of the living. Some day in the future an historian for each principal town will be able to use the foundation I have laid as the basis for a complete superstructure in each case.

Annals Of Edgartown

The beginnings of the history of Edgartown took place in Watertown, when, on March i6, 1 641-2, the grant of township was made by the two patentees, Mayhew senior and junior, unto five of their townsmen as previously stated, and the first foundations were laid in that year when young Thomas Mayhew set foot on the shores of its ''great harbour," with his companions, to consummate the title and take possession.

The identity of the passengers who came in that first shallop to Great Harbor in 1642 as companions of young Mayhew is yet an unsolved problem. We only know he came "with some other persons" and that there were "divers families," including "some of Watertown," and the records lend us no aid in the solution. Speculation may be indulged in to the extent of supposing that some of the original grantees of Watertown came to look over their deed of gift, but we know that of these only John Daggett remained to become a settler, and he may be included with the first contingent. To these we may add John Folger, John Smith (John Bland), possibly Edward Sales of Rehoboth, and their families, and - here we stop, lest speculation carry us too far.

Such was the beginning of our first settlement by the Mayhews and their associates, and little that they did in the early years of the plantation is known to us. We can picture them as busy in clearing the land east of Pease Point Way, felling timber, building houses, laying out lots, tilling the soil, and fishing in the adjoining waters.

As they landed at their future home, doubtless they were met in a questioning attitude by groups of Indians under the leadership of Tewanquatick, Sagamore of Nunnepog, for such was the Algonquian name for the place which Mayhew chose for the town site. This Indian name for the territory now comprising the present bounds of Edgartown is the only one which was attached to the sachemship of the eastern half of the Vineyard. It occurs in various forms: as Nunpauket, Nunpaug, Nunpog, and in an Indian deed of 1684 it is written Unnunpauque (Deeds I, 18), and in another of 1696, Wonnottaquan, squaw sachem of Nunpawquit, sold land situated on the east side of Watchusate neck (Ibid., I, 208).^

The meaning of this word is "fresh pond or water place.'" Just what particular pond gave its character to the sachemship of Nunnepog is a matter of speculation, but it was probably the Great Pond, on the shores of which was the Mashakemmuck, or Great House of the sachems of this territory.

The basis of all land titles in Edgartown rests upon the original grant of the two patentees to certain individuals named in the following grant of township rights : -

John Smith and Francis Smith with ourselves to make choice for the Present of a large Towne upon the same Terms that we have it: And also equall Power in Governm't with us, and equall Power in admission of all that shall present themselves to come to live upon any part of the whole grant of all the Islands; and wee grant also to them and their Associates with us to receive another Townshipp for Posterity upon the same Terms wee have from the Grantees.''

This document invested these grantees with proprietary rights in the soil, and the management thereof in a corporate capacity as townsmen, but it was not until the elder Mayhew came to live on the island that the extent of this ''large Towne" was made clear, by which their rights were defined : - *

This witnesseth that Mr. Mayhew the Elder and also Mr. Mayhew the Younger have freely given to the men now inhabiting on the Island namely the Vineyard, this Tract of land following for a Townshipp: namely all Tawanquatack's his Right, together wth all the Land as farr as the Easter-Chop of Homses Hole, and also all the Island called Chapaquegick, wth full Power to dispose of all and every Part of the said Land

^It would seem that the name had, perhaps, a more circumscribed application, for the Report of the Commissioners for the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, made in 1698, refers to Nunnepoag as a part of Edgartown.

as they see best for their own comfortable Accommodation. The Line is to goe from Tequanoman's Point to the Eastermost Chop of Homses Hole. This I doe acknowledge to bee the free Grant of myselfe and my Sonn, the day and yeare above written.

There is nothing of record to show the reason for the selection of this locaKty as the site of the new settlement, but it offered the most natural advantages for the purpose, a safe harbor and what was quite as important, a spring of potable water convenient to the shore. As elsewhere related, it is probable that the younger Mayhew determined this selection upon his first visit, and chose the homestead site for his father and himself as a nucleus of their personal holdings on the island.

In fact, the senior Mayhew himself, in an instrument dated Dec. i, 1642, clearly shows that on that date he had not selected all his own land. In their grant to John Daggett, Sr., the proprietors, father and son, provide that the meadow and farm shall not be selected by Daggett until the elder Mayhew had picked out similar lots for himself. The deed, however, indicates that the elder Mayhew had visited the island and had chosen his home lot, "upon the point," ^ and Daggett was limited to a distance of three miles from "the Spring that is by the harbor in my lot."

The present limits of Edgartown do not comprise all the territory above described, as in 1880 the northern half of the town was set off and incorporated as Cottage City, since changed (1907) to Oak Bluffs, leaving for consideration topographically and historically the land within the following bounds : - Beginning at the middle of the inlet to Sanchacantacket Pond, and crossing the pond to the ancient landmark known as Miober's Bridge, at the head of Major's Cove; thence on a straight line to the stepping stones at the head of the Lagoon; thence on a straight line crossing the State Highway to the head of Tashmoo Pond; thence returning on a straight hne to the Four Town Bound; thence by nine bound-stones in a direct Hne southerly through the middle of Watcha Neck to the South Beach. All territory south and east of these divisional lines, including the island of Chappaquiddick, now belongs to Edgartown, and the events of historic interest connected with the people who lived within this region will be related in the annals of the town which are to follow.

Successive Names Of The Town

For the first few years after the settlement of the town^ no name was formally bestowed upon it, as it was the only place upon the island inhabited by the whites and it needed no distinguishing title. In all the extant correspondence of the elder May hew, during that early period, his letters were uniformly dated as "Uppon the Vyneyard" or "the Vyneyard" simply, while contemporary legal instruments referred indefinitely to the "Towne uppon the Vineyard." The name of Great Harbor first appears in 1652 in the town records as the title of the settlement now comprised in the territory of Edgartown, but even ten years later in a suit prosecuted by John Daggett at Plymouth the legal entry of it was made as Daggett versus ''the towne of the said Vinyard." As the population increased and new settlers began to occupy the territory now covered by West Tisbury and Chilmark, the necessity for a distinctive nomenclature was felt, and Great Harbor began to be applied slowly to the settlement now known as Edgartown, while the newer village was called Middletown, probably because of its location in the center of the island. This condition lasted for about twenty years when it received the title of Edgartown, which it has ever since borne. The inquiry is frequently heard "why was it called Edgartown?" because it is an unusual name. Indeed, there is but one Edgartown in the world! The Gazetteer confirms the fact that in the nomenclature of places, throughout the known world, the name of our shire town has stood alone in unique isolation for over two centuries. The source of its title has long been an object, not only of curiosity on the part of the public, but of prolonged investigation at the hands of historical students, past and present. A number of ingenious suggestions have been made, such as it might be a corruption of Egerton, a parish in England,, but no answer has ever been given that could be defended on historical grounds, and indeed no really serious suggestion as to its origin has yet come to light.

The Naming Of Edgartown

The baptism of the town took place in New York City, at Fort James, the seat of the Provincial governor, during the important conferences held between Colonel Lovelace, the representative of the Duke of York and the elder Mayhew, in the month of July, 167 1, when the entire government of the Vineyard was reorganized. These events are narrated elsewhere, and it will not be necessary to explain the details of this meeting beyond a cursory review of so much as relates to this particular topic.

"The business under consideration," read the council minutes, ''was Mr. Mayhew's affayre about Martins Vineyard, etc. His Peticon and Proposalls rec'd." It was at once decided "that the Townes seated there shall have Patents of Confirmation as other Townes." On the next day a satisfactory relationship and mutual understanding had been reached ; and from that time on during the remainder of the conference all was plain sailing. Mayhew had found his "Popish" master more than complaisant, and equally generous in his dealings. On the next day, July 8, it was decided to issue patents for the incorporation of the two towns on the island hitherto called Middletown and Great Harbor; and it became necessary either to adopt these names as the permanent designations or to choose others more distinctive. The latter alternative was adopted. Tisbury was selected for the settlement "formerly known by the name of Middletown," doubtless at the suggestion of Mayhew in memory of his native parish in Wiltshire; and it was now necessary to deal with the principal settlement, the chief town of the island.

We may here surmise that Mayhew, desirous of establishing and continuing the reciprocal cordiality which had been manifest throughout, requested Governor Lovelace to christen the place "formerly knowne by the name of Great Harbour." It was then the custom to honor the royal family, particularly the reigning monarch, in the bestowal of names on places in the new English possessions on this continent, as, for examples, Jamestown, Charlestown, Maryland, and later we find Wil- liamstown and Georgetown. Whether this surmise be correct as to the initiative in this matter, the probabihties strongly point to a suggestion from Lovelace that His Royal Highness, the Duke of York, Lord Proprietor of the Provinces which included the Vineyard then in its confines, should be complimented in the selection of a name for the principal town in this new county. King Charles was childless, and besides his name was already attached to another town. The same situation obtained with relation to the Duke's name, then in use by the first settled colony in Virginia.

The children of James, as heir presumptive, would therefore become heirs apparent to the crown of England, and the eldest son in turn become King. At this date (1671) the first three children of the Duke, viz.: Charles b. 1660, James b. 1663, and Charles b. 1666 had died in infancy, and the fourth, born Sept. 14, 1667, was the only surviving son and heir to perpetuate the direct royal line. This young Prince was named Edgar, and bore the title of Duke of Cambridge. He would become the Prince of Wales upon his father's accession to the throne. What more natural suggestion could have been offered than that Great Harbor should exchange its indefinite name for a distinctive title in honor of the Duke's only son, Edgar, a possible future King of England? Whoever was responsible for the suggestion, it was then decreed that Great Harbor "for the future shall bee called by the Name of Edgar Towne, and by that Name & Style shall bee distinguisht and Knowne." There can be no mistake in the word. It is plainly "Edgar Towne" in the patent of incorporation.

The young Prince did not live to know or appreciate the honor intended. In fact, he was dead when his name was bestowed on our county seat, his demise having occured June 8,(1671, just one month before, a fact doubtless unknown to Lovelace and Mayhew when the choice was made, owing to the infrequency of communication with the mother country.

These, then, were the actual and supposed events leading up to the christening of our shire town, all of which have unmistakably pointed to a natural and reasonable conclusion as to the naming of Edgartown. The death of young Prince Edgar, scarcely four years old, has made him practically an unknown personage, even though of royal birth. Edgar was an uncommon name in the reigning family, that being the first use of it for many generations. Besides this, King James, his father, came to be thoroughly hated and feared in the colonies on account of his religious affiliations, and except in this instance, which was doubtless done as a stroke of policy, there was no disposition in Puritan New England to honor him or his family.

Population

The growth of population in this town prior to 1700 has to be estimated from scattered and unsatisfactory bases. We only know that at first ''divers famihes" came, but beyond surmising how many that might comprise, we have no means of telling with any accuracy. In 1653, there were fifteen persons kno^vn to be "heads of famihes" who took part in a division of land, and by using five as a multiple we have an estimate of 75 souls living at that date in the town. In 1660 there were probably twenty "heads," and by the same process a total of 100 souls is obtained. In 1676 there were about twenty- seven "heads," Aiaking a total of 125 souls, a slow but steady increase. Eighteen years later, 1694, we have the first definite basis of calculation, the Athearn map of that date in which he states that there were "35 or 36 houses in the town." Census returns always show that more than one family is to be reckoned to a house, and by counting this number as forty families, and applying the same multiple we have as a result, about 200 souls living in the town in the last decade of that century. The data is not sufficient for any further accurate computation until after the middle of the next century, in 1757, when a muster roll of the company of militia in the town give us an enumeration of 182 persons able to bear arms. Using the accepted multiple, we can estimate, at this date, a total of about 900 souls then resident in this town. The first census of the Province was taken in 1765, and from this we obtain the following figures : - families 1 50 comprising a total of 1030 souls living in 128 houses. Of these, there were 233 males and 248 females above sixteen years of age; 234 males and 209 females below sixteen; 20 negroes (12 males and 8 females), and 86 Indians, of whom 37 were male and 49 female. At this date, Edgartown had the largest population of the three towns, about 38 per cent, of the entire country. In 1776, there were 1020 persons credited to the town in the census. The first national census of 1790 gives us an enumeration by names, and from this the following statistics are drawn: - total population, 1356 (whites), of which number there were 335 males above sixteen years, 318 below sixteen and 683 ''free white" females and ten ''other free persons." This leaves a balance of ten, which are assumed to be negroes.

The maximum population of over 2000 was reached in i860, but the census of 1900 showed a decrease of 17 from that of 1800. The population had thus been practically stationary for a hundred years. The state census of 1905 showed a population of 1175.^

Ahquompache, Acqumnpache, Aquampesha, etc. - This was the name of a neck of land sold by three Indians to Joseph Norton in 1682. (Deeds, I, 285, comp., Ill, 98; 119; IV, 157). And Thomas Burchard sold to Joseph Norton, May 2, 1682, ''a neck called Aquampacher neck near Pahoggannot." (Ibid., IV, 36). In John Daggett's will (1673) it is written Aquampache. In a deed dated 1723, a neck "caled nonnamaset & aquampesha" is referred to. The translation of this word is "forsaken swamp or marsh."

Crackatuxett. - This place is first mentioned June 26, 1652, in the town records (p. 126). It is called " Crackatukset or Short Neck" in 1681, when Philip Watson sold two shares at Crackatuxet, "late belonging to John Bland, deceased." (Deeds, I, 255.) The letter R in this name is probably an error^ as the sound of that letter ought not to appear in the Nope dialect. The appellation originally designated the outlet of the pond, now obliterated by the action of the sea. It should be written Cheke-tuk-es-et, meaning "the violent, swift, or turbulent tidal cove or estuary."

Cataama. - Simon Athearn recites (no date mentioned), that his grandfather, Nicholas Butler, gave him the "neck called Cattwama." (Town Records, 17.) It has various spellings, as Cotamy, Kuttamy, and the modern form is Katama. The same name occurs on Long Island, varied as Catawamuck, Katawamac and Ahkataamuck, (Indian fishing stations upon Long Island, pp. 54-57). It means "a crab-fishing place."

Manadoo. - In her will of June 8, 1690, Elizabeth Norton, widow, gives to her son Joseph, land at a place called "Manadoo." It is called more frequently Menada, and as such it is known at the present day. It is in the northern part of the town, on the road to Oak Bluffs.

Manequoy. - This is a neck of land, referred to in a sale from Matthew Mayhew to Thomas Daggett, dated Aug. 23, 1680, when it is called "Monequoy," and in 1719 Joseph Daggett sold to Brotherton Daggett one-third of the "short neck lying on the south side of the place between Matewase and Manequoy." (Deeds, II, 19; III, 246.) Manequoy was west from Mattakeese (Ibid., V, 38).

Mattakeset. - This was also the Indian name of Duxbury, Massachusetts. (Winsor, History of Duxbury, p. 13.) It is first mentioned in our records under date of March 23, 1646, when John Bland bought of John Pease a tract of land and meadow ''lying against Mr. Blands house at Mattakeekset." The derivation of this word is not entirely apparent. It may be formed of Matta(or Mat)-auk-es-et, "at the bad place," meaning a bad or unfavorable place for canoes, or for cultivation. It may be an abbreviated form of Namatauk-es-et, "at the sitting down, or resting place," as applied to a portage, or ferrying place; where one sits down to rest before crossing to the other side. This may have been a point where the Indians habitually crossed from Nope to Chappaquiddick, The creek which drained into Mattakeeset was called Ameshoak (the Indian word for Herring) Creek (Deeds, XI, 387).

Mashakamocket-Mashacket. - The town granted to Philip Tabor, May 20, 1653, "the neck called Ashakomaksett from the bridge that is at the East side of the head of the Swamp" (p. 131). On Aug. 2, 1655, after he had removed to Rhode Island and exchanged property with Thomas Layton, this land was described as bounded on the west side by "Momanequins Neck." (Deeds, I, 325.) This name appears as Shokamackset (1655) ^^^ Mashacket (1662), which last is the modern spelling. There is a loss of the initial consonant in both of the first two forms, which is retained in the later form. The survival of the M indicates that its original form was Masha-komuk-et, meaning "at the great house," or "enclosed place;" probably referring to a palisadoed inclosure built by the native inhabitants for the Sachem's house. The Sachem of Nunnepog may have had his "great house" here. It is the equivalent of the Powhatan Machacamac, meaning "great house," Captain John Smith writes: "For presently they robbed their Machacomocko house of the towne, stole all the Indian treasure thereout, and fled into the woods as the Indians often related." (Historic, Arbers, Reprint, 538.) Eliot gives it Mishikkomukquash(pe), for "palaces."

Matiilihiikqiissee. - In a deed of sale, from three Indians to Joseph Norton, they convey ''all that neck of land called Acquampache and over a small neck of land called Matuhhukqussee." (Deeds, III, 98.)

Nonnamesset. - This appears to have been an alias for Pohoganut, or Aquampache, to which reference should be made. (Deeds, II, 32; IV, 157.) It is also a name for one of the Elizabeth Islands. In a deed, the following mention is made of this place: - ". . . . called Nonnemassett which said Nonnamessett is a neck of Land lying next and adjoining on the South of the lands in s'd Town called Aquompache." (Ibid., V, 375-)

Nashqiiite. - Under date of April 14, 1681, this word appears in the Edgartown Records, "a neck called Nashquite lying the Eastw^ard of Mattakes . . . ." (p. 30). Benjamin Smith sold to Benjamin Pease, Oct. 10, 1713, six acres in Edgartown adjacent "to the plain commonly called Nashakittee." (Deeds, IV, 223.) These place names are probably identical.

Nashawamass or Nashamoiess. - This was in the southern part of Edgartown, and was one of the praying villages of the Indians. Governor Mayhew, in his will, devises land "bought of Felix at Nashowamass," which is undoubtedly the same word. It is probably a name bestowed by Governor Ma3^hew, especially as it designates one of his "praying towns." Rev. John Cotton called it Nashamoiess (1674), a name that has survived to the present day. Nashau-wamass means "the spirit he loves," i.e., "He is beloved of the Spirit," and one of Eliot's "praying towns" had a similar derivation, viz: - Nashau-boh, " he is of the spirit." It was next to Poketapace's neck and next to Nashamoies. (Deeds, IV, 38.) Another reading is "Nashowamoiasuk" as in a deed (Ibid., I, 263). This would seem to suggest a different meaning, as Nashowameans half or divided, seen in Nashowakemmuck (Chilmark). "Natooquan sachem of Nunpoge and of the East end of Nope Island," sold to Thomas Daggett, Sept. 10, 1688, a neck of land "called Nashamoies .... bounded by the cart path which is at the head of Wintucket swamp and runes South westerly to Cackatookit (?) swamp." (Ibid., Ill, 441.)

Pohoganut. - The first reference to this name is found in a deed, Burchard to Norton, May 2, 1682, when "Pahoggannot is the spelhng (IV, 36). The next mention is in an Indian deed, in 1684, where it is written Pahauknit (Ibid., 1, 18). Again, in 1700, as Pahocknit. In 1704, in a conveyance from Joseph Norton to Samuel Smith, the following language occurs: "a cove of water on the east side of a small neck of land called Nonnamesset . . commonly called Pohoganit." (Ibid., II, 32.) This would seem to establish an alias for Pohoganut. The meaning of the word is, "at or on the cleared land," and the same word in its variations appears throughout New England, as Pokanoket, Pancanauket or Pockenocket. This was the name of King Philip's home near Mount Hope, R. I. Pahauknit was probably a planting field of the Nunnepog Indians.

Paqua. - This is a neck of land adjoining Paqua Pond, called at the present time Faqua. It is mentioned as early as 1704, under the orthography of Paquay. (Deeds, II, 52; III, 10; IV, III.)

Quanomica. - The division of this neck of land was made in 1663 (Town Records, 109), and the name has survived in its first form to the present time. It is from Quan-amaukeag, "the long fishing place," or possibly from Quan-naumkeag, "the long eel fishing place." Either definition would apply. It appears as " Quananamack " in a deed (II, 346,) and "Quenomokey," in 1731. (Athearn Mss., Cong. Lib.) The lots on this point were numbered from the point and contained about two acres each. (Ibid., V, 141.)

Sivanneck. - It is probable that this is an Indian word, and the origin of Swan Neck of modern times. The derivation may be Sowane: south, southern, and ack: land, the southern place, neck or land. It is called Swanneck in 1687 (Deeds, III, 146), and Swan Neck about same time, but it is safe to say that the name was not derived from the bird.

Sopotaminy. - This is first mentioned in the Court reccords, under date of June, 1686, when the Indian Job was adjudged to be the lawful owner of the "land, viz at Saprataine, in the right of his ancestors as gentlemen in an Indian way." In the Deeds it is called Sopotaminy, as above. Andrew Newcomb bought it of Job, Sept. 24, 1690 (Court Records, I). In later records it is called, " Jobs neck alias Sapotemmy" and "Sapotammy." (Deeds, I, 352; II, 81.) The etymology of this word is Sepohta-may, meaning "the extended or stretched out path," perhaps "the continuing path or road." (Massachusetts.) Simon Newcomb's Path is one of the early landmarks in the boundary line l^etween Tisbury and Edgartown.

Wintucket. - This neck of land is first mentioned in the town records, Dec. 28, 1659, when the "first town lots" are to be divided, (p. 134.) The word is from the combination Win-ne-tukq-et, meaning "at the good tidal cove," probably referring to its advantages for landing, or protection from storms. Winnetuckquett and Winnetucksett occur in Plymouth county, and are the same words.

Wachusade-Woachet. - This was the name of a neck of land on the south side, now called "Watcha." An instrument recorded in the county records recites that a neck of land commonly "caled Woachet was divided, the East half to popmechoa & the west half to Josias alias Keetanumon the known and acknowledged sachem of Takemmy." (Deeds, I, 299.) Josias sold to Thomas Bayes, Feb. 27, 1676, certain land in Tisbury, being the neck "caled Wachusade." (Deeds, I, 309.) This is a variation of the spelling of the name, (comp.. Deeds, II, 71.) It may be derived from Wadchu, "a hill," or as Eliot has it, Wad-chue-me-sik, meaning "little mountains," (Hosea, X, 8): This does not particularly apply to the lowland neck now known as Watcha, and the word may be derived from a like word, Wad-chu, "a keeper" (Eliot, Genesis, IV, 9), and refer to the fact that it was the land of some Indian keeper of cattle. In the Edgartown Town Records (p. 35), under date of Feb. 5, 1685, it was voted that Thomas Daggett should have "that neck of Land that the horse keeper Lived upon." This may be a clue to the origin of the name - Wadchusate, Horse keeper's Neck. Experience Mayhew wrote it Watshat (Indian Converts, p. 83).

Weenomset. - This was, probably, the Indian name for Felix' neck. It occurs as Wynomesett and Weenomsit, the former in 1662 and the latter in 1663. Edward Searle owned a small island, in Sanchacantacket Pond, now called Sarson's Island, described as southeast of Weenomset Neck, which applies to Felix Neck, and Sarson acquired Searles' property by purchase. The meaning of this word is, "at the place of the grape tree," or literally, "vine-berry place." There was probably a native vineyard on this neck when the whites first came to the island.

English Place Names

Burying Hill. - It was so-called in 1731 (Athearn, Mss. Lib. Cong.), but it was doubtless the name which had been applied to it for years previous. The first cemetery in town was located here, to the south of Tower Hill, and it has retained the name to the present time.

Codmrnt's Spring. - Mentioned in 1 743 (Deeds, VII, 154), and so-called from Robert Codman, the early settler who had a grant of land (opposite Sarson's Island), on which a spring was located.

Felix Neck. - First mentioned in 1664 in the town reccords (p. 127), and named for an Indian who was living "near Sanchakantackett," as late as 1683. (Deeds, I, 259; comp., Court Records, I.) It retains the same name at the present time.

The Gurnet. - The extreme north-eastern point, or hook of beach, in the town was very early called the Gurnet. In 1660 ''the Gurnetts nose" is mentioned, and in 171 2, the ''neck called the Gurnet" was referred to in deeds of that date. Gurnet is an obsolute or dialectal form of Gurnard, which is the name of a fish commonly called the Grunter, from the noise it makes on being landed out of the water. Hakluyt says: "the west part of the land was high browed, much like the head of a gurnard." (Voyages, II, 11.)

JacoVs Neck. - Sackonets or Jacob's neck is mentioned in a deed (Deeds, V, 323), and Jacob's neck is again referred to in 1736 (Ibid., VI, 168), located on the Great Pond.

Jones' Hill. - In 1689, Samuel Smith sold to Daniel Steward a lot of land on "Jones' Hill," next land, now or late, in the tenure of Edward Hadaway, part of the house lot of the late John Smith, deceased. (Deeds, I, 366.) It is the hill just south of Cleveland Town, and once had a windmill on its summit. Thomas Jones, an early settler, lived there and hence its name. (Deeds, XI, 926.)

LohVs Cove. - Great Pond, Edgartown. Probably named for Ishmael Lobb, a colored man who may have dwelt there. He was baptized in 1801, at the age of 62.

Momanequin^s Neck. - Philip Tabor," now being at Portsmouth in Rhode Island," exchanged his house and lot at Shokamocket, upon the Vineyard, bounded on the side by the land of John Burchard, and on the west side by Momanequin's Neck, with Thomas Layton, Aug. 2, 1655. (Dukes Deeds, I, 325.) It was named from the ''godly" Indian Momanequem. (Indian Converts, 12.)

Mortals Neck. - This neck of land probably received its name from an Indian sachem named Peter Mortal. In the will of Towanquatuck, dated Jan. 25, 1669, this great sachem decrees that his loving friend, "peter mortal!," shall be sachem "in my room." (Town Records, p. 83.) Thomas Mayhew the elder at one time owned this tract of land, and the grant of this neck to him was dated May 20, 1653. (Towti Records, p. 131.) Nicholas Norton, in his will gave to his son Benjamin a piece of meadow at Mortal's Neck, April 17, 1690. (Court Records, I.) The bounds of this neck are thus given: - "S. E. and E. side by the creek that runs into Trapp's pond." (Deeds, VII, 515.) Mortal's Neck pond or Mile Brook rivulet occurs in the records. (Ibid., I, 49.)

Poketapace^s Neck. - This was next to Job's Neck. A cove of water ran up between it and Nashamoiess. George Gardner of Nantucket sold land at "Poketapaces neck lying between the lands now in the improvement of Capt. Samuel Smith," in 1725. (Deeds, IV, z^.)

Sarson^s Island. - This small marshy island in Sanchacantocket Pond, southeast of Felix Neck, derived its name from Richard Sarson, who bought it of its first owner, Edward Sale or Searle, before 1664. It appears on current maps erroneously as Sason's Island.

Starbuck's Neck. - The purchase in 1678, by Nathaniel Starbuck, of Home Lots 2, 3, half of 4 and 5, situated in the north-east part of the town, gave to this section the name of Starbuck's Neck, a title which it has retained to the present day. The first time it was so-called to the knowledge of the author, is in a deed dated 1735. (Dukes Deeds, VI, 169.)

Turkey Land. - This name appears in 1742 as belonging to "certain land on the dividing line between the neck called Mashackett & the land called the Old House Land or Turkey Land." (Deeds, VI, 276.) It may have derived

Tower Hill. - The origin of this name is not known to the author, but it is about a century old, probably. In 1838 William Mayhew, in a disposition, refers to the "hill which is now called Tower Hill." It may have been the site of some signal tower used for maritime purposes, or a semaphore staff employed in a similar way might have been erected there.

Will Lays Plain. - This is commonly called at the present time Willie's Plain, and is said to refer to a son of the first Nicholas Norton, named William, who lost his life there in a well which he was engaged in digging. As Nicholas Norton had no son of that name this legend must be cast aside, and the records appealed to for the true title. "Will Layes pond" is mentioned in 1716 (Deeds, III, 357); Ponit, the sachem of Homes Hole sold to Henry Luce, Feb. 4, 171 7 or 1 718, a tract of land bounded on the south-west by a cart path running from Chickemmoo "to the place called Will Lays Plain" (Ibid., IV, 183); and "Will lays Plain" is mentioned in 1726 (Ibid., IV, 151). It got its name from one William Lay, an Indian of Edgartown, known as Pannunnut. In his youth he lived in the family of Governor Thomas Mayhew and in later years became the principal Indian magistrate. He preached at the Indian church at Chilmark about 1690.

It seems probable that the first settlers in the town occupied lots of land by assignment of the proprietors, . the metes and bounds of which do not appear of record. It was not until 1646 that the limits of the settlement were defined by the elder Mayhew and his son, at which time there may have been a dozen settlers residing eastward of the line then drawn "from Tequanomen's Point to the Eastermost Chop of Homses Hole." Naturally, these settlers arranged their home lots contiguously and the location afforded the best advantages was bordering on the harbor. Presumably, these home lots were sold to the first comers by the Mayhews, but no record of such sale exists today. Otherwise, it is not possible to see how the original patentees recovered on their investment.* As was the case at other settlements, the early comers here formed a body of proprietors, limited in number, who were in effect stockholders in a real estate transaction, and these original proprietors admitted others from time to time, either by an increase in their number, or by the disposal to the new man of divisions of the individual shares. A proprietor could hold more or less than one share, but its value was always based on such a fractional part of the whole, using the number of shares as the denominator. The entire area outside of the "home lots" was held in "common."

Divisions Of The Town Land

The town records afford us but little positive help on the earliest land transactions of the settlers, and the first comers seemed to acquire land without adequate written evidences of the purchase. The sparse community, where everybody knew as much about his neighbor's land as his own, needed no elaborate system of records for the protection of their titles, but a little more definite notation of such events would have saved the author many hours of study. From the scant allusions here and there, and the sequence observed in recording individual holdings in after years, it is believed that the first .allotments of the common lands occurred between 1646 and 1652, and including what was termed "Dividend Lots," and the Chappaquiddick division. These dividend lots, probably the first in the point of time, varied in size from ten to forty acres and were situated in the south part of the town, bordering on the Great Pond and Katama. Their extent and bounds were carefully recorded years after by a committee of proprietors, but it was necessary for this body to rely on hearsay and private records to fix the limits of each man's property.^

On Feb. 2, 1652, it was voted to divide twenty acres to a man, "only those that have land already shall have so much less." ^ It is not probable that this can be identified. The first record of the action of the proprietors on this subject occurs under date of Jan. 4, 1652, when it was "Ordered

^here were also "thatch lots" taken up on the south shore, but when they were laid out and drawn is not known. They were used for purposes of roofing their houses and barns.

this is the way concluded for the present." ^ This language is somewhat obscure, but the meaning, as shown by their subsequent action based on it, is reasonably clear.

The Planting Field

The first known division of the "common" land was made under date of May 8, 1653, and at that time there were twenty proprietors to participate in this allotment, shown by the following record, and the list establishes the prior settlement of the persons named, viz: - ^

Ordered that the meadows upon the pond is to be devided into twenty equal parts beginning at the path of meadow over the ware, and so to Hannah Mayhews marsh only the Pasture and Hannah Mayhew is to have that meadow that lies upon the Pastures neck: so all the rest of the meadow is to be devided into eighteen parts:

The names in this list require some explanation as to the indentity of the individuals who only appear by surname. Lay was Edward Lay, and the others will be given in full, in order of occurrence: - Edward Searle (Sale), John Pease, Malachi Browning, Thomas Burchard, John Burchard, Thomas Paine, Richard Smith, and Peter Tabor.^ Hannah Mayhew was the oldest daughter of Thomas Mayhew, Sr., and was then scarcely eighteen years of age, but this was the first of the large real estate holdings which she was destined to acquire and manage throughout her long and strenuous life. "The Pasture" is the phonetic disguise under which

^It may be noted here, in this connection, that James Covel, who had been granted land the year previous, was not a proprietor at that date, to participate in the transaction.

Thomas Mayhew, Jr., is intended to be designated as Pastor, and it is one of the few instances in which he is even indefinitely referred to as a property holder in the town.

This division of "Meadow" is believed to be what was since known as "The Planting Field," which was situated on the north side of the town between Weeks' Neck and Mills' or Miles' Brook. Each lot consisted of ten acres, and a tract of two hundred acres was therefore thus allotted.

The policy of Mayhew in relation to the Indians led him to regard their rights, as is well known, but it became necessary also to protect the proprietary as a whole from the acts of individual members who wished to add to their holdings by private purchases of lands set off to the use of the Indians. Consequently, the following order was passed under date of Jan. 4, 1652: -

No man shall procure from the Indians in any place within the town bounds any land upon Gift or Purchase upon the Penalty of Ten Pounds for every acre so purchased without the consent of the town first had.'

The limit of eighteen proprietors did not long remain at that number after this division, and within a year the number was increased to "five and twenty." Under date of Feb. 6, 1654, the town voted that "the twenty-five lotts are to Bear Equall Charges & so are to have equal Priviledges." ^ This limit remained in force for many years and represents the number of the home lots bordering on the harbor from Pease's Point to Katama, varying in size from eight to forty acres, the largest number containing about ten acres. Thomas Mayhew and his son held the only lots of forty acres. The lots in this division, which is assumed to be the first distribution in severalty of the common property of the townsmen, were called and ever afterwards known as the lots of "Five and Twenty," and became the basis for nearly all the subsequent divisions of land in various parts of the town.

Whenever it was decided to allot in shares to the townsmen any undivided section of land, the division was made into twenty-five parts, and each of the original "Five and Twenty" was entitled to one of these divisions/

The original "Five and Twenty" retained the names of their first owners for nearly a century, and long after they had passed from their possession, subsequent holders transferred them as "commonly known by the name of William Weeks his lot," or "the lot formerly belonging to Malachi Browning." In the same way the various lots in the divisions of land subsequently made were referred to as belonging to an original proprietor of one of the "Five and Twenty."

In a few cases more than one lot belonged to the same person, and the first list of proprietors of these lots contains but twenty-one names as follows : -

This list is made up and alphabetically arranged from two proprietors' drawings of Crackatuxet held on April 21, 1660, and gives the number of lots credited to each.^

The new names not occuring in the previous list of 1653, are Arey, Bayes, Harlock, Sarson, Smith and Vinson. Although Thomas Mayhew, Jr. and Thomas Paine had been dead for nearly three years, their estates drew on account of their original holding. This division of Crackatuxet was made after its acquisition on Oct. 4, 1659, from the sachem proprietor. The following record explains : - ^

This record testifieth that the owners of the five and twenty lots have purchased of Towontecutt all Cracketuxett and the neck that is called Chapequeco is with all the Necks and Lands thereabouts: nothing reserved to the s'd Tewantecutt but his two shares of Commonage.

*The drawings must have been conducted after the manner of a lottery, probably by numbers placed in a box or other receptacle, as there was no regularity in the later divisions of land which fell to the original home lots.

The next division of lands held in common was known as "Lots on the Line," and it took place about 1659, the significance of the title being thus explained under date of August 22, that year in the record: -

Ordered By the town that the Line shall Run from Wintuckett four Rods to the Westward of the Great Pond By the Ox pond and so By the upper End of Goodman Weekes his Lott to John Peases Lott.^

It referred to a purchase line bounding rights acquired of the Indians, and was sometimes called the Old Purchase Line. It is not known, except in a few instances, who drew the original lots, as the following is but a partial list and is the only record of the allotments : -

Ordered by the town that the first eleven lots upon the line backwards from Wm Weeks fence to Wintucket are given to the first eleven houselots in town beginning at

It is supposed, however, that the remaining Line lots were credited to the owners of the " five and twenty " in the same order from Main Street south as was followed in the assignment just quoted. Any other method would have been discriminating, though there were special reasons of location to warrant the assignment of the first eleven.

Later in the same year (1660) there was a more elaborate scheme of dividing the land, which is here printed in full to preserve the list of proprietors and their holdings: - ^

Voted by the town this 22: 8: 1660 that all the lands in the town shall be devided into four parts first & afterwards these four parts every one of

'Edgartown Records, I, 130. In a deed of John Pease to Robert Codman it is stated that "the Line Runs from Behind the said Peases house to Quanomica." (Ibid., I, 6.)

*Ibid., I, 36. This record must be read horizontally, instead of by columns, and by this means the correct relations of the first eleven lots are obtained. This is an instance of the exasperating method employed by the town clerk in copying the original many years ago.

Requirements Of Proprietorship

About 1652, when a considerable number of men left the island for the purpose of settling elsewhere, the proprietors found it necessary to require a time limit of residence on grants before the grantee could acquire a full title to his land. It was seen that there would grow up a class of non-resident proprietors if some restrictions were not placed upon the holders, while the object of the grants was to secure a permanent resident population. Accordingly, when William Case was granted his lot on Nov. 11, 1652, it was provided that "this Land he is to Build upon and Live on four years att the end of which time it is his proper inheritance."^ This, however, seemed to apply only to him. and in the course of time other "absentee landlords" developed, necessitating a general order dated April 27, 1663, covering such cases.

Whereas there was an order made at the time of entertaining of Willm Case into this town that no man should have a full inheritance in land except he did inhabit upon it the full term of four years: for as much as the same order is thought to be lost by the loss of a leaf out of the book, being always kept in force: this is recorded to testify it was never taken off and to continue the same in full power still: by virtue hereof and that all grants so ever are under subjection to that order and are still to be hereafter voted. ^

Divisions Of The Necks

The division of the various ''Necks" of land occupies considerable space in the land records of the town. On May 20, 1653, three men, Thomas Mayhew, Sr., Thomas Burchard and Philip Tabor, were selected "to devide to the Inhabitants out of all the necks so much land as thay in their Best Judgment shall see meat." ^ The principal "necks" were Crackatuxet, Quanomica, Felix, and "the little neck by Crackatuxet." It is probable that the "thatch" lots were on one of the small necks bordering on the Great Herring Pond. This committee did not seem to work with much celerity, as there is no record of a division of one of these until 1660, when Crackatuxet was laid out into twenty-five shares.* Quanomica was divided three years later into thirty-three shares, and in 1664, Felix Neck was divided into thirty-seven shares.

On Jan. 29, 1663, the neck called Quanomica was divided; and on April 26, 1664, the tract known as Meachemy's Field, near the Planting Field, and on the same day Felix Neck, were divided, all into twenty-five shares, but Quanomica had thirty- three (ibid., I, 109), Meachemy's Field thirty-seven (ibid., I, 128), and Felix Neck thirty- seven lots (ibid., I, 127).

The following are the new names appearing as lot owners in these three divisions : - Robert Codman, James Covell, John Eddy, John Gee, Thomas Harlock, Thomas Jones, Mistress Mayhew, as heir to Thomas Paine, her son, Nicholas, Isaac and Jacob Norton, James Pease, Mrs. Searles, Mrs. Scott, and Peter Tallman.^

At an unknown date, which may be assigned to the period between 1660 and 1670, the tract of land bordering on Sanchacantacket and extending south to Mills or Mile Brook, was divided into lots which took the name of Mile Brook lots.* This tract is thus bounded: -

On the south beginning at a black marked tree standing by the side of a swamp, which is the nearest swamp to the house of Mr. Thomas Harlock and running from said tree about 3 rods Southwest to a rock in the ground by the side of an old path which led to Sanchacantacket; thence about Southeast and by South continuing by said path 258 rods to a rock by the side of said path; thence Northeast 2 rods & a half to a stone set in the ground at the head of the swamp called the Cranberry or Mile Brook Swamp near the Pond; thence including all the land or ridge between the two swamps, and then beginning at a stake at the East side of Mile Brook and running thence Southeast and by South continuing by the path 20 rods to a stake stuck in the ground; thence East and by South 27 rods to a marked white oak tree; thence North and by East 30 rods to a rough white oak sapling marked near the ranging hne of the land granted to Mr. Sarson. And is further bounded on the North partly by the salt water and partly by land of heirs of Matt: Mayhew dec'd.^

The New Purchase

The next division was of the "New Purchase" as it was then called. There were two great sections within the town limits of Edgartown, the "rights" of which were purchased of the Sachem representing the Indians. The first was bought very early of Tewantquatick, and consisted of all the land south of the "Line" so-called, running from Wintucket to the end of the home lot of William Weeks, as before stated. All this tract was known as "The Old Purchase," and all divisions heretofore described, excepting those of the Planting and Meachemy's Fields and the Mile Brook Lots, were in this section. On May 16, 1653, the town ordered that "Mr. Mayhew is to Purchase part of Ogissket [Sanchacantucket] Neck of the Indians," ^ and this is known as "The New Purchase," but when the transaction was completed is not of record. For many years this tract, bounded by a line drawn "from Wintucket to Myobers Bridge,"^ called the "New Purchase Line," remained undivided, and it was not until Feb. 15, 1673 or 4 that it was allotted to the proprietors. On that date they "made choice of Justice Norton, Capt. Daggett, Isaac Norton, Mr. Benjamin Smith and Thomas Pease, according to their best Judgement for to Divide the Neck called Sachacantackett Neck." In the "Old Purchase" there were three final divisions, so-called, and in the "New Purchase" two. *

The next division was of the "Plain," the largest tract held in common that was laid out up to this time, and it was surveyed and divided by Richard Sarson, Thomas Bayes and Isaac Norton into forty lots, receiving co^rifirmation on Feb. 14, 1676 by the town. The folio wing . ure the bounds of this tract : -

Beginning at a stone set in the ground on a knowl at the Southwest and by westerly end of the Great Hollow, at a place called Burchard's pond lot; said stone standing in the ranging line between the first of said Plain lots and 3d Pond lot; thence running Southwest and by west. half a point westerly, one mile and seventy two rods to an old ditch near and opposite against the head of the Cove of meadow at Short Neck, Northerly from Crackatuxet; said ditch being in the ranging line between the last lot of the Plain lots and said Short Neck. Said lots running or extending in length about Southeast, southerly from said line. And is further bounded by the Common on the Northwest, northerly; and on the Northeast by Cotamy and said Pond lot; and on the Southwest by the dividend called Major Mayhew's dividend and partly by Monoquoy, and partly by Joshua Daggett's Short Neck.

And said lots is further bounded on the Southeast by Little Cotamy and partly by the sea or harbor, to the old ditch which first enclosed that land called Mattakeesett.'

As this division is an important one, the list of participators as recorded is herewith given to show the new proprietors as well as the old ones who still remained, twelve years later : -

The Woodland Lots

The next division was on Feb. 27, 1684, when a tract in the northwest part of the town, towards the Tisbury Hne, called the Woodland was divided into lots, being forty-two shares.* It is supposed the East Pine and West Pine lots are comprised in this division. There were no further divisions of common land made durii>g the remainder of the century, and nothing occurred worth noting until Aug. 28, 1704, when an additional share was added to the "Five and Twenty."

Ordered in the meeting by the Proprietors that the lott that is put in the lot which was put in amongst the 25 proprietors which made 26 shall be made to appear between James Pease and Mrs. Ann Sarson.

At the same meeting was chosen four men to wit Major Matthew Mayhew Mr. Benjamin Smith Capt. Thomas Daggett Simon Newcomb to state and settle bounds between particular mens lands and the proprietors commons of Edgartown throughout the whole bounds of Edgartown to the end that the commons and undivided lands of Edgartown be not at all questioned or infringed upon by any person whatsoever.^

It is not possible to understand the arithmetic of the half shares, which amount to 31 3-4, and it is left for some future investigator to clear up the problem. Much that was clear and understood by them was either left to the town clerk to hopelessly befog in ambiguous phraseology, or else it was not recorded at all and posterity was afforded the privilege of digging out the facts by slow and laborious methods.

Commonage And Fire-Wood Rights

Among the privileges which were attached to the proprietorship of lots, was that of "commonage" for cattle and liberty to cut fire-wood. The record shows that in 1653 a commonage comprised feeding for eight cows, or equivalent, and the extent of a commonage as it existed in 1663 is more particularly defined: -

Voted that a commonage is 12 great cattle or horses a man may keep upon a commonage for sheep and goats 8 for one cow or horse: it is agreed that every man that hath more than twelve great cattle or eight sheep or goats for every cow or horse that they must hire commonage of others is to be at 12 d a year for a beast and not more.

Expressed by Willm Vinson, Richard Sarson, Thomas Daggett & J'ohn Edy, which judge they have commonage to spare, but that those that are overstocked do not provide commonage of such as have it then they must pay for every beast to the town one shilling an six pence that is for every beast more that they can keep upon their own with six pence over and above falls to the town in good *

Fire-wood rights were specifically granted as appears by a grant to Robert Codman in 1657, of a "commanage of wood." It was found necessary in 1683, to restrict the quantity taken.

Voted that every man shall have a load of wood or timber for his use for a share and he that shall have any more shall pay five shilling for every tree that shall be cut without order from the town till further order/

Sketches Of The Early Settlers Richard Arey

In the early records of the Massachusetts Bay Colony the name of this settler is spelled in many different ways: Aree, Aerie, Ayre, Ary, and it is probable, for this reason, that some of his record may be lost in this variety of form.^ The first known of him is at Salisbury, Mass., in 1646, where he was associated with Robert Codman and was sued in that year and the year following by Tristram Coffin on account of a freighting transaction in a vessel owned by Codman.^ He was probably a mariner engaged in the coasting trade. How long he had lived in Salisbury before this is not known, nor when he removed from there. It is possible that he may have gone to Gloucester, Mass., and from thence to New London, Conn., about 1 65 1, where "Richard Aerie who was from Gloucester, mariner," had a grant of land that year, but it was "forfeited," as he did not settle in that town.^ Our next record of him is in the following year (1652), when he was granted a house lot in this town on Dec. 17, 1652, ^'Between Mr. Burchards and Thomas Daggetts." ^ This was one of the Five and Twenty situated on Starbuck's Neck, and its southern \in\-, was about at the harbor breakwater. He sold this to his old Salisbury neighbor, Robert Codman, the next year and

^In the will of Robert Sole of London, 1593, mention is made of his daughter Mary Arye (Court of Husting, II, 722). Richard Ayre of Orsett, Co. Essex, deceased before 1634 is mentioned in London marriage licenses.

*Caulkins, History of New London, 77. The author says of him further that he often visited the town in subsequent years, probably in his coasting business, arid was there in 1667 and early in 1669. (Ibid., 250, 297.)

In 1 66 1, he submitted to the Patentees Government, and was of the train band the next year. In 1663 he figured to some extent in the courts, being sued by William Weeks and John Daggett for debts. ^ He is recorded as participating in the divisions of Crackatuxett, Quanomica, Felix Neck and Meachemy's Field, and his purchases of two lots entitled him to two shares. The following is a record of his property : -

The petickeler parcells of Land of Richard Arey which he Bought of Phillip Tabor and are now in said Areys Possession, first: Ten acres of Land which is my house Lott Bounded By the Sea on the East, the Common on the West, John Peases on the North, Joseph Codmans, which was Thomas Doggetts on the South: More Two acres of Meadow Lying

His second lot or share was that which originally belonged to Peter Folger, situated on Tower Hill, just north of the cemetery, and was purchased of Folger, probably about 1662, when the latter removed to Portsmouth, R. I. The following is the record of this additional property : -

The Petickeler parcells of Land of Richard Arey which he Bought of Peter Foulger and are Now in the sd Areys Possession, first: Ten acres which (is) my house Lott Bounded By the Sea on the East, John Smith on the South, the Comon on the West, Mr. Browning and John Doggett on the North: with two acres of Meadow more or Less Beginning at the Comon wading Place on the' East Riming West and Joynes to the Pastors Meadow on the West with one Ten (acre) Lott upon the Line Bounded

This lot was the one on which he lived, the one near Pease's Point passing into the possession of the Codman family, shortly after the date of the above record.

He testified in 1668-9 at New London, relative to a charge made against him of circulating false reports about one Thomas Stanton, concerning matters in Virginia twenty years before.

Shortly afterwards, in this same year, he was drowned on Nov. 19, with Samuel Streeter, while on a trip to Nantucket or the mainland, The inventory of his estate showed property to the value of £128-13-7, ^^ which £40 was credited to house and land.

His wife was Elizabeth, who appears in the records several times as "Goodwife Arey," and she seems to have transacted business on her own account.^ The following record appears under date of Aug. 30, 1663: -

Ordered by the town that Goodwife Arey hath a commonage confirmed to her to make good that bargain which she made with Robert Pease and this commonage is given to that lot which was sold to Robert Pease. ^

On Oct. 6, 1663, she sued William Weeks for trespass and damages due to "hoggs Ruting of Medo and spoiling of Grass" to the value of thirty shillings. In 1665, she gave testimony about the nuncupative will of John Folger, but nothing further is known of her, after that date. It is possible she may be the Elizabeth Ayre, wife of Richard Ayre, mentioned in the will of Richard Crouch of S. Giles, without Cripplegate. The testator bequeaths to his brother, William Crouch, beyond seas in New England [of Charlestown, Mass.], if same be demanded in twelve months, and by like terms indicating residence in New England, also the sum of twelve pence is given to "my sister Elizabeth Ayre." ^ first appeared in this country in 1636, when he signed the town Covenant at Dedham, Mass., and became a selectman in 1638. At that time he was probably a bachelor, as on Dec. 26, 1639, he married Anne Baker

^P. C. C, Nabbs, 206. Will dated October 27, proved Nov. 29, 1660. An Elizabeth Ayre witnessed the will of Robert Pearce of Dorchester, Mass., in 1664.

in that town. Whether this was his first location in New England is not known, as he may have been of the party who removed from Watertown to Dedham.* Some clue to his English home is found in the following record : -

Thomas Bayes of Dedham, carpenter, appoints Isaac Martin of Hingham his attorney to demand of the executors of - Wiseman of Barrow Apton in County of Norfolk his grand father, deceased, the legacy due to him by will. (1646) ^

There is a registered pedigree of a Bayes family of Yorkshire, 1600-1767, and there are scattered references to persons of the name of Base, Baze, and Bayes in Norfolk County, from 1572 to 1700.^

Our Thomas Bayes was born in 161 5, and had just reached his majority when he emigrated. As appears by the above quoted record, he was a carpenter by trade, possibly a ship carpenter. In 1648, he resided in Boston, and from the following record it would appear that this supposition regarding his trade and relations with shipping, may be well founded : - accurately known, but he was a proprietor at Great Harbor as early as 1652, for in that same year he was chosen hog reeve for the town. In 1655 he was made a constable, and in 1656 was chosen leader of the train band. This ofhce he filled in 1661, 1662 and 1663. These are all the recorded instances of his military leadership, but as no other person was chosen to this position in subquent years, it is probable that he continued to hold it. In 1676 he was chosen selectman, the last office filled by him prior to his death.

'He was convicted in 1643 of "mutinos & turbulent speaches," and bound over "to bee of good behaviour the meane while" to next Quarter Court.

^Aspinwall Note Book, 68. A genealogist searched the principal court in London, and the local courts, whose records are deposited at Norwich, all formerly exercising probate jurisdiction over Burgh Afton and the vicinity, for the period of 1646 back to 1630. The result was that no will of any Wiseman described as of Burgh Afton was found. Four wills of Wiseman of Co. Norfolk, 1634 to 1638, and eight wills of Wisemans of other counties, 1634 to 1645, were found. This will be a sufficient record for some descendant to follow.

'See Familiae Minorum Gentiorum and County History of Norfolk. Wills of Thomas Bayes, 1619, William Bayes, 1630, Thomas Bayes, 1652, are recorded in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, Somerset House, London.

He lived on one of the ten-acre lots known as the "five and twenty," which had its southern boundary on Main street, and extended as far back as Pease Point way. His proprietary holdings are recorded as follows in the town records : -

This is a true Record of the Perticular percells of Land and town Rights on this Island Marthas Vineyard as followeth: which are now in the possession of Thomas Bayes & belonging to him the sd Thomas Bayes: first one house Lott being Ten acres more or less bounded by the Harbour which is Twenty Pools broad by the sea on the East, the high way as the same stands on the south the common on the West William Wix on the North with one Devident known by the name of Thomas Bayes neck bounded by the Pond on the south & west Isaac Nortons on the North Richard Sarsons on the East this being Thirty acres more or Less, with one Ten acre Lott upon the Line bounded by William Wix on the East Mr. Mayhew on the west with the Tenth Lott at Crackatuxett, with the third Lott on the adjoyning Neck, with the Thirty first lott at Quanamaca, with the Twenty fourth lott at Mechmas field, with the 19th Lott at falex neck, with two acres of Meadow adjoyning to Mrs. Blands, which was Tabors on the south, Thomas Daggets which was Barnes on the North: with all the upland adjoyning up to the old high way, some I bought of Mr. Mayhew the younger, this Land & meadow being ten acres more or Less, with the Northermost neck of Chappaquiddick for a Thach Lott, upland 81 Meadow being four Acres more of Less, with two acres of Meadows at Chappaquiddick lying in the great meadow, with the southermost point of the Neck at Chappaquiddick, upland & meadow being three acres more or Less, which was Cases on the North, with one full Right of Common & all other Dividable Lands in the Town Bounds, with one six & Twentieth part of fish & whale, with small shares of fish & whale: these Lands were confirmed by the Town this 19th of March 1666.

The death of his only son Thomas, Nov. 17, 1669, without issue, and his own death which took place between Feb. 4 and May 31, 1680, terminated this family name in the male line, but it has been perpetuated in the Norton family in every generation to the present time following the marriages of his daughters, Mary and Ruth, to the brothers Joseph and Isaac Norton. Bayes Norton is a familiar name on the Vineyard, and Bayes as a baptismal name was also used in the Newcomb family, after the marriage of Andrew Newcomb to Anna Bayes. His will was dated Feb. 4, 1679-80, and the inventory taken May 31, following. Among the personal property of this martial leader was "one gunne & loadeing staff e" and "one rapier." The total value of his estate as inventoried

I Thomas Bayes finding myself weake in boddie but sound in memorie and understanding doe make this my last will and testament as followeth; And first my will is that my wife Anne Bayes, shall have and improve all my Estate of land and moveables, whatsoever for her comfortable subsistence, during her Natui^ life provided that she continue a widdow: Secondly, I will and bequeath to Hannah Bridges, my Daughter twenty pounds after the decease of my Said wife or changing her condition of widdowhood :

Nextly, I will and bequeath to my two Daughters, Mary the now wife of Joseph Norton, and Anna the wife of Andrew Newcomb, to each of them fifty pounds, so to be understood, with what they have alreddy received of mee, with what was also received of the estate of their brother deceased; to be payed after the decease of my wife as aforesaid. Nextly, I will and give to my daughter Ruth, wife of Isaack Norton five pounds to be payed within a year after my own decease, in Bibles and bringing up the children to reading and Education. Nextly, when all these legacies shall be payed, according to this my will, if any estate be left, it shall be equally Devided among all my Daughters, and children of my daughter Abigail Deceased, and my will is that if any my said Daughters shall decease before they receive their portion herein willed, then it shall go to their children, and in defect of their issue, or the issue of any my beforesaid Daughter Abigail's children then such portion shall be equally devided among the surviveing.

Lastly my will is, and I do order and Request that my wife aforesaid, and Thomas Mayhew Junior, be whole executors and administrators to this my last will and testament: And in witness of this to be my last will and testament I the said Thomas Bayes, have hereunto Subscribed with my hand and put to my Seal, this fourteenth day of February in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred seaventy and nine or eighty. Witness.

John Bland, Alias Smith

There is a certain air of mystery about this person, who was one of the earliest settlers at Edgartown.* If the town records can be trusted, he must have been here as early as the elder Mayhew, and perhaps before. The following entry

'A John Bland was a passenger in the ship Globe in 1635, aged twenty-six years. Whether the same person as John Bland of Martha's Vineyard is unknown.

Mx. John Bland has bought of John Pease of Martins Vineyard a parcell of Land about ten acres & two acres of medo Lying against Mr Elands house att Mattakeekset. March 23, 1646.

He was a resident of Colchester, England, prior to his emigration to New England, and it seems that for reasons which will be explained later in this sketch, he had adopted the alias of John Smith, under which name he would in all probability successfully defy identification. He is undoubtedly the John Smith associated with the Mayhews in the first movement from Watertown, of whom we hear no more in subsequent Vineyard history, as he resumed his correct name when he established himself here. Certain it is, that there was some controversy about him and his identity as two of his early acquaintances, Nathaniel and Abraham Drake of Hampton, N. H., deposed that "he was sometimes called John Smith, but his name and his ancestors was Bland. "^ His loiown family consisted of Joanna his wife and two daughters, Annabel and Isabel, both married, and that his station in life was above the average of his neighbors here is evidenced by the prefix of distinction, Mr., which uniformly precedes his name in the records. His wife is given the prefix of Mistress also, and with Nicholas Butler he is the only one besides the elder and younger Mayhew so distinguished by a title which had a definite significance in those days.^

In 1654, John Bland was chosen one of the seven magistrates to assist the elder Mayhew in the government, but beyond this it is not known that he held any office. He participated in all the divisions of land up to the time of his death and his possessions are thus recorded in the town books : -

These are the petickelers upon the Vineyard of my Known Lands and are above Intended: Twenty acres of Land Lying near the North pond with two acres of Meadow Joyning: which Land and Meadow More or Less Bounded By the pond on the East, the Comon on the South, the Comon on the West, John Bland on the North: with Ten acres of Land Lying in the Planting feild Bounded with with one Ten

'Records, Commissioners of United Colonies, II, 205, 261. For " healpfulness in Phisicke and Chirurgery att Martin's Vineyard" and "for her pains and care amongst the Indians there and for Phisicke and Surgery." His wife was paid a gratuity by the Society for Propagating the Gospel.

This property he bequeathed to his wife by an instrument dated or "confirmed" Nov. 2, 1663. He died, in all probability, shortly before Jan. 6, 1668, as Mrs. Bland begins to participate in the divisions of land credited to his share in the commons from that time forth. His estate was inventoried at ;^355-io-o, an especially large sum for that period, and the full list of articles shows evidence of household refinement in the way of looking glasses, silver plate, table linen, books, and china, while among his stock are found horned cattle, horses, sheep, and goats. A servant, "a Lad for a Term of Time," was rated at ;^io, and his houses and lands were valued at £120, all of which he distributed by a will in the following terms : -

The Sixth of Jan'ry 1663: this is the Last will and Testament of me John Bland of Martens Vineyard in or Belonging to the Province of Main in New England I say made By me John Bland Delivered Into the Possession of my wife Joanah Bland this Second of November in the year of our Lord one Thousand Six Hundred Sixty and three.

In the name of God, Amen. Be it Know unto all men By these Presents and Express Partickelars that I John Bland Being in perfect memory and full understanding But Week in Body: first I do willingly Bequeath my Body to the Earth from Whence it came When the Lord Shall Be Pleased to Call for itt and my Soul and Sperit unto God that Gave itt. Now for my Temporall Goods after my Decease as Well as Whilst I am aLive I doe wholly Give unto my well Beloved wife Joanah Bland all my houses and Lands with all my housellstuflf together with all my Goods or Chatties of what Kind So Ever Giving her Most Hearty thanks for all Her Care and Graft Love Toward me in all my needs and Nessessityes : Excepting Twenty Shillings Which I doe Give unto my Two Dafters Anable and Isable who are all the children that are aLive whome I own and Give them Twenty Shillings that is to say ten Shillings to each of them after my Decease to Be Truly paid to them at there demand: and I Do Here by these Presents make and ordain my well Beloved Wife my real and Sole Executive of this my Last will and Do apoint her to Pay my Debts and Leagecies Dated this Second of November in the year of our Lord 1663 and Confirmed By Me John Bland as witness my hand this same Second of November 63 witnesses his

*Ibid., I, 54. The signature with a "mark" can be explained upon the theory of physical inability as he was "weak in body" when it was made.

The terms of this will, by which he disowned all children except the two daughters, Annabel and Isabel, together with his dual personality as Bland and Smith, led the author into a long and finally successful search to identify him as "John Smith" prior to his migration to the Vineyard. His early appearance here, contemporary with the first coming of the Mayhews, indicated Watertown as the possible place of his settlement upon his arrival in New England. A John Smith was found there in 1630 with a wife Isabel, and this name being borne by a daughter of Bland was regarded as significant. The Watertown records contain an entry of the death of Isabel Smith, the wife, who was buried July 12, 1639, aged sixty years. ^ An examination of the Watertown land grants and estates also disclosed the fact that John Smith's homestall was contiguous to those of Jeremiah Norcross and William Barsham and that later William Barsham succeeded in 1645 to the possession of Smith's lot. It further appeared that the wife of Barsham was named Annabel and this cumulative evidence further pointed to an identity with the John Bland and his daughter Annabel, a most unusual name and therefore an aid to a solution of the problem.^

The connection of Jeremiah Norcross with Smith also proved to be important and convincing, practically establishing the connection between John Bland and John Smith. Norcross was a later arrival in Watertown than either Bland and Barsham, as he did not appear until 1639, with a second wife Adrian, who was the mother of our John Bland. From all the facts in the case, too numerous to rehearse, she had probably married first Bland and second Smith and third (late in life) Jeremiah Norcross, a well-to-do gentleman of a London family, connected with the parishes of S. Mary, Sunbury, Middlesex and SS. Dunstan and Sepulchre in the metropolis. He was son of Thomas Norcross, a linen draper, married his second wife, Adrian Smith, about 1630, and came to America

'This is a possible error as the early Watertown Records are a copy transcribed by John Sherman, who enters this explanation: "What was taken before was by Mr. Eirs and uncertaine in the transmitting." It seems that this age as given is ten years too great and may be an error for fifty years.

^William Barsham was of Watertown in 1630 and d. July 13, 1684. His wife Annabel signed a deed in 1678, but is not mentioned in his will dated Aug. 23, 1683. By her he had ten children, 1635-1659, and it is estimated that she was b. 1614-16, and married after her arrival in New England.

Mr Collens, Mr Sparhawke & goo:(dman John) Bridge are desired to heare businesses betwen John Smyth & his father Jeremy Norcros & examine accounts, & settle things if they can: if not to make report to the Courte if there be cause.^

This indicates a family disagreement between the son and step-father, probably about inheritances, and surely establishes the relationship of the two, and Adrian as the mother of John. It enables us to conclude that John was the son of her first marriage (Bland) and that as a boy he adopted the name of Smith at her second marriage (Smith), or was legally adopted by the second husband. In adult life, for reasons unknown, but possibly to be found in property interests, he resumed his true birth name of Bland when he came to the Vineyard.

Jeremiah Norcross returned to England after making his will in 1654, and died there three years later. In this will he bequeaths to John Smith "my wives sonne" and to Joanna Smith his wife, "one ewe sheep." ^

Nothing has been developed to explain the reference in Bland's will to his two daughters as the only living children "whom I owne." It is inferred that he had others by the first wife, and that his second marriage to Joanna resulted in opposition from some of them which caused him to ignore them in the division of his estate.

As to the identity of this second wife, we are likewise in darkness. She was living here Aug. 12, 1680, when she sold part of her husband's estate,^ but when and where she died is not known. The Bland property in part came later into the possession of Philip Watson, through means not of record,

'A manuscript genealogy of this family by Joel W. Norcross, in the library of the N. E. Hist. -Gen. Society, furnished many corroborative facts in the Bland-Smith search. This genealogy gives no authority for date of second marriage. Adrian Bland-Smith-Norcross was probably born about 1575, and was undoubtedly considerably older than her third husband. It is not believed that she returned to England with him, and may not have survived him.

'This apparently ignores the Bland connection, but in view of all the circumstances which have developed, Norcross may not have known that John Smith had reassumed his true name at the Vineyard, and it is clearly apparent that there was a family disagreement and a probable estrangement. Bland's will further corroborates this.

Isabel Bland, the second daughter, married first about 1636 Francis Austin of Dedham, Mass., by whom she had three daughters, and second, about 1643, Thomas Leavitt of Hampton, N. H., by whom she had six children at least. Mrs. Isabel Leavitt died Feb. 10, 1698-99, aged "about 87 years."'

Malachi Browning

This person was one of the Watertown contingent of first comers. He had been an owner of a home stall in that place in 1642, and probably emigrated to New England some two years before that date.^ He was from Maldon, Co. Essex, England, a few miles distant from Baddow Magna, the home of John Pease, and Bromfield, possibly the residence of the Vincents prior to their emigration. Malachi Browning and his brother Jeremy were appointed in 1630 administrators of the estate of their sister Sarah Armestronge als Browninge of Maldon,^ and in 1647, after his arrival in this country, he gave a power of attorney to a party to agree with Mr. Thomas Browning of Maldon in Essex, Clerk {i. e., minister), concerning his reversionary title to lands in the Ratchford Hundred in same county.^ These clues enabled the author to make a definite search for his family antecedents, and he had the registers of the two parishes of St. Mary, and All Saints and St. Peter searched for Browning records. The result as given below is a satisfactory solution although the name of Malachi does not appear, yet that of his brother Jeremy and

'A Joanna Watson was a member of the Church in Salem in 1636, but there is no evidence to associate this person with the wife of our settler.

^Dow, "History of Hampton," 810. Mrs. Isabel Leavitt claimed the Bland estate on the Vineyard, and filed as evidence the depositions of Nathaniel and Abram Drake of Hampton in support of her heirship as John Bland's daughter. These depositions disclosed the "Smith-Bland" situation and established the clues to his identity.

'On June 2, 1640, "Mr Browning for seling strong water was fined 5s witn: to ha: 28 of it." (Record, Court of Assistants, I, 282.) There was no other Browning in Massachusetts as yet come to light, and taken in connection with a subsequent entry it is entirely probable this relates to our Malachi Browning.

his sister Sarah are given, and it will be noted that there is a Daniel in the list of children, and that our Malachi had a son of that name. It is probable that the family removed to another parish as no further record of the father's family is to be found in St. Mary's. Malachi was in all probability, short of absolute proof, the son of William and Dorothy (Vernon) Browning of Maldon, the record of whose family from 1581 to 1599 appears on the parish register of St. Mary.* By his first wife Martha, who was buried in 1583, he had two daughters, and by his second, Dorothy, to v*'hom he was married Sept. 10, 1 583, at All Saints, he had the following children baptized : -

But if this is not convincing we have the will of William Browning of Maldon, dated April 23, 1635, then in business as a merchant of London, of the parish of S. Botolph, Bishops gate, in w^hich instrument he mentions "Malachy Brownyng my Sonne." To him he bequeaths his messuages in Maldon.^ The w^ill was proven a few days after its date as the testator was sick when it was drawn.

In April, 1645, ^^^ was an appraiser of an estate in Massachusetts, and he probably removed to the Vineyard during the next year or early in 1647, as on Oct. 13, 1647, he is called "late of Watertown in New England, Gent."^ On Oct. 27, 1649, he was in Boston on legal business, in connection with his brother-in-law, Joseph Collier of London. At the same time Mrs. Elizabeth Scott was there also on similar business with her husband Robert Scott. ^ In an inventory of the estate of Adam Winthrop, 1652, there is an item of a debt due from ''Mr" Browning, and a like entry under date of March 10,

1652-3, in an account of the estate of Robert Bulton of Boston/ His activities on the Vineyard were very sUght. The first and only record of him is under date of May 8, 1653, when he was given a share in the planting field. ^ His homestead on which he drew this was the first lot on Tower hill, south of the "Slough" and was apparently part of a lot of which John Daggett owned the western half and Browning the harbor end. On a visit to Boston he died "at the house of Robert Scott," Nov. 27, 1653, thus terminating a short and uneventful career in New England.^ His occupation while on the island is shrouded in obscurity, and all clues to his connection with persons on the island end in unsatisfactory threads. A "Mrs." Scott, presumably the wife of Robert, above referred to, appears in 1663 and 1664, as an owner of a share of land at Great Harbor. Conjectures as to relationship with our Browning may be easily entertained, but we are left without any recourse to confirmation as she disappears as suddenly from the scene, leaving no trace.

His known family consisted of a wife Mary, a daughter Susanna, who by her marriage with William Vinson became the ancestreps of all the Vincents here, and a son Daniel. The wife was probably born Mary Collier, sister of Joseph Collier, cit'zen and grocer of London, who in 1648 left a bequest to "my sister Mrs. Mary Browning in New England."^ Of the son Daniel, but few traces remain. In view of the standinr, of the family, an uncle perhaps a clergyman in England it is fair to presume that this Daniel may have served in a clerical capacity in the town after the decease of the younger Mayhew. The following entry in the records seems to point to that conclusion : -

Ordered by the town that what charge shall arise for the finishing of Mr. Brownings house more than the first covenant shall be paid in corne at harvest.^

The building of a house was usually one of the things done for ministers by towns and the "covenant" probably refers to an agreement made when he was settled. How long

Malachi Browning had a ''mansion seat" a little distance south of Burying Hill fronting the harbor. In what manner it passed from his estate into the possession of Thomas Trapp is not known, but it may indicate some relationship.^ Apparently the widow only had her "thirds," which she deeded as a gift to her grandson, Thomas Vincent.^ The widow survived until Sept. 7, 1672, and the inventory of her estate showed property to the value of ;^2 2-7-5, which was administered by her son-in-law Vinson. Her daughter Susanna makes several references to her property rights in England, and it is presumed to relate to the estate in Essex to which the father had made claim as above related.

Thomas Burchard

from the similarity of names it is believed it was the family which later settled on the Vineyard. The husband Thomas, aged forty years, a laboring man, was accompanied by his wife Mary, aged thirty-eight and children, Elizabeth thirteen, Mary twelve, Sarah nine, Susan eight, John seven, and Ann eighteen months old.^ In 1652 a Thomas Burchard and his son John were residents in this town, and from all subsequent records this John seemed to be his only son, as was the case of the immigrant Thomas and his only son of that name. Somewhat extended search has been made to ascertain the antecedents of Thomas, who is thought to have come from London, but no clue has yet been obtained.* On May 17, 1637, Thomas Bercher was admitted as freeman by the General Court of Massachusetts.^ and a Thomas

'There is a tradition that Susanna Browning sold Tower Hill for a pair of gloves or some equally trivial consideration. While nothing in the records justifies such a legend, as the Browning lot was some distance south of Tower Hill, yet there may be enough truth in the story to account for the appearance of Trapp in 1684 as owner of the ten acres.

*A Thomas Burchwood, cordwainer, of St. Peter's, Cornhill, had a family of six brought to baptism 1597 to 1603, including three named Thomas, but the dates do not correspond to the family which came in the True Love. (Parish Registers, St. Peter's, Cornhill, London.) The name is variously spelled Bercher, Birchard, Burchard, Burchwood.

Burchard, member of Rev. John Eliots' Church in Roxbury. Tv/o years later, in 1639, we find a Thomas Burchard at Hartford, and no further trace of him has come to Hght until the year 1650, when he was of Saybrook and probably had been there some time before, as Thomas Birchard, He was Deputy to the General Court of that colony in 1650-51, and on May 15, 1651, was appointed one of a committee to go to Pequot and lay out the lands granted to Capt. John Mason's soldiers/

The next record of him is under date of 1652 at Great Harbor, when "Mr. Burchards" lot is mentioned, and on May 8, 1653, two lots in the planting field are credited to "Burchard."^ It is an arbitrary inference to assign this to him, rnther than his son John, but on May 20, 1653, we are relieved of further speculation as Thomas Burchard was then chosen with Mayhew and Tabor to divide the Necks of land among the inhabitants.^ On June 8, 1653, he was chosen as the first assistant to the chief magistrate, and on Oct. 31, 1654, ''Thomas Burchard the elder" was made town clerk. ^ He was the first person who held this office in Edgartown, of whom we have record. On June 5, 1655, he was again chosen as the first assistant to the chief magistrate. On Jan. 7, 1656, he is recorded as "present" at a town meeting in Saybrook, probably as a proprietor with interests yet undisposed of, for on October 31 of that year he sold his lands in that town to his son John."^ He was again chosen first assistant on June 23, 1656, being one of the two so elected, the number having formerly been four, but from this time on he seems to have declined in favor with the freemen or with the elder Mayhew, for this is the last time he held any office in the town and the next twenty-five years of his residence is scarcely marked by any public appearance.*^ It is noted that in the earlier records he had been called "]Mr" Burchard, but that henceforth he was either Thomas Burchard or "Goodman Burchard; and in connection with this it is observed that he did not sign the submission to the Patentees Government in 1661, from which it seems clear that he had become disaf-

^Ibid., I. 131. One lot may have belonged to his son John. *Ibid., I, 121. He was succeeded by his son two years later. ^Saybrook Town Book, 11, 99; comp., Caulkins, "History of Norwich," p. 53. He called himself "of Marthas Vineyard." "Edgartown Records, I, 120.