No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 August 2010
In February 1704, a Boston laborer named Thomas Lea found himself surrounded by townspeople as he lay on his deathbed. These spectators had gathered hoping to hear a much anticipated confession of the crimes they believed Lea had committed fifteen years earlier during the Dominion of New England. In Suffolk County, many townspeople had long maintained that Lea and others had used the confusion and chaos generated by the unsettling political and legal transformations introduced to New England during the 1680s to surreptitiously gain legal title to the estate of a prosperous Braintree, Massachusetts, landowner named William Penn. Standing by Lea's bedside, one witness, who believed Lea had perjured himself at the 1689 probate administration of Penn's estate, demanded: “Thomas can you as you are going out of the World answer at the Tribunal of God to the Will of Mr Penns, which you have sworn to[?]” “Was Mr Penn living or Dead when this Will was Made?” In the presence of assembled witnesses, Lea acknowledged, “he was dead.” Other townspeople pressed Lea to reveal the role he played in what many believed had been a murder for inheritance scheme. They reminded Lea that Penn's corpse had been found covered “in blood, in his own dung” with “a hole in his back, that you might turn your two fingers into it” and, even more disturbing, “one of his [Penn's] stones in his codd [scrotum] was broken all to pieces.” Averting the onlookers' gaze, Lea “turned his head aside the other way, saying what I did I was hired to do.” For these witnesses, the death-bed confession confirmed the rumors of Lea's crimes and strengthened their belief that a wave of corruption introduced in the 1680s had sabotaged New England's distinctive Puritan jurisprudence. Indeed, townspeople had labored for years to overturn the 1689 probate of Penn's estate in an effort forestall the crown's efforts to bring New England into political and legal conformity with the dictates of the growing English empire.
1. “Affidavit of Anne Doubleday,” 27 April 1704 , Court Files Suffolk, 108:11400, micro-film. Depositions from John Brocass, Mary Hands, Susanna Critchfield, and John Atkin taken in February 1704 also recount Lea's deathbed confession. Court Files Suffolk, 108:11400, microfilm. Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed., s.v. “Cod.” On family disputes which (may have) resulted in murder, see Crane, Elaine Forman, Killed Strangely: The Death of Rebecca Cornell (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2002)Google Scholar.
2. Richard Ross persuasively argues that late seventeenth-century Congregational elites “appealed to the constitution of the first  charter period as a protest ideal when calling for the protection or restoration of ancient customs and privileges.” They asserted that Mas-sachusetts “possessed a constitution, a patterned and distinctive legal order.” Their claims expressed a stable and coherent “Puritan jurisprudence,” the basis for resisting full integration into the English empire . Ross, Richard, “The Career of Puritan Jurisprudence,” Law and History Review 26. 2 (2008), 12CrossRefGoogle Scholar , <http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/26.2/ross.html>.
3. Barnes, Viola Florence, The Dominion of New England: A Study in British Colonial Policy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1923)Google Scholar ; Hall, Michael G., Edward Randolph and the American Colonies 1676–1703 (Chapel Hill: Published for the Institute of Early American History and Culture by the University of North Carolina Press, 1960)Google Scholar ; Lovejoy, David S., The Glorious Revolution in America (New York: Harper & Row, 1972)Google Scholar ; Haffenden, Philip S., New England and the English Nation, 1689-1713 (Oxford: Clarenden Press, 1974)Google Scholar ; Johnson, Richard R., Adjustment to Empire: The New England Colonies 1675–1715 (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1981)Google Scholar ; Sosin, Jack M., English America and the Revolution of 1688: Royal Administration and the Structure of Provincial Government (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1982)Google Scholar ; Sosin, Jack M., English America and Imperial Inconstancy: The Rise of Provincial Autonomy, 1696–1715 (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1985)Google Scholar ; Landsman, Ned C., From Colonials to Provincials: American Thought and Culture, 1680–1760 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2000)Google Scholar ; Lustig, Mary Lou, The Imperial Executive in America: Sir Edmund Andros, 1637–1714 (Madison, NJ: Associated University Presses, 2002)Google Scholar.
4. Konig, David Thomas, Law and Society in Puritan Massachusetts: Essex County, 1629–1692 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1979), 186Google Scholar ; Murrin, John, “The Legal Transformation: The Bench and Bar in Eighteenth-Century Massachusetts,” in Colonial America: Essays in Politics and Social Development, ed. Katz, Stanley (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1971), 415–49Google Scholar ; Law in Colonial Massachusetts, 1630–1800: A Conference Held 6 and 7 November 1981 by the Colonial Society of Massachusetts (Boston, Distributed by the University Press of Virginia for the Colonial Society, 1984)Google Scholar ; Mann, Bruce H., Neighbors and Strangers: Law and Community in Early Connecticut (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1987)Google Scholar ; McManus, Edgar J., Law and Liberty in Early New England: Criminal Justice and Due Process, 1630–1692 (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1993)Google Scholar ; Cornelia Hughes Dayton, WomenBefore the Bar: Gender, Law, and Society in Connecticut 1639–1789 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1995)Google Scholar.
5. Levy argues that the Delaware Valley Quakers' sensitivity toward the rearing of their children led to equitable inheritance practices . Levy, Barry, Quakers and the American Family: British Quakers in the Delaware Valley (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988)Google Scholar . Narrett highlights the continuation of equitable Dutch inheritance practices that encouraged roughly equal distribution of wealth between the sons and daughters among both yeoman and urban dwellers . Narrett, David, Inheritance and Family: Life in Colonial New York City (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1992)Google Scholar . Roeber finds that German immigrants to British North America adopted the English practice of writing wills in order to protect against Eng-lish intestate division of property favoring the eldest son. Roeber, A. G., Palatines, Liberty, and Property: German Lutherans in Colonial British America (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993)Google Scholar.
6. Bilder, Mary Sarah, The Transatlantic Constitution: Colonial Legal Culture and the Empire (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004), 168Google Scholar . Historians have carefully explored, for example, this method of empire building after the English conquest of New Netherland in the late seventeenth century . Biemer, Linda Briggs, Women and Property in Colonial New York: The Transition from Dutch to English Law 1643–1727 (Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press, 1983)Google Scholar ; Merwick, Donna, Death of a Notary: Conquest & Change in Colonial New York (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1999)Google Scholar ; Huslebosch, Daniel J., Constituting Empire:New York and the Transformation of Constitutionalism in the Atlantic World, 1664–1830 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2005), 49Google Scholar ; Narrett, David, Inheritance and Family, 199–200Google Scholar ; Murrin, John, “The Menacing Shadow of Louis XIV and the Rage of Jacob Leisler: The Constitution Ordeal of Seventeenth-Century New York,” in New York and the Union: Contributions to the American Constitutional Experience, ed. Schechter, Stephen L. and Burnstein, Richard B. (Albany: New York State Commission on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution, 1990), 29–71Google Scholar.
8. Frothingham, Richard, The History of Charlestown, Massachusetts (Boston: C.C. Little and J. Brown, 1845), 59Google Scholar , 80 ; Savage, James, A Genealogical Dictionary of the First Settlers of New England Showing Three Generations of Those Who Came Before May, 1692 on the Basis of the Farmer's Register (Boston, 1861, reprint Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Company, 1965), 3:389Google Scholar ; Pope, Charles Henry, The Pioneers of Massachusetts, A Descriptive List Drawn from Records of the Colonies, Towns, and Churches and Other Contemporane-ous Documents (Boston: 1900, reprint Baltimore, 1985), 352Google Scholar ; Anderson, Robert Charles, The Great Migration Begins: Immigrants to New England (Boston: New England Historic Genealogical Society, 1995), 3:1426Google Scholar.
9. Bates, Samuel, Records of the Town of Braintree, Massachusetts 1640 to 1793 (Ran-dolph, Massachusetts: D. H. Huxford, 1891), 2Google Scholar ; Charles Francis Adams, Historyof Braintree, Massachusetts (1639–1708), The North Precinct of Braintree (1708–1792), and the Town of Quincy (1708–1792) (Cambridge, 1891), 6Google Scholar ; “Deposition of William Penn,” 4 June 1656, Court Files Suffolk, 2:290, microfilm ; Pattee, William S., A History of Old Braintree and Quincy (Quincy: Green & Prescott, 1878), 161Google Scholar.
10. Suffolk Deeds (Boston, 1880–1906), 1:299–301Google Scholar , 3:30–32 ; Hartley, Edward Neal, Iron-works on the Saugus: The Lynn and Braintree Ventures of the Company of the Undertakers in New England (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1957)Google Scholar ; Bailyn, Bernard, The New England Merchants in the Seventeenth Century (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1955), 60–71Google Scholar ; Dunn, Richard S., Puritans and Yankees: The Winthrop Dynasty of New England, 1630–1717 (New York: W. W. Norton, 1962), 90CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; “Deposition of William Penn,” 4 June 1656, Court Files Suffolk, 2:290, microfilm.
11. Pattee, , A History of Old Braintree, 462–63Google Scholar ; Maverick, Samuel, A Briefe Description of New England and the Severall Townes Therein Together with the Present Government Thereof (London, 1660), 16Google Scholar ; “Deposition of Samuel White,” 5 July 1698, Massachusetts Archives, 8:71, microfilm; Suffolk Deeds, 16:5; Records of the Suffolk County Court, 1671–1680 (Boston, 1933), 29:323Google Scholar ; Massachusetts Archives, 8:92 , microfilm, ; Suffolk Deeds, 15:173Google Scholar ; “Copy of the Book of Accounts for the Town of Boston, 1671,” Court Files Suffolk, 11:1017, microfilm; Bailyn, The New England Merchants, 115–16, 128, 145, 196.
12. Suffolk Deeds, 9:162–63.
13. Suffolk Deeds, 10:29; 11:113–14, 229–30; 13:332, 15:173.
14. “Deposition of Samuel Tompson,” Suffolk County Massachusetts Probate Records, n.s., 1:361 , microfilm, ; Samuel Tompson, Notebook, 1678–1698Google Scholar , Misc. Mss Boxes “T” American Antiquarian Society; “Deposition of William Penn,” 10 March 1653, Court Files Suffolk, 1:188.
15. Suffolk Deeds, 10:29. By 1689, the Hills had three children , Sarah, Edward Jr, and Hannah, . Suffolk County Massachusetts Probate Records, 10:458–62Google Scholar , microfilm; Records of the Suffolk County Court, 1671–1680, 30:962–79, microfilm; Wyman, Thomas Bellows, The Genealogies and Estates of Charlestown, in the County of Middlesex and Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1629–1818 (Boston, 1879; repr. Sommersworth, New Hampshire, 1982), 736Google Scholar ; “Deposition of Joseph Allen and Joseph Arnold relative to land formerly in the possession of the late William Penn,” 10 May 1700, Massachusetts Archives, 8:88, microfilm; “Deposition of Joseph Cooper and Thomas Quest of Birmingham, relative to the heirs in England of the late William Penn,” 17 September 1700, Massachusetts Archives, 8:92, microfilm.
16. “The Petition of Edward Hill,” 26 June 1676, Massachusetts Archives, 69:20a, microfilm. In 1680, Stephen Hopkins of Worcester won a suit against Hill for £6, the first in a pattern of similar cases . Abstract and Index of the Records of the Inferior Court of Common Pleas Held at Boston, 1680–1698 (Boston: Historical Records Survey, 1940), 25, 63, 77, 103Google Scholar.
17. “Deposition of Samuel Hunt,” 3 March 1681, Miscellaneous Bound Volumes, Massachusetts Historical Society; “Deposition of Richard Thayer,” 3 March 1681, Court Files Suffolk, 23:1970, microfilm ; Acts and Resolves, Public and Private, of the Province of the Massachusetts Bay… (Boston, 1895), 8: 366Google Scholar . On delayed inheritance, see Greven, Philip J., Four Generations: Population, Land, and Family in Colonial Andover, Massachusetts (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1971)Google Scholar.
18. Abstract and Index, 126. Taking a servant from a household was unusual. See Levy, Barry, “Girls and Boys: Poor Children and the Labor Market in Colonial Massachusetts,” Pennsylvania History (Summer 1997): 287–307Google Scholar ; “Petition of Deborah Hill,” 11 March 1685, Massachusetts Archives, 40:205, microfilm.
19. Hart, James S. and Ross, Richard J., “The Ancient Constitution in the Old World and the New,” in The World of John Winthrop, ed. Bremer, Francis (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 2005), 241.Google Scholar
21. Hall, Michael G., “Randolph, Dudley, and the Massachusetts Moderates in 1683,” The New England Quarterly 29. 4 (1956): 515CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Sibley's Harvard Graduates: Biographical Sketches of Those Who Attended Harvard College, ed. Shipton, Clifford K. (Boston: Harvard University Press, 1933—), 1:167–76, 2:197–99Google Scholar.
22. Bilder, , The Transatlantic Constitution, 32Google Scholar ; On Dominion land policy, see Norton, Mary Beth, In The Devil's Snare: The Salem Witchcraft Crisis of 1692 (New York: Knopf, 2002), 129Google Scholar ; The Glorious Revolution in Massachusetts: Selected Document, 1689–1692, ed. Moodey, Robert Earle and Simmons, Richard Clive (Boston: Colonial Society of Massachusetts, 1988), 3, 48Google Scholar ; The Andros Tracts, ed. Whitmore, W. W. (Boston: Publications of the Prince Society, 1868), xxxviiiGoogle Scholar ; Johnson, , Adjustment to Empire, 79–81Google Scholar ; Lovejoy, , The Glorious Revolution in America, 182–89Google Scholar ; Barnes, , The Dominion of New England, 174–211Google Scholar ; Godbeer, Richard, The Devil's Dominion: Magic and Religion in Early New England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 184–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
23. Johnson, , Adjustment to Empire, 49Google Scholar ; The Autobiography of Increase Mather, ed. Hall, Michael G. (Worcester: American Antiquarian Society, 1962), 322Google Scholar ; Diary of Samuel Sewall 1674–1729 (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1878–1882), 1:171Google Scholar ; Henry Wilder Foote, Annals of King's Chapel: From the Puritan Age of New England to the Present Day (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1882), 1:46–50Google Scholar , 89, 112, 115, 118, 127, 158 ; Lustig, , The Imperial Executive, 146–47Google Scholar.
24. Offutt, William, “The Atlantic Rules: The Legalistic Turn in Colonial British America,” in The Creation of the British Atlantic World, ed Elizabeth Mancke and Carole Shammas (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006), 172Google Scholar ; Konig, , Law and Society, 161Google Scholar ; Suffolk Deeds, 16:94–95.
25. “Deposition of John Chadwick,” 28 April 1697, Court Files Suffolk, 43:3897, micro-film.
26. “Affidavit of Anne Doubleday,” 27 April 1704, Court Files Suffolk, 108:11400, microfilm.
27. For more on the term “legal literate,” see Bilder, , The Transatlantic Constitution, 15Google Scholar . In 1683, Lee, John had been “warned out of ye town [Boston] yet remains, removinge from place to place.” A Report of the Record Commissioners of the City of Boston Con-taining Miscellaneous Papers (Boston, 1886), 59Google Scholar . John Lee also appears to have been ac-cused of witchcraft on April 11, 1692. The Salem Witchcraft Papers: Verbatim Transcripts of the Legal Documents of the Salem Witchcraft Outbreak of 1692, ed. Boyer, Paul and Nissenbaum, Stephen (New York: Da Capo Press, 1977), 2:535Google Scholar , <http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccernew2?id=BoySa12.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/oldsalem&tag=public&part=32&division=div1>.
29. Swinburne, Henry, A Treatise of Testaments and Last Wills (London, 1677), 6Google Scholar ; “De-position of Mary Briggs,” 28 April 1697, Court Files Suffolk, 43:3897, microfilm; Godolphin, John, The Orphans Legacy: Or, A Testamentary Abridgement (London, 1685), 65Google Scholar ; Bilder, , The Transatlantic Constitution, 51–52Google Scholar.
31. Konig, , Law and Society, 41Google Scholar ; Suffolk Deeds, 1:299–302, 3:30–31, 9:147–50, 200–2, 10:22, 29–30, 11:113–14, 229–30, 236–37, 12:59, 126–27, 278–79, 335–36, 13:331–32; Foote, Annals, 1:47; “Deposition of Joseph Hill,” 28 April 1697, Court Files Suffolk, 43:162421, microfilm. For evidence of Bullivant's role as Andros's justice of the peace and the fear he seems to have inspired, see “Complaint of William Coleman,” 23 January 1690, Massachu-setts Archives, 35:175–76, microfilm; “Complaints of the Late Oppression,” 21 January 1690, Massachusetts Archives, 35:182–83, microfilm; Bates, Records of the Town of Braintree, 1640–1793, 39, 71–72, 87.
32. Suffolk Deeds, 17:4; “Journal of Benjamin Bullivant,” 17 March 1690, in Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, America and the West Indies, ed. Sainbury, W. et al. (London, 1896—), 13: 263Google Scholar . For the presence of servants in the Hills' household, see Court Files Suffolk, 38:2693, microfilm; “Petition of Deborah Hill,” Massachusetts Archives, 40:205, microfilm.
33. “The Complaint of Edward Hill,” , Massachusetts Archives, 37:71–72, mi-crofilm. For more on the restored charter government, see Johnson, , Adjustment to Empire, 106Google Scholar ; The Glorious Revolution in Massachusetts, 418 . For more on shoemaker Edward Hill's discontent, see “Deposition of Edward Hill,” 3 August 1691, Massachusetts Archives, 37:147, microfilm; “Deposition of Edward Hill,” 28 October 1691, Massachusetts Archives, 37:150, microfilm; “Warrant for Edward Hill, 10 April 1694, Court Files Suffolk, 33:2897, microfilm.
34. Murrin, , “The Menacing Shadow,” 29–30Google Scholar ; Bilder, , The Transatlantic Constitution, 94Google Scholar ; Thorpe, Francis Newton, ed., The Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters, and Other Organic Laws of the States, Territories, and Colonies Now or Hereafter forming the United States of America (Washington: G.P.O., 1909), 3:1881Google Scholar.
35. “Deposition of Hill, Joseph [Attorney to Anthony Penn],” 3 April 1694Google Scholar , Court Files Suffolk, 43:3897, microfilm; Suffolk County Massachusetts Probate Records, n.s., 1:361, microfilm; Acts and Resolves, 1:54 ; Demos, John, “Shame and Guilt in Early New England,” in Emotion and Social Change: Toward a New Psychohistory, ed. Stearns, Carol Z. and Stearns, Peter N. (New York: Holmes & Meier, 1988), 83Google Scholar ; Dayton, , Women Before the Bar, 317–24Google Scholar.
36. “Among the neighbors who heard Marsh's public accusations was a tailor named John Chadwick.” “Deposition of John Chadwick,” 5 April 1694, Court Files Suffolk, 43:3897, microfilm; Suffolk County Massachusetts Probate Records, n.s., 1:361, microfilm.
38. Pope, , The Pioneers of Massachusetts, 231Google Scholar ; Pope, Charles Henry, Pioneers of Maine and New Hampshire (Boston, 1908), 95–96Google Scholar ; Report of the Records Commissioners…Miscellaneous Papers, 78; Report of the Records Commissioners…1660 to 1701, 211 ; Robbins, Chandler, A History of the Second Church, Or Old North in Boston (Boston, 1852), 253Google Scholar ; Index of Obituaries in Boston Newspapers (Boston, 1968), 155Google Scholar.
39. Report of the Records Commissioners…Miscellaneous Papers, 78; Report of the Records Commissioners…1660 to 1701, 217; Diary of Samuel Sewall, 1:145; Report of the Records Commissioners…Miscellaneous Papers (29th Report), 161.
41. The Anglican practice of holding and kissing the Bible when swearing an oath—a ritual introduced to New England during the Andros regime—generated controversy. See The Autobiography of Increase Mather, 319, 321; Increase Mather, , A Brief Discourse Concerning the Unlawfulness of the Common Prayer Worship: and of Laying the Hand On and Kissing the Booke in Swearing (Cambridge, 1686)Google Scholar . Samuel Willard took up the issue of swearing in a 1689 pamphlet published in London. The New England position on oaths, Willard in-formed English readers, “will be taken for granted by all that are any whit grounded in the principles of Non-Conformity.” “So essential a piece of Religion is Swearing,” he wrote, “that it is in Scripture Metonymically put for all Religion.” Willard, Samuel, A Brief Discourse Concerning that Ceremony of Laying the Hand on the Bible in Swearing (London, 1689)Google Scholar . See also “Criticism of the Agents for Massachusetts on the Draft Charter,” September 1691, Calendar of State Papers, 13:542 ; Johnson, , Adjustment to Empire, 77–78Google Scholar.
42. Dunn, Richard S. and Yeandle, Laetitia, eds., The Journal of John Winthrop 1630–1649, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996), 9, 153Google Scholar . See also Benjamin Bullivant to Edward Randolph, 11 September 1686, Calendar of State Papers, 12:241; Diary of Samuel Sewall, 1:439, note 1 ; Lund, John M., “Fear of an Oath: Piety, Hypocrisy, and the Dilemma of Puritan Identity,” (Ph.D. diss., University of Massachusetts Amherst, 2001)Google Scholar.
43. Stoughton also served as Lieutenant Governor and Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Judicature. “Deposition of Joseph Hill [Attorney to Anthony Penn],” 3 April 1694, Court Files Suffolk, 43:3897, microfilm; Suffolk County Massachusetts Probate Records, n.s., 1:361, microfilm. The suspicions of Hill and Draper appear well-founded. On April 10, 1694, John Marsh helped Edward Hill post “fifty pounds” as security for the shoemaker's appearance in court as a defendant in a suit brought by William Brattle for debt. Court Files Suffolk, 33:2897, microfilm; “Deposition of Abraham White and Thomas Guest,” 20 March 1694, Court Files Suffolk, 35:3104, microfilm ; Murrin, John, “The Legal Transformation,” 415–49Google Scholar.
44. “The Petition of Joseph Hill and Richard Draper of Boston as lawful Attorneys to Anthony Penn of Birmingham…England,” 28 March 1694, Court Files Suffolk, 33:209, microfilm; Suffolk County Massachusetts Probate Records, n.s., 1:359, microfilm. Stougton received his commission as Chief Justice in December 1692. Diary of Samuel Sewall, 1:370, 395, note 2; Sibley's Harvard Graduates, 1:43– 45, 101, 202; Acts and Resolves, 1:43–45,101.
45. “Deposition of Joseph Hill,” 3 April 1694; “Deposition of Frances Coleworthy,” 5 April 1694. The other depositions came from Gilbert Coleworthy, dated March 1694; an-other from John Chadwick, dated 5 April 1694; and a second deposition from Joseph Hill dated 29 March 1694. Court Files Suffolk, 33:209, microfilm. Witch-lore is filled with tales of supernatural travel by those who had been ensnared by the devil . Hall, David D., Witch-Hunting in Seventeenth-Century New England: A Documentary History 1638–1992 (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1991), 95–96, 129–33, 158–61, 219, 274Google Scholar ; Norton, Mary Beth, In The Devil's Snare, 311–12Google Scholar ; Hoffer, Peter Charles, The Salem Witchcraft Trials: A Legal History (Lawrence, Kansas: University of Kansas Press, 1997), 144Google Scholar.
46. Suffolk County Massachusetts Probate Records, n.s., 1:360, microfilm; “Ruling of William Stoughton,” 5 April 1694, Court Files Suffolk, 33:209, microfilm. On conventing, see Hermes, Katherine, “Religion and Law in Colonial New England” (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1995)Google Scholar ; Hall, , Worlds of Wonder, 172–76Google Scholar.
47. Stoughton was “scrupulous in his attention to …the letter of the law.” Johnson, , Adjust-ment to Empire, 285Google Scholar . Swinburne, , A Treatise of Testaments and Last Wills, 387Google Scholar ; Godolphin, , The Orphans Legacy, 65Google Scholar . Phips “received official notice of his recall” in early July 1694. In November he set sail for England where he died in 1695 . Baker, Emerson W. and Reid, John G., The New England Knight: Sir William Phips, 1651–1695 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998), 223–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Hoffer, , The Salem Witchcraft Trials: A Legal History, 141Google Scholar ; Suffolk County Massachusetts Probate Records, n.s., 1:360, microfilm; “Ruling of William Stoughton,” 5 April 1694, Court Files Suffolk, 33:209, microfilm.
48. “Deposition of Samuel Tompson,” 9 April 1694, Suffolk County Massachusetts Probate Records, n.s., 1:361, microfilm. Tompson referenced Genesis chapter 27. In the text, Jacob traded Esau potage for his birthright (bechora) and then Rebecca orchestrated a deception, by disguising Jacob as his brother, in order for Jacob to receive Esau's blessing (beracha) from Isaac, their father . Gordis, Lisa, Opening Scripture: Bible Reading and Interpretive Authority in Puritan New England (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003), 20–25Google Scholar . Two depositions supported Edward Hill's claims. “Deposition of John Tucker,” 21 April 1694, Court Files Suffolk, 35:3104, microfilm; “Deposition of Elizabeth Poore,” 18 April 1695, Miscellaneous Bound Volumes, Massachusetts Historical Society.
49. For the Frenches, see Court Files Suffolk, 43:162471, microfilm. For White, see Court Files Suffolk, 38:3341, microfilm; “Deposition of Thomas Phillips,” 20 November 1694, Court Files Suffolk, 35:3104, microfilm.
50. Sewall may have had a personal interest in what the servant had to say. He co-owned Braintree property, included half of an iron works and a saw mill, purchased from John Hub-bard who, in turn, had bought the land from William Penn in 1682. Suffolk Deeds, 14:5–6; Martin, John Frederick, Profits in the Wilderness: Entrepreneurship and the Founding of New England Towns (Chapel Hill: Published for the Institute of Early American History and Culture by the University of North Carolina Press 1991), 67Google Scholar.
51. “Deposition of Ann Despard,” 31 January 1696, Court Files Suffolk, 43:3839, micro-film.
54. Mann, , Neighbors and Strangers, 24Google Scholar ; All the Severall Ordinances and Orders Made by the Lords and Commons Assembled in Parliament Concerning Sequestring the Estates of Delinquents, Papists, Spyes and Intelligencers (London, 1646)Google Scholar ; Damrosch, Leo, The Sorrows of Quaker Jesus: James Nayler and the Puritan Crackdown on the Free Spirit (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996), 192CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Hoffer, , The Salem Witch Trials, 123Google Scholar.
55. Konig, , Law and Society in Puritan Massachusetts, 60Google Scholar ; Mary Sarah Bilder, “Sala-manders and Sons of God: The Culture of Appeal in Early New England” and Katherine Hermes, “Justice Will Be Done Us': Algonquian Demands for Reciprocity in the Courts of European Settlers,” in The Many Legalities of Early America, ed. Tomlins, Christopher and Mann, Bruce H. (Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press, 2001), 55–56Google Scholar , 123–49; Acts and Resolves, 8:366; Calendar of State Papers, 14:498, 546, 638, 15:246, 312. Appeals to King and Council were mandated by the 1691 charter. Johnson, , Adjustment to Empire, 181Google Scholar . News of the Privy Council's decision had reached Boston on July 12, 1696, the date when Sewall wrote that the “Laws; viz. Courts, Colledge, Habeas Corpus, Forms of Writts” were made void. March 24, 1697, was the day “apointed for nominating Judges, but the heat about what way should do it in was so great, that did nothing.” Diary of Samuel Sewall, 1:429, 433–34, 450.
56. “Unlike contemporary England, where such causes were belonged to ecclesiastical courts, the administration of estates [in the Massachusetts Bay Colony] was handled in secular courts.” Haskins, George L., “The Beginnings of Partible Inheritance in the American Colonies,” Essays in the History of Early American Law, ed. Flaherty, David H. (Chapel Hill: Published for the Institute of Early American History and Culture by the University of North Carolina Press, 1969), 209–10Google Scholar.
57. Konig, , Law and Society, 171Google Scholar . Checkley had served as the prosecutor in the witchcraft cases beginning in July 1692 . Norton, , In The Devil's Snare, 239Google Scholar ; Murrin, John, “The Legal Transformation,” 422Google Scholar ; Baker, and Reid, , The New England Knight, 233Google Scholar . According to royal agent Edward Randolph, Checkley was “ignorant of the laws of England.” “Memorial of Edward Randolph to the Council of Trade,” 26 April 1696, Calendar of State Papers, 15:83. Checkley served as attorney general during the 1690s over the protests of Randolph, who favored Thomas Newton for the post. Acts and Resolves, 7:392, 478, 520, 643, 709 ; Johnson, , Adjustment to Empire, 329–30Google Scholar.
58. Acts and Resolves, 8:366–68; “Anthony Penn v. Clement Cock,” 6 April 1697, Massachusetts Superior Court of Judicature Records, microfilm. Bullivant and Checkley had confronted one another before in a 1696 case. Jones, Matt Bushnell, Thomas Maule, the Salem Quaker, and Free Speech in Massachusetts Bay, with Biographical Notes, reprinted in Essex County Historical Collections, vol. 72 (Salem Mass.: Essex Institute Press, 1936), 21–22Google Scholar ; Diary of Samuel Sewall, 1:416.
59. Thomas Danforth, Wait Winthrop, Elisha Cooke, and Samuel Sewall sat on the bench at the April 1697 session of the court in Boston, . Massachusetts Superior Court of Judicature Records 1692 –1700, 98, 108Google Scholar , microfilm. Chief Justice William Stoughton did not sit on the bench after taking up the responsibilities of the governorship. He was the acting governor from November 17, 1694 until May 26, 1699. Diary of Samuel Sewall, 1:370, 395, note 2; Sibley's Harvard Graduates, 1:202.
60. “Reasons of Appeal,” 14 April 1697, Court Files Suffolk, 41:3736, microfilm. The prac-tice of screening witnesses was most pronounced in the New Haven Colony. Gail Sussman Marcus, “Due Execution of the Generall Rules of Righteousness”: Criminal Procedure in New Haven Town and Colony, 1638–1658,” and Murrin, John, “Trial by Jury in Seventeenth-Century New England,” in Saints & Revolutionaries: Essays in Early American History, ed. Hall, David, Murrin, John, and Tate, Thad (New York: Norton, 1984), 114, 175Google Scholar . Some court officials, however, allowed sworn testimony even if they believed it to be erroneous . Konig, , Law and Society, 140Google Scholar.
61. “Answer to Appeal,” 27 April 1697, Court Files Suffolk, 41:3736, microfilm; Acts and Resolves, 8:367–368; “Penn v. Cock,” April 1697, Massachusetts Superior Court of Judicature Records 1692–1700, 108, microfilm; Swinburne, A Treatise of Testaments and Last Wills, 6 ; Godolphin, , The Orphans Legacy, 65Google Scholar.
62. The indictments claimed £1,500 damages for depriving Anthony Penn his right to the estate. “The Case of Edward Hill,” 7 April 1697, Court Files Suffolk, 41:3765, microfilm; “The Case of Thomas Lea,” 7 April 1697, Court Files Suffolk, 41:3738, microfilm; “Dom Rex v Edward Hill,” April 1697, Massachusetts Superior Court of Judicature Records 1692–1700, 110, microfilm; Court Files Suffolk, 43:162421, microfilm; Cornelia Dayton, Women Before the Bar, 59–60; Ross, “Puritan Jurisprudence.”
63. In 1699, however, Hill conveyed a house and land in Boston to Thomas Gould. An-thony Penn's advocates promptly sued Gould for trespass. Massachusetts Superior Court of Judicature Records, 1695–1700, 259, microfilm; Robbins, A History of the Second Church, 253.
64. Cooke was the leader of the opposition to royal control . Hall, Michael G., The Last American Puritan: The Life of Increase Mather, 1639–1723 (Middletown: Wesleyan Uni-versity Press, 1988), 267, 269Google Scholar ; Ross, , “Puritan Jurisprudence,” 10Google Scholar ; Massachusetts Court of Judicature Records 1695–1700, 173, microfilm; Acts and Resolves, 8:370; “Deposition of Joseph Hill,” 28 April 1697, Court Files Suffolk, 43:162421, microfilm. The crown struck down a Massachusetts effort in the 1690s to create an equity court. Bilder, , The Transatlantic Constitution, 78–79Google Scholar.
65. “Deposition of John Lee,” 24 October 1698, Court Files Suffolk, 43:3897, microfilm; “Deposition of Richard Gredley,” 24 October 1698, Court Files Suffolk, 43:3897, microfilm; “The Case of Thomas Lea,” October 1698, Court Files Suffolk, 41:3738, microfilm; “Dom Rex v. Lay,” Massachusetts Superior Court of Judicature Records 1692–1700, 200 microfilm. The change in the spelling of his name (Lay instead of Lea) may have been part of Lea's efforts to substantiate his claim—made in 1694 before Probate Judge Stoughton—that he had not signed or sworn to the document purported to be the will of William Penn.
66. The six civil actions for trespass are summarized below. The amount of land and damages (in pounds) are those sought by Penn's attorneys.
Massachusetts Superior Court of Judicature Records 1695–1700, 108–9, 141, 143, 173, 176, 205–6, 213, 250–51, 259, 269, microfilm; Massachusetts Superior Court of Judicature Records 1700–1714, 13, 24, microfilm; “Anthony Penn v. Thomas French and Samuel French, Anthony Penn v. John Bowdidge,” October 1698, Court Files Suffolk, 43:162471, microfilm; “Thomas French and Samuel French v. Anthony Penn, Anthony Penn v. John Bowdidge,” 25 April 1699, Miscellaneous Bound Volumes, Massachusetts Historical Society. For the case against Samuel White, see “Writ of Tres-pass,” 10 October 1698, Court Files Suffolk, 43:3739, microfilm. For the case against John Hollis, see “Writ of Trespass,” 27 December 1702, Miscellaneous Bound Volumes, Massachusetts Historical Society; “Writ of Trespass,” 18 May 1704; Court Files Suffolk, 70:7986, microfilm.
67. “Answer to Appeal,” 27 April 1697, Court Files Suffolk, 41:3736, microfilm; Acts and Resolves, 8:368, 373. The merchant Thomas Bannister offered a deposition about a conversation with Marsh. According to Bannister, Marsh had said “I know my mark and where to find it well enough but I would not swear to that will for all the world.” “Deposi-tion of Thomas Bannister,” April 1699, Court Files Suffolk, 43:3897, microfilm.
69. Newton was “the first professional lawyer in Massachusetts.” Murrin, , “The Legal Transformation,” 422Google Scholar ; “Thomas Newton's Answer to Appeal,” May 1703, Court Files Suf-folk, 70:7086, microfilm. Joseph Hill believed deceitful, corrupt tactics thwarted justice in the courtroom. See “Petition of Joseph Hill,” October 1698, Court Files Suffolk, 41:3740, microfilm; “Complaint of Joseph Hill,” April 1699, Court Files Suffolk, 41:3740, microfilm; “Petition of Joseph Hill,” 31 May 1704, Massachusetts Archives, 40:973–75.
70. Acts and Resolves, 8:370–71.
71. Johnson, , Adjustment to Empire, 294Google Scholar ; Acts and Resolves, 8:372. The 1697 statute “for erecting courts, which attempted to provide generally for jury trials, was set aside because it would have affected Admiralty Court trials under the Navigation Acts.” Smith, Joseph H., “Administrative Control of the Courts of the American Plantations,” in Essays in the History of Early American Law, 289Google Scholar.
72. Stoughton served on the bench after the arrival of Governor Bellomont in May 1699. Diary of Samuel Sewall, 1:500; Massachusetts Superior Court of Judicature Records 1700–1714, 1, 24, microfilm.
73. Diary of Samuel Sewall, 2:59–65.The shoemaker sold one acre for £10 to John Hub-bard in 1702 and a house and land to Hannah Walker in 1704. Suffolk Deeds, 21:675, 30:117; Sibley's Harvard Graduates, 1:523–4 ; Johnson, , Adjustment to Empire, 386, note 50Google Scholar.
74. “Deposition of John Brocass,” 15 February 1704, Court Files Suffolk, 108:11400, microfilm. Brocass was Doubleday's neighbor. “Deposition of Anne Doubleday,” 27 April 1704, Court Files Suffolk, 108:11400, microfilm. The three other depositions were taken from Mary Hands, Susanna Critchfield, and John Atkin in February 1704. Court Files Suffolk, 108:11400, microfilm; Dayton, Women Before the Bar, 159; Hall, , Worlds of Wonder, 129, 172–78, 206–7Google Scholar.
75. “Deposition of John Brocass,” 15 February 1704, Court Files Suffolk, 108:11400, microfilm.
76. “Deposition of John Atkin and Susanna Critchfield,” 3 June 1707, Court Files Suffolk, 108:11400, microfilm.
77. “Affidavit of John Marsh,” 4 December 1705, Court Files Suffolk, 108:11400, microfilm; New York State Archives, Series A1894–78, 42:159–60; Court Files Suffolk, 33:2897, microfilm ; Calendar of Council Minutes 1668–1783, (Harrison, New York, 1987), 138Google Scholar.
78. Court Files Suffolk, 43:3792, 70:7086, 108:11400, microfilm.
79. “Petition of Joseph Hill,” 31 May 1704, Massachusetts Archives, 40:975, microfilm. By 1704, Draper had been elected one of the selectmen of Boston, . Report of the Record Commissioners…1701 to 1715, 30–31Google Scholar ; “Judgment of the Council,” 2 June 1705, Miscel-laneous Bound Volumes, Massachusetts Historical Society; “The Petition of Joseph Hill, Attorney to Anthony Penn,” 1706, Miscellaneous Bound Volumes, Massachusetts Historical Society ; Kimball, Everett, The Public Life of Joseph Dudley: A Study of Colonial Policy of the Stuarts in New England, 1660–1715 (New York: Longmans, 1911), 91Google Scholar ; Johnson, , Adjustment to Empire, 385–86Google Scholar.
80. “Petition of John Hollis,” 1705, Massachusetts Archives, 45:350–51, microfilm; “Petition of Clement Cock,” 1708, Massachusetts Archives, 40:866, microfilm; “Petition of Joseph Hill,” 1706, Miscellaneous Bound Volumes, Massachusetts Historical Society.
81. “A Petition Against the Rebuilding of Hill's Distillery in the South End of Boston,” 27 May 1706, Massachusetts Archives, 68:6898, microfilm. Whatever interest Sewall might have had in the case was perhaps briefly overshadowed by the bonds formed with the royal governor, a connection solidified by the marriage of his son and namesake to Rebeckah Dudley. Diary of Samuel Sewall, 2:59–65.
82. Johnson, , Adjustment to Empire, 347Google Scholar . Sewall's friendship with Joseph Dudley soured when the marriage of their children ended in a bitter separation. Diary of Samuel Sewall, 3:88–89; Court Files Suffolk, 108:11400, microfilm; Suffolk County Massachusetts Probate Records, 21:4278, microfilm; Acts and Resolves, 8:414. In June 1717 Joseph Hill, acting as attorney to Mary Ensor, conveyed one half of a twelve-acre Braintree “House Lott” to Comfort Belcher for £15. In 1720 Samuel Sewall gave Joseph Hill “full power” to admin-ister the Suffolk County holdings of Anthony Penn. An aged Edward Hill continued to assert his title to the estate. In 1724, the eighty-one-year-old conveyed four hundred acres, which constituted “all my lands and Tenements … in Braintree,” to a Boston hatter named Jeremiah Clements. In the deed Edward Hill maintained, “I am the sole and lawfull owner” by virtue of a “perfect absolute Estate of Inheritance in Fee Simple.” This final conveyance was not contested. Sewall also ordered Joseph Hill to compile an inventory of Anthony Penn's holdings. Unfortunately, the inventory Hill presumably presented has not survived. Suffolk Deeds, 31:239, 37:204; Suffolk County Massachusetts Probate Records, 21:317.
83. Richard Ross, “Legal Communications in the Early Modern Atlantic World” (paper presented at “Atlantic Legalities, 1500–1825,” international seminar on the history of the Atlantic World, 1500–1825, Harvard University, Cambridge, April 16, 2005).
Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.
No CrossRef data available.