Papers of the Winthrop Family, Volume 2
1630-09-30
About 2: in the morninge mr. Isack Johnson dyed, his wife the Lady Arbella of the house of Lincoln being dead about 1: monthe before. he was a holy man and wise and died in sweet peace, leavinge some a good parte of his substance to the Colonye.
The woulues killed 6: Calues at Salem: and they killed one woulfe.1
Tho: morton adiudged to be imprisoned till he were sent into England, and his house burnt downe, for his many iniuries offered to the Indians, and other misdemeanors. Capt Brooke master of the Gifte refused to carrye him.2
Finche of waterton had his wigwam burnt and all his goodes.
Billington executed at Plim
mr. Philips the minister of waterton
4 and others had their haye burnt.
The woulues killed some swine at Saugus.
5
A Cowe dyed at Plimmouthe, and a goate at Boston with eatinge Indian Corne.
On November 9, 1630, the first bounty on wolves was established. This bounty was limited to Englishmen and was assessed on owners of livestock in proportion to their holdings. Records of Massachusetts, I. 81.
Thomas Morton of Merry-Mount, for whom, see Charles Francis Adams, Ed., The New English Canaan of Thomas Morton (Boston, The Prince Society, 1883).
Possibly Daniel Finch, who took the oath as freeman May 18, 1631: Records of Massachusetts, I. 366. For the crime, the trial, and the execution of John Billington, a “knave” of one of the “profanest families,” see Bradford, History of Plymouth Plantation (1912), II. 110–112. Bradford says that Winthrop was consulted as to the Colony's authority to hang Billington.
At a Court of Assistants held at Charlestown, September 7, 1630, it was “ordered, that Trimountaine shalbe called Boston; Mattapan, Dorchester; and the towne vpon Charles Ryver, Waterton.” Records of Massachusetts, I. 75. For an early description of Watertown, see William Wood, New Englands Prospect (London, 1634), 34: “Hafe a mile Westward of this plantation Water-towne; a place nothing inferiour for land, wood, medow, and water to New-towne.” The main square of the present-day Watertown is about three miles west of the site of the plantation described by Wood.
See Wood, New Englands Prospect, 35–36, for a description of Saugus. Although Winthrop uses the name Lynn as early as November 8, 1636
D.J.W.
Records of Massachusetts, I. 211.
1630-10-23
mr. Rossiter one of the Assistantes dyed.1
mr. Colburne (who was chosen deacon by the Congregation a weeke before) was invested by imposition of handes of the minister and elder.2
The Governor vpon consideration of the inconveniences which had growne in England, by drinkinge one to another, restrayned it at his owne 269table and wished others to doe the like, so as it grewe by little and little to dysvse.
On October 19, 1630, at Boston, was held the important General Court, of which Winthrop makes no mention, at which the Charter was violated by the vote that the Governor and the Deputy-Governor should be chosen by the Assistants “from amongst themselves” and with them should have all power to make and execute laws. Appended to the record of this Court are the names of the one hundred and nine settlers who petitioned to be admitted as freemen. Eight men sat in this General Court: Winthrop, Dudley, Saltonstall, Ludlow, Endecott, Nowell, Pynchon, and Bradstreet.
The account of the executors of Mr. Rossiter, showing how much money he had invested in the Massachusetts Bay Company, is in the Massachusetts Historical Society, Miscellaneous Papers, 1. (1628–1691), 2. See
Proceedings
, XLVII. 346–347. The account is in the handwriting of the Reverend John White and is part of a memorandum of money owed to him by certain persons in New England which the clergyman sent to William Pynchon for collection. The memorandum is undated but belongs to the year 1632.
William Colburn, Colbrun, Coleborne, or what you will, was a signer of the Cambridge Agreement, and subsequently became a prominent citizen of Boston, and ruling elder of the First Church. His receipt for one share of stock in the Massachusetts Bay Company, signed by George Harwood, is in the Massachusetts Archives, C. 60. The only other receipt now known to exist is made out to William Pynchon and is the property of the Massachusetts Historical Society.
Apparently the force of example was not so effective as Winthrop hoped, for at a General Court held on September 4, 1639, a strict law was passed against this “abominable practice of drinking healths” “vpon paine of xij d., to bee forfaited for every offence.” For the entertainment of strangers, it would seem, a respite of one week was allowed. Informers were given half the fine.
Although he was afraid at first to advise Winthrop against a law passed by the Court, Thomas Shepard wrote him, January 27, 1639/40: “1: This only I meruayle at that that should be condemnd as a sin simply in it selfe, and yet by order of court liberty giuen to men for some few dayes to commit that sin, as in case freends come fresh out of England, they may then drinke to them without being liable to punishment: 2: this also I doe humbly intreat that there may be no sin made of drinking in any case on one to another; for I am confident he that stands here will fall and be beat from his ground by his own arguments; as also that the consequences will be very sad and the thing provoking to god and man to make more sins then (as yet is seene) god himselfe hath made.” W. Au. 95; 4
Collections
, VII. 270.
Tipped into the third manuscript volume of the Journal opposite the last entry, for 1649, is a paper, without date, containing the following note in Winthrop's handwriting:
“(1) Such a Lawe as tends to the suppressinge of a vaine Custome (quatenus it so doth) is a whollsome Lawe This Lawe doth so: ergo. the minor Is proued thus.
1: Euery emptye and ineffectuall representation of searious thinges is a waye of vanitye: but this Custome is such: for it is intended to holde forthe Love, and wishes of health, which are searious thinges, by drinkinge, which neither in the nature nor vse it is able to effect: for it is looked at as a meere Complement, and is not taken as an Argument of Love, which ought to be vnfeyned ergo.
2: To imploye the Creature out of its naturall vse without warrant of Aut
See Winthrop Papers, I. 371–374, for proposed laws (1626 and 1628) for preventing drunkenness, in the handwriting of John Winthrop.