A Stated Meeting of the Society was held in the Hall of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences on Wednesday, 18 April, 1894, at three o’clock in the afternoon.
In the absence of the President, who was attending, in Washington, a session of the National Academy of Science, the chair was occupied by Vice-President William Watson Goodwin.
After the reading of the records of the March meeting, the following named gentlemen were elected Resident Members: —
Messrs. Edward W. Hooper and Augustus Hemenway were appointed a Committee on the Treasurer’s Accounts; and Mr. Charles F. Choate, the Hon. Charles W. Clifford, and Dr. William Watson, a Committee on Nominations.
Mr. Andrew McFarland Davis read the following paper: —
the pedigree of ann radcliffe, lady mowlson.
In the Transactions of the December meeting of this Society there will be found an account of what was then known of the history of the founder of the Lady Mowlson Scholarship at Harvard College. This information was communicated to the Society by Professor Goodwin, the occasion being the recent adoption of the name “Radcliffe College” by the Society for the Collegiate Instruction of Women. A few facts which had not before that time been made public were included in the statement then submitted to the Society. In the “New England Magazine” for February, 1894, there is an article entitled “Ann Radcliffe, Lady Mowlson,” in which the story of what had then been discovered concerning the Scholarship and its founder was told in narrative form, but without sacrificing the historical character of the paper. The new material contributed by Professor Goodwin to this Society was incorporated in the magazine article, but a comparison of the latter with the footnotes appended to the paper published in our Transactions will disclose the fact that certain gleanings from the British State Papers, which were not communicated to the Society, and which are not included in the magazine article, were made public in that form in our Transactions.
It will be remembered that the question was asked at our December meeting if the evidence was conclusive that the maiden name of Lady Mowlson was Ann Radcliffe. At that time proof of that fact rested upon the language used in her will, in which a bequest was made to her nephew, Anthony Radcliffe, son of her brother, Edward Radcliffe. In the opinion of genealogists it was a probable inference from this language that Lady Mowlson’s family name was Radcliffe, but it could not be denied that Edward Radcliffe might have been a half-brother, in which event the inference would have fallen to the ground. Mr. John Ward Dean, who has taken great interest in the development of the facts which have been made public in connection with this subject, was of opinion that this doubt could easily be set at rest; and he wrote to Dr. George W. Marshall of Heralds College, London, asking him if he could aid in solving the question.
While waiting for an answer to this communication, Mr. Dean received from Mr. Henry F. Waters an abstract of the will of Anthony Radcliffe, a brother, who died in 1628. This was published in the April (1894) number of the “New-England Historical and Genealogical Register,” and added somewhat to our knowledge of the family. In this will the testator left a bequest to his “sister Anne Moulson.”
The publication of this document furnished occasion for an interesting note from the hand of Mr. John T. Hassam, in which he showed that “Lady Mowlson was related by marriage to prominent puritans and patriots of the day.” Her nephew, Sir Gilbert Gerard, was married to a first cousin of Oliver Cromwell and John Hampden. A sister of Sir Gilbert’s wife was married to Sir William Marshall, in whose family two of our New England divines, Roger Williams and John Norton, were at different times chaplains.
Dr. Marshall’s reply to Mr. Dean’s inquiry was in due time received. In a letter dated 24 March, 1894, he says: —
In Vincent’s London, I find a pedigree from which the following is an extract: —
Dr. Marshall adds that although the name is spelt Moulston, it means Moulson. The identification is perhaps a natural inference, but this endorsement by so high an authority places it beyond dispute. The fact has been already shown in the several papers which have been published on the subject, that the name is indifferently written Mowlson or Moulson, and in one of the records it figures as Moulsham. As if to illustrate the possible combination of letters which could be made while attempting to register this name, and to show contemporaneous indifference to accuracy in that line, it is stated in Ormerod’s Cheshire that the following inscription is cut in stone, in the chapel at Hargrave Stubbs: “Thomas Moulsone, Alderman of the city of London, built this Chapel at his own cost and charge, A. D. 1627.”
Beside forwarding the pedigree of the Moulston family, Dr. Marshall, on 27 March, 1894, sent Mr. Dean the following extracts from the Registers of St. Christopher le Stocks: —
Thomas Moulson and Ann Radclyffe. Lie. Fac. Married.
Mary d. Thomas Moulson. Bapt. Burḍ 1 Apr. follg.
Sir Thomas Moulson, Grocer, once Lord Maior of the Cittey of London. Bur’d.
Dame Anne Moulson in her own vault in South Chapel. Buried.
All doubts as to Lady Mowlson’s family name are of course dissipated by these records; and to what was already known of her, the record of the baptism and burial of her daughter Mary adds the interesting fact that she was a mother. The language used in the will of Sir Thomas, “for so much as I have no child,” can no longer be construed to mean that no child had been born during wedlock.
A wife in 1600, and a mother in 1606, are clews that for the first time give us some idea of her age when, in 1648, she had her eventful interview with Thomas Weld, and made the gift to Harvard College which has conferred immortality upon her name. In addition to the social relations with prominent leaders of the day, established by the marriage of Sir Gilbert Gerard, one other fact cannot fail to attract attention: Lady Mowlson’s father was an alderman of the city of London. Her husband was alderman and Lord Mayor. Her husband’s sister Rebecca was the wife of Nicholas Ranton, alderman and Lord Mayor. Thus, as we unravel the threads of her life and her associations from the woven story of the day, we find her place among those who ruled the nation through their political opinions or the power of their wealth. The records of St. Christopher’s and the pedigree of the Moulstons practically settle all questions which were at issue, but a reference399 furnished by Dr. Marshall in his letter of 24 March, 1894, gives us the following facts concerning her family: —
At the conclusion of Mr. Davis’s paper, Professor Goodwin expressed his great satisfaction at the information which had just been submitted to the Society. The doubt suggested at our December meeting had, he confessed, made him feel somewhat uneasy, for when a Bowditch raised a question concerning a pedigree, it necessarily unsettled the minds of those who had relied upon it. What the Society had just listened to seemed to him to be a complete and final settlement of the matter. The incorporation of Radcliffe College had made it desirable that all doubts upon this point should be removed.
Mr. Charles P. Bowditch disclaimed having intended to raise any question concerning the pedigree. The point which he had raised at the December meeting was simply one of proof. The evidence had been supplied to-day which was then lacking, and he joined heartily in the expressions of pleasure on the part of the presiding officer at the conclusive proof which had just been submitted to the Society that the family name of Lady Mowlson was Radcliffe.
The Rev. Edward G. Porter gave a vivid account of the events which happened between Lexington Green and Concord Bridge on the night of the eighteenth of April, 1775, and on the following day. His remarks, to which the date of the meeting gave additional interest, were illustrated by a large plan of the old road between the two places. The plan also showed some of the adjacent towns and the location of many houses and points which played an important part in the events of which he was speaking.
At the conclusion of Mr. Porter’s remarks, and during the discussion which followed, some six-pound cannon-balls, fired by Lord Percy’s field-pieces during the engagement at Lexington, and recently ploughed up in the adjacent fields, were exhibited. There was also shown an old leather pouch partially filled with bullets — “plums for the British” — which had been stored for safety in the attic of the old meeting-house in Lincoln, where they were found, long after the battle, when the building was under repair.
Mr. Frederick L. Gay presented to the Society the original commission, on parchment, from Louis XIII. of France to Charles de la Tour as Lieutenant-General of Acadia. It is dated 8 February, 1631, and bears the signature of the king on its face, and that of La Tour on the reverse. The discovery of this interesting document gives us the correct date of the instrument, which is erroneously given as 11 February in Dr. Slafter’s Memoir of Sir William Alexander,400 and by a more recent writer in the Magazine of American History. The following is the text of the commission: — 401
Louis par la grace de Dieu Roy de France et de Nauarre A tous ceux qui ces pntes Verront Salut, Scauoir faisons Que pour la bonne et entiere confiance que nous auons de la personne de nre cher et bien amé Charles de Sṭ Estienne esr sr de la Tour associé de la companie de la nouuelle france et de son sens prudhommie fidelité experiance et bonne dilligence a Icelluy pour ces causes et autres a ce nous mouuans, Et en agreant et approuuant La nomina͠on & presentation qui nous a estè faicte de sa personne par nre tres cher et tres amé Cousin Le sr Cardinal de Richelieu Grand Mre chef et sur Intendant gn’al de la Nauigaon et commerce de france cy attachee soubz le contrescel de nre chanrie Auons donné et octroyé, donnons et octroyons par ces ᵱntes La charge de nre Lieutenant gn’al au pais de Lacadye fort Louis port de la Tour et lieux qui en dependent en la nouuelle france pour y commander a tous les gens de Guerre qui y sont tant pour la garde desd’ lieux que pour maintenir le negoce et habitaon dud’ pais conseruaon & seureté d’Icelluy soubz nre aucthorité et obeissance auec pouuoir d’establir soubz Iui tels lieutenans que bon lui semblera Pour jouir & vser par led’ sr La Tour de lad’ charge aux honneurs aucthorites prerogatiues preeminances franchises priuileges droictz fruictz proffictz & Esmolumens qui y sont & seront attribues tant quil nous plaira Sy Donnons en mandement A Tous nos Lieutenans gnau͡x Capitaines conducteurs de nos Gens de Guerre justiciers & officiers Lieutenans gnau͡x Magistrats & Conseils de Ville chacun endroict soy Qu’ils laissent ledict sr de la Tour jouir et user de la dicte charge plainement & paisiblement Et a luy obeir et entendre de tous ceux et ainsy quil appartiendra en choses touchant et concernant Icelle charge En tesmoing de quoy nous auons faict mettre n͠re scel402 a ces d’ ᵱntes Car tel est nre plaisir Donne a Paris le viiie jour du Feburier L’an de grace mil six cens trente ung et de nre regne le Vingt et ung.
Par Le Boy
The following formal acceptance of the office is on the back of the Commission: —
Aujourdhuy Seiziesme jour du mois de juillet mil six cents trente ung jay recu les presentes lettres de prouision et accepte la charge de lieutenant general põ le Roy en ceste prouince de l’acadie et aultres quy en despendent selon la Volonté de sa Majte et conforment auz dictes lettres partans je promects et jure d’estre fidel au Roy a mon Seigr le cardinal et a la compe de la nouuelle france garder les ordonnances et notamment l’edict de ladte compe de la nouuelle france et les articles de societé d’icelle tant en qualité de lieutntgn͡al de sa Majesté en ses prouinces que come ung des associés d’icelle en foy de quoy ay signé le ᵱn͡t acte faict led’ jour au fort st Louys prouince de l’acadie pays de la nouuelle france.
de Par mon diet Seigneur
Charles de Sainct Estienne.
After the Commission was folded the entries given below were endorsed thereon: —
Confirmation de la Commission
de Lieutenant à Mr de la Tour
The thanks of the Society were given to Mr. Gay for this valuable addition to the cabinet.
Mr. Abner C. Goodell, Jr., read the following communications concerning the burial-place of Judge John Saffin, and the family of John Kind, whose gravestone was recently discovered during the demolition of a house in Hull Street, Boston: —
At our meeting in March of last year, I gave what I considered conclusive evidence that John Saffin was buried in Boston, thus controverting the opinion generally accepted that the place of his interment was at Bristol. I showed also that he occupied a dwelling-house in Boston, where I supposed he died. Recently, I have procured from Rhode Island a copy of a manuscript volume kept by him, in which, among numerous saws, apothegms, and wretched doggerels, he occasionally minuted some historical event, or some item relating to his family. I have collected these items, which I will not tire your patience to read now, but will submit to the committee of publication to print in our Transactions, or to reject, as they may deem proper. One of these, however, dated “Anno 1678,” showing that he had a tomb in the Granary Burying-ground, seems such a corroboration of the surmise that he could have been interred nowhere else that I will read it: —
“And Now alas! there lyes Interred in One Tombe att the higher End of the upper Burying place in Boston my Dear Wife Martha Saffin & five of the Eight Sons She bare unto me. Namely my Son John ye first, who Dyed on the tenth Day of December 1661 wn he was upwards of two years old a faire Comely & towardly Child and sensible unto his Last.”
Then follow the names, dates of death, etc., of the other children.
This entry was preceded by a series of memoranda giving dates of births, marriages, and deaths in his wife’s family (she being the daughter of Thomas Willett, the first mayor of New York City), of his own parentage, birth, and marriage, and of the births of his own children. These are given below as transcribed for this paper, but I have not personally compared them with the original. The words in brackets are believed to be in the handwriting of Francis Willett, son of Andrew, and grandson of Thomas, Saffin’s father-in-law: —
New England Anno 1637
In the year of our Lord on thousand six hundred thirty Seven Mary Willett Daughter to Capt: Tho: Willett & Mary his Wife Daughter to mr Jno Brown was Borne in Plymouth on ye tenth Day of November [they sd Capt Willett & Mary Brown haveing been Married on the 6th July 1636]
1637 9th Nov: Mary W: Born
Anno 1639. on the sixth Day of August Capt: Willetts Second Daughter Martha was Borne in Plymouth.
1639 Agust 6th. Martha Willett was Born
Anno 1641. on the twenty-first Day of August Jno Willett Eldest Son to sd Capt: Willett was Born in Plymouth
1641 Jno Willett was born the first augst.
Anno 1643. on the fourth Day of May Sarah Willett was Borne allso in Plymouth.
1643. 4th May Sarah Willett was Born
Anno 1644. on the Second Day of Decembr Rebeckah Willett was Borne in Plymouth
1644: 2d Xcembr
Anno 1646. on the first Day of Octobr Thomas Willett ye Second son to Capt Willett & Mary his wife, was Born in Plymo.
1646. 1st Octor Tho: Willett was Born
Anno 1648. on the tenth of July Esther Willett was born
Anno 1649. on the twenty third Day of Novembr James Willett was Born in Plymouth Aforesaid.
Anno 1651. on the Seventeenth Day of Novembr Hezekiah Willett was Born in Plymouth.
Anno 1654. on ye first of Novembr David Willett was born.
Anno 1655. on the fifth of Octobrṛ Andrew Willett was Borne in Plymouth, [and Deptd: this Life the 6 of Aprill 1712 and in the 57 yeare of his Age]
Anno 1669 on the Eighth Day of January my Honrd: Mother in Law Mrs. Mary Willett, first wife to Capt. Thomas Willett Deceased, and was buried in the usuall buriall place by her Father mṛ Jno Brown & other Relatives upon a little hill in Swansey being in their owne land.
Anno 1674 on the 4th Day of August My Honrd: Father in law the worshipfull Capt Thomas Willett Esqr Deceased and was buried in the same place in Swansey.
Anno 1675 My Grand Mother Brown Departed this life on the 27th 1673 [sic] in the good old age of about Ninety six years.403
This was taken out of my pockett Book some time since.
New England Anno 1658.
In the Year of or Lord one thousand Six Hundred Fifty Eight on the third Day of Decembr (being fryday) I Jno Saffin Eldest Son to Simon Saffin of the City of Exceter Merchant by Grace his Wife onely Daughter to Mr. Jno Garrett sometime of Barnstable in ye County of Devon; was in or about the 26 year of my age Married to my Dearly Beloved Wife Martha ye 2d Daughter to Capt Tho: Willett, at Plymouth in N-England; By Mr. William Collier one of the Magistrates.
Anno 1659. on the Thirteenth Day of Septembr between twelve & one of the Clock my said Wife Martha through ye goodness of God was Delivered of hir first born Son John in the town of Boston in New England
Jno 1 1659
Anno 1661. on Monday ye Fourteenth Day of Aprill about seven A clock in the norning, my second son John was Born in Boston by my said Wife.
1661 Jno 2
Anno 1663. on fryday ye Eighteenth Day of March, between two & three A clock in the morning my Dear Wife Martha was Delivered of her third son Thomas in Boston
Anno 1666. on Satuerday ye Fourteenth Day of Aprill about two of the Clock afternoon my Son Simon was born in Boston
Anno 1667. on Thursday at Night between twelve & one a clock The Thirtyth Day of January my fifth Son Josiah was Born in Boston
Anno 1669. on Wednesday ye second Day of February about halfe an hour past Eleven at Night my Dear Wife Martha was delivered of her Sixth son Named Joseph in Boston
My said son Joseph Deceased on ye 5th Sept 1676 being Tusday
Anno 1672. on ye Day of My Wife Before her time occationed by a fall in a fainting fitt as she was goeing to Meeting with her Mayd Betty on a Sabbath day The sd Child lived about thirty honrs then Dyed and was buried In Boston. See ye Towne Record.404
Anno 1676. on Wedensday the 24th Day of Januuary my wife Martha was Delivered of her Eighth son Named Joseph about six weekes before her time, in the Town of Boston.
1676 Joseph 2d
On the 9th Day of December following my Beloved Son John Dyed of the same Desease being my second born son & now the Eldest above 16 years old.
On Wedensday about midnight 11th Day of December My thrice Dearly Beloved Consort Departed this life after Eleven Dayes Sickness of that Deadly Disease of ye small pox all wch hath tended to my allmost insuportable grief After the enjoyment of her my Sweet Martha 20 yeares
Here follows the paragraph concerning the tomb, as already given on page 360. The record continues thus: —
Next to him [i. e. his son John] my Son Benjamin Dyed an Infant that lived but about 30 hours the 16th day of June 1672 [But see above.]
Next to him my Son Joseph Deceased of a Flux when he was about seven years old, A Brave Comely And Every way beautyfull, & as witty & towardly a Child as one shall see Amongst a Thousand
Next to him my Son Simon Dyed of that mortall and most Epidemicall Desease of the small pox who was also fairehair’d comely youth, had attained to a good Degree of Gram̃ar, and allmost a Nonesuch for a Naturall veine & fancy of Limning wherein he did super Excell, to ye Admiration of all yt saw him
And Next to him my Eldest though second Born son John who was the Darling of his time here for witt & learning and a sweet behaviour amongst all sorts of persons of good Repute that had any knowledge of him & had [illegible] in the Colledge for his parts and learning above Thirteen of ye Classes being ye head of all them yt were Contemporays with him; But God took him allso by Death with the same Desease of ye small pox to my amazeing griefe at ye loss of him and so many in so short a time.
1688/7 March 23th.
That in the Month of March 1688 I began to plant my Orchard at Boundfield and finished it in 1691.
The subject of the foregoing paper naturally suggests another. The Boston Evening Transcript of 16 April, 1894, contains an item inviting some explanatory remarks which you may be interested to hear. It is an account of a head-stone found in a building recently torn down “on Hull Street, near the top of Copp’s Hill.” According to the Transcript, the stone bears the following inscription: —
Here Lyeth Buried
Ye Body Of
Aged 44 Years,
Dec’d. July ye 29,
The place where this stone probably stood in Copp’s-Hill Burying-ground is indicated by other stones still standing to the memory of members of the Kind family.405 The name of the person whom it commemorates figures in the first of the series of Private Acts passed under the Province Charter. He died seised of a small piece of land in Boston with a wharf adjoining, and a dwellinghouse thereon; and having survived his wife,406 and left eight orphan children in the custody of his mother, Jane, the widow of Arthur Kind, and the house having been destroyed by fire about two years after his decease, his mother, who had been appointed administratrix of his estate, applied to the legislature for a grant of the real estate in consideration of her care and maintenance of his children, and of her disbursements for his funeral.
The prayer of the petition was granted, and an act vesting the real estate in the petitioner in fee was passed 7 March, 1692–93, under the title “An Act for the granting unto Jane Kind, widow, a void piece of land in Boston belonging unto the estate of her son, John Kind, deced.”
Since the circumstances leading to this peculiar piece of legislation afford glimpses, not to be had elsewhere, of life in Boston two hundred years ago, and include some account of the ravages of a conflagration407 at the north end of the town that seems to have been overlooked by recent compilers of lists of early fires in Boston, I may, perhaps, be pardoned for giving more space to the subject than would be required for a simple elucidation of the mystery of the recently discovered gravestone.
John Kind’s estate was conveyed to him by Robert Cox, innholder, and Esther, his wife, for three hundred pounds in current money, 8 February, 1683–84.408 It was “near the Swan Tavern,” and situated on Halsey’s Wharf, on or near the present Land’s Court, — North Street at that time skirting the wharves at that point, and this court running down the wharf. According to the sworn return of the committee nominated by the selectmen under the act, the land was “about twenty-five foot in the front next the street, and twenty-eight foot or thereabouts in the rear.”409
The following, which is Mrs. Kind’s first petition, was evidently prepared to be presented to the General Court at one of the earlier sessions held in 1692. The paper upon which it is written has been cut, and all that is now legible on the back is the memorandum “Jane Kinds Petcon”. The loss of the House Journals and the silence of the Council Records render the exact date doubtful, and preclude the discovery of the action taken upon this petition in the House, where it was probably first presented.
“To the Grave & Judicious ye General assembly of ye Province of ye Massachusetts Bay now Sitting at Boston —
That John Kind Late of Boston Butcher Son to Your Peticõnṛ̣ with Rachel his wife, about Two Yeares Since deceased in ye Visitacõn of ye Small Pox & hath left eight orphans behind them, ye little all for ye Support of whome, Since ye late fire, at ye Northerly end of ye Towne of Boston is reduced to a Piece of ground, ye remains & ruine of an howse & wharfe formerly ye Estate of ye Said John Kind deceased — Yor Peticõnṛ̣ having taken on her ye administracõn of ye Estate of the deceased & being so nearly Related to ye Said Orphans & not being able of her Selfe to educate & Provide for them, & also considering that the Said ground & wharfe must lye dead many Yeares by reason neither Your Peticõnṛ̣, nor ye Said Orphans are any wayes capable of rebuilding & repairing said ruines//
Yoṛ̣ Peticõnṛ̣ Therefore earnestly implores This Honblẹ̣ Court to take ye matter into Yor grave Consideracõn & to permit & order that ye Said Land may be Sold for ye Supply, & Support of ye Said orphans.
And Yor Peticõnr as in duty bound Shall alwayes Pray &c —
Jane Kind.”410 —
The petitioner does not appear to have made further application to the Legislature until the next spring, when she presented another petition, which would seem to have been acted upon, first in the House, on the sixth of March, the day of its date, notwithstanding an entry in the Council Records showing that the bill was read and debated in the Council two days earlier.
This second petition411 omits some of the statements made in the first petition, but adds that upon the death of her son, the petitioner “was necessitated immediately to take the care” of his orphan children, and that for two years before the fire she had collected rents to the amount of “fourteen pounds or thereabouts.”
The engrossment of the act has not been discovered, but a memorandum on the bill shows that it was “orderly read in ye house” on the sixth of March 1692/3 “& voted in ye Affirmatiue & sent to his Excellency ye Gournor & Councill for Consent,” and that on the seventh it was “Read several times in Council, Voted and Ordered to be Engrossed and pass into an Act.” On the same day it was consented to by the Governor.
The act required the administratrix to give bond to account for the whole value of the land and wharf according to an appraisement to be made as therein directed. She gave to the Judge of Probate such a bond, bearing date 8 February, 1693–94, in the penalty of two hundred and forty pounds, with Joseph Bridgham and Stephen French as sureties.412
By the account of the administratrix, allowed 9 August, 1707, it appears that her receipts above the personal property inventoried amounted to fifty pounds, and that this sum added to the value of the real estate as appraised after the fire, and of the personal estate (which was appraised at forty-eight pounds) made a total of £218 9s., and that she was allowed £260 7s. for disbursements.
No evidence has been discovered that this act was ever transmitted to the Privy Council. It was, however, recorded in the Registry of Deeds for Suffolk County.413
Jane Kind conveyed this estate in mortgage 3 October, 1694, to John Foster, of Boston, Esquire, for one hundred pounds current money. This mortgage was discharged 27 April, 1703.414 After the fire a brick building was erected on the premises, and Mrs. Kind finally made an absolute conveyance of the estate, in fee simple, to Thomas Clark of Boston, pewterer, 1 February, 1705–6, for six hundred pounds, current money.415
Mr. Henry H. Edes read the following paper: —
At our Stated Meeting in March of last year I communicated an extract from a letter of Peter Faneuil to his friend and correspondent, Peter Baynton of Philadelphia, which, together with other matter printed in connection therewith in our Transactions, has probably settled the long mooted questions as to the date of the shipwreck of the Palatines off Block Island and the destination of the ill-fated vessel. It is an interesting question whether Faneuil’s relations with Baynton were purely commercial or whether they partook of a social nature, and if so what ties, if any, bound this rich Philadelphia merchant to New England.
In the Cabinet of the New-England Historic Genealogical Society, where a fragment of one of Faneuil’s letter-books416 is preserved, a commercial Ledger covering the period from April, 1725, to March, 1732, is also to be found. This volume, which is an unusually large folio, fills six hundred and seventy-six pages and is nearly perfect. The paper is of the best quality, and the accounts, which are spread on every page, are written in a most elegant hand, the headings looking as though they were engraved. This Ledger, hitherto, has been reputed to be that of Peter Faneuil. The “Sexton of the Old School” tells us that Faneuil “had, for several years before the death of his uncle Andrew, been engaged in commerce.”417 Andrew Faneuil died 13 February, 1737–8,418 leaving by his will of 12 September, 1734,419 to this nephew what probably was then the greatest fortune in New England. Mr. Sargent tells us that Peter Faneuil had come to Boston as early as 3 July, 1728, when he was concerned in the duel fought on Boston Common between Benjamin Woodbridge and Henry Phillips, whose brother, Gillam Phillips, had married his sister, Marie Faneuil, on 6 August, 1725.420 As the Ledger records the transactions of what in those days must have been a most extensive trade,421 it seemed improbable that they were those of a young man of twenty-five422 living in the same town in which his uncle was one of the foremost merchants. A critical examination of the volume in connection with an imperfect Invoice-book423 of the Faneuils in the same Cabinet, and written in the same hand, demonstrates the fact that the Ledger contains the accounts of both uncle and nephew, and suggests the probability that they were in partnership. The further interesting fact is also revealed that Peter Faneuil was in Boston as early as — and, presumably, before — 23 June, 1725, on which day John Mytton and Company of London consigned to him here an invoice (No. 20) of goods valued at £445 13 6. It appears by this Ledger (page 153) that the commercial relations of Peter Baynton and the Faneuil family began as early as 10 June, 1728, when an item appears to his credit. On the Debit side of the account is written “Peter Baynton m/a424 of Philadelphia,” which fully identifies Peter Faneuil’s correspondent of 24 April, 1740. Other accounts are with Daniel Ayrault and Judith Cranston, widow of Governor Cranston, both of Rhode Island. In this connection it should not be forgotten that “Benjamin Faneuil, the father of our Peter, was closely associated with that little band of Huguenots who clustered about the town of Narragansett, otherwise called Kingstown, and the region round about, at the very close of the seventeenth century;”425 and that he was married in that place, at the house of Peter Ayross, to Anne Bureau, 28 July, 1699. It should also be borne in mind that some thirty families of Huguenots settled in the “Nipmug Country” in what is now Oxford (contiguous to Sutton on the west) under the auspices of Governor Dudley. The settlement, however, was broken up by Indian inroads in 1696, and many of these settlers took up their abode in Boston.
My attention has recently been called426 to an Indenture dated 15 June, 1726, and recorded in our Suffolk Registry of Deeds by which it appears that Baynton’s second wife was a grand-daughter of that John Smith of Newport, Rhode Island, who, in November, 1679, was appointed, with John Alborough, to run the boundary line between Rhode Island and Connecticut.427 The record shows that Baynton came to Boston and acknowledged this instrument before John Ballantine on the fifteenth of June, 1726, two years before his name appears in the Faneuil Ledger and fourteen years before Peter Faneuil wrote to him, in April, 1740, the letter to which I have already referred. It also appears by this document that the Bayntons owned one thirty-third of the township of Sutton in the Province of the Massachusetts Bay, which they held in the right of the Surveyor who, they state, was one of the original proprietors or grantees of the township.428 As John Smith is believed to have died in or before 1699 and Sutton was not settled till after 1700, and as I do not find Smith’s name in the list of original grantees in the History of the town, the discovery of this Indenture is important.429 Smith surveyed the Narragansett land in 1678;430 and on the twenty-fifth of August, 1686, an Agreement431 was entered into between the Indians and the English by which the latter acquired lands at Hassanamisco, and thus became the owners of what is now Sutton. One of the articles of this Agreement provided that a survey of the land should be made in the following October at the equal charge of the parties to it. It is probable that John Smith’s interest in the Sutton lands dates from this time. This grant by the Indians was confirmed by a Resolve of the General Court in 1704.432
How the Bayntons’ share of the township came to be one thirty-third I have not been able to determine. If it shall appear that the Surveyor left a son James the parentage of the person of that name included in the before-mentioned confirmatory grant of 1704 is established beyond a reasonable doubt.
From John Osborne Austin’s Genealogical Dictionary of Rhode Island it is learned that John Smith, Surveyor, of Newport and Bristol, by wife Susanna, had five children: Rebecca, Margaret, Mary, John, and Thomas, born between 1678 and 1692; that Thomas had a wife Mary; that Susanna, widow of John Smith of Newport, sold land 20 July, 1699; and that she died in 1712. It will be observed that no son James appears in this list. In a conveyance433 by Charles Crosthwayt of Piles Grove Precinct in the County of Salem and Province of West New Jersey, dated 23 November, 1721, he styles himself “grandson and sole heir of George Danson, late of Boston,” and refers to his grandfather as having been an original proprietor and grantee of Sutton and the owner of one-tenth of the township. If John Smith owned another, an eleventh, share and left three children, each child would have been entitled to one thirty-third of the township; but the Indenture of the Bayntons declares that their mother, Rebekah, wife of John Budd, was the “only daughter and heir of John Smith.” Here, then, is a problem for the historians and genealogists of Sutton, Newport, and Bristol to solve.
Mr. Robert N. Toppan called attention to a letter written by the late Hon. Charles H. Bell concerning the authenticity of the Wheelwright deed, which has recently been printed by the Prince Society for insertion as an addendum to their published volume on the Rev. John Wheelwright. He thought this document might be of interest to the Society, as the topic was touched upon by Mr. Edmund M. Wheelwright in his paper read at the March meeting, and presented one of the printed copies for the library.