NOTES
ON A RECENTLY DISCOVERED INDENTURE
RELATING TO
DAVID THOMSON
OF
PISCATAQUA AND MASSACHUSETTS BAY
IN NEW ENGLAND
BY- CHARLES DEANE
WITHI A COPY OF THE INDENTURE
CAMBRIDGE
PRESS OF JOHN WILSON AND SON
187T6




One hundred copies reprinted from the Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society for May, 1876.




~IGNATURES TO THE JNDENTURE.
JNDORSEMENT../V,.I-Nf  --
E I -I,'.~F








LOCTION  OF JNDENTURE OF 9AVID  THOMSON AND OTHERS,
5! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~s~~z~-K 
A;K:[::t >co~ tri~l,    C,               M44~:anc/~Li  ~~ll
tfi4r <~A                                    0
-fri sn-Ct ~~~;-rn~- on           *~a ~k~-"~~  ft ire-                 p
-~E~     rztan~ p't tP4 C;~'~.'+99Sytvft                            On;       a    n,
Aitc~~~C#<.t~~~t~~fl ttnt~~~~~ir~~icqgtc*an                7Miwrf 
OtU4Z.-   fl,
/  ri4  C( ~4ccpct 4%~          $25(v
t  ~ ~, K -t~ ~L9 —         A       Bi~BP~Y~_; *trd~fi  cc  *;cx:
5-c- //                                  0(1 tf~sb e~/ —/ A~i~*Br-                 9 —b~)'i
<+tuVas~&~,~~s4~ x7   ~7iip~<g                                            tJ~;~~"a94s








NOTES RELATING TO DAVID THOMSON.
SOME two or three years ago, the Hon. ROBERT C. WINTHROP,
President of the Massachusetts Historical Society, placed in my hands
an old parchment deed, - discovered among his rich ancestral treasures of a like character, - which he said contained the name, among
others, of David Thomson.  I found it, on examination, to be an
indenture, dated 14th December, 1622, between David Thomson, of
Plymouth, of the one part, and three merchants, - viz., Abraham
Colmer, Nicholas Sherwill, and Leonard Pomery, also of Plymouth,
-of the other part.  This parchment, 17 by 20 inches in size, was
that part of the indenture which contained the covenants and the
signatures of the three merchants just named. An exact copy of the
document is given below; but, in order that the reader may get at its
meaning in fewer words, I will here give a resumer of it.
The indenture recites that the Council for New England had granted
to David Thomson, under date of the 16th October, 1622, six thousand
acres of land and one island in New England; and that Thomson
had absolutely conveyed one-fourth part of the island to the three
merchants of Plymouth named, with covenants to convey in fee simple
the fourth part of the six thousand acres. In consideration whereof, it
is agreed between the parties as follows:First. That the three merchants will, at their own charge, this
present year, provide and send two men, with Thomson, in the ship
"Jonathan, of Plymouth," to New England; with victuals and provisions, &c., as shall suffice them till they are landed. And, if they
land there within the space of three months after the ship shall pass
Ram Head (a promontory just outside of Plymouth Sound), the residue
of the three months' victuals shall be delivered to Thomson at his landing, there to be disposed of by him towards finding a fit place for the
intended habitation, and also to begin the same.
Second. The three merchants will this present year, at their own
charge, provide and send three men more, in the ship " Providence," of




4
Plymouth, if they may be so soon gotten, or in some other ship, with
the first expedition that may be, to New England; the charges of these
three men to be borne equally by all the parties.
Third. Two men more are to be sent this present year in the " Jonathan," the charges of them to be borne by all the parties equally.
Fourth. As soon as Thomson and the seven men are landed in
New England, he shall, as soon as convenient, find out a fit place to
make choice of the six thousand acres of land, and a fit place to settle
and erect some houses or buildings for habitations, and to begin the
same. Adjoining these buildings, there shall be allotted, before the
end of five years, six hundred acres of land, which, with all the buildings and every thing appertaining to them, shall, at the end of said five
years, be divided equally between all the parties; and all the charges
for building, planting, and husbanding, &c., during that time, shall be
equally borne by all. The residue of the six thousand acres to be
also divided in a convenient time between the parties in four parts,
whereof Thomson is to have three-fourths, and the other three parties
one-fourth.
FIfth. At the end of five years, the island shall be divided in four
parts, whereof Thomson is to have three parts, and the others one
part.
Sixth. Three-fourths of the charge for planting, husbanding, and
building on the said island, shall be borne by Thomson, and one-fourth
by the other parties.
Seventh. All the profits during the five years that may arise on the
six hundred acres, by fishing, trading, &c., shall be divided equally;
only the merchants shall have liberty to employ ships to fish at their
own charge, if Thomson does not bear his share of such charge.
Eighth. All benefits and profits arising during the five years on the
residue of the six thousand acres, and on the island, shall be divided
among them; Thomson to have three parts, and the others one part.
Each of them shall, on request, deliver a just account of his receipts
and payments during the five years.
The three merchants named in this covenant are persons well known
in the history of Plymouth, in England.
Abraham Colmer (or Colman) was Mayor of that town in 1615
and in 1627, and Alderman in 1626. Nicholas Sherwell was Mayor
in 1618, 1628, and 1637. In 1625, " Thos. and Nic. Sherwell erected,
founded, and established the Hospitall of Orphans' Aid" in that city.
Leonard Pomery was a member of the Council in 1612, and Mayor
in 1623. On the 22d March, 1630, the ship " Jonathan, of Plymouth,"




5
of 150 tons, is mentioned as owned by Nicholas Sherwell and Abraham Colemer.  "Mr. Fowell," probably John, one of the witnesses to
the sealing and delivering of the indenture, was "Town Clarke" of
Plymouth in 1612.*
David Thomson himself is too well known in the early history of
New England, to need special mention here.  He came over in the
spring of 1623, and settled at a place called " Little Harbor," on the
west side of Piscataqua River, where he is found in that year by
Robert Gorges and by Christopher Levett. About the year 1626, he
took possession of the island in Boston Harbor which now bears his
name, where he soon after died, leaving a wife and an infant son to whom
the General Court of Massachusetts subsequently granted this island.
In Robert Gorges's patent, he is styled "David Thomson, gent."
Winslow calls him a " Scotchman."  In this indenture, he is described
as of " Plymouth."  His name is often mentioned inll the Records of the
Council for New England.  He appears to have been actively employed
in a confidential capacity as a sort of agent or messenger of the company.
On the 5th of July, 1622, " It is ordered that David Thomson do
attend the Lords, with a petition to his Majesty for forfeits committed
by Thomas Weston. As also to solicit the Lords for procuring from
his majesty a proclamation concerning the fishermen of the western
parts. Likewise to procure some course for punishing their contempt
of authority."
On the 24th of July, "Mr. Thomson is appointed to attend the
Lords, for a warrant to Mr. Attorney-General for drawing the new
patent."
On the 8th of November, "Mr. Thomson is ordered to pay unto
Leo. Peddock ~10 towards his pains for his last employments to
New England."
On the 11th of November, "Mr. Thomson is appointed to attend
Sir Robert Mansell," concerning Captain Squibbs's commission.
On the 15th of November, "Mr. Thomson and the clerk" are
directed to " see the tun of iron weighed," to be sent to Whitby. And
on the same day "Mr. Thomson is appointed to solicit Capt. Love
to pay in the ~40 for which Sr. Saml. Argall standeth engaged," &c.
On the 16th of November, "It is ordered that Mr. Thomson solicit
* See "A History of Plymouth," by Llewellynn Jewett, F.S.A., 1873, pp.
145, 147, 152, 165, 167, 171, 176; Cal. S. P: Domestic, 1626, p. 511; 1630, p.
468; 1637, p. 6; 1638, p. 607.




6
the adventurers for payment in of their moneys "; and under the same
date, " Mr. Thomson's patent was this day signed by the above said
Council."
On the 3d of December, " Mr. Thomson propoundeth to have order
from the Council for transportation of ten persons with the provisions
for New England. And the persons so transported to pay the Council
the usual rate for their transportation, after the expiration of two
years."
This indenture, as will be seen, recites a grant from the Council of
New England to Thomson, under date of 16th October, 1622. The
Records of the Council show no grant to him under that date; but
under 16th November we read, " Mr. Thomson's patent was this day
signed by the above said Council." It may have been drawn in the
previous month, and the date inserted, but not signed till later.
That the whole programme indicated in this indenture was carried
out according to its terms, I should hesitate to affirm. But that the preliminaries of it were entered upon, there is no reason to doubt. This
indenture was executed in two parts. The part before us, signed by
the Plymouth merchants, belonged to Thomson, was brought over with
him, and after his death, in Massachusetts, found its way to the possession of Governor Winthrop. It may have been used incidentally, as
evidence in the subsequent controversy about Thomson's Island. The
assistance agreed upon at the outset by the merchants must have been
afforded. It is not likely that Thomson would have come over without
assistance; and here we find the agreement for the requisite aid, made
by responsible merchants, engrossed on parchment, and the name of the
vessel given to be employed in the transportation of him and the men
to be sent-over in their service.
In the extracts cited above from the Records of the Council for New
England, where Thomson's name so often appears from July to
December, 1622, the two last entries indicate his plans and intentions
respecting New England. After the 3d of December, his name disappears from the Records.* He was preparing to go to New England,
* Under date of the 25th of the following February, the clerk was ordered
to call upon Mr. Collingwood (who had formerly been clerk of the Council, but
now was clerk of the Virginia Company) for a copy of Sir John Bruce's patent.
The clerk makes the following memorandum: " Mr. Collingwood answered me
that lie hath delivered all the books to Sir Ferd. Gorges and to Mr. Thomson ";
that is, some time previously.




and was now employed at Plymouth in making arrangements for the
voyage. His indenture with the merchants is dated the 14th of that
month, in which they agree that the vessel in which he was to be
transported to New  England, the "Jonathan, of Plymouth," should
be sent " this present year," which ended on the 24th March. In a few
months later, we find Thomson himself here.*
* The earliest notice of David Thomson's purpose respecting New England
is in the Records of the Council for New England, under date of 16tli November, 1622. " Mr. Thompson's patent was this day signed by the above said Council." Then under date of 3d December, " Mr. Thompson propoundeth to have
order from the Council for transportation of 10 persons with the provisions for
New England. And the persons so transported to pay the Council the usual
rate for their transportation, after expiration of 2 years." Next follows the
indenture before us, dated 14th December, 1622, containing the agreement to
send Thompson out to New England in the ship " Jonathan," " this present year."
In the patent to Robert Gorges, of 30th December of this year, "David
Thomson, Gent.," is authorized to put Gorges in possession of the premises.
The earliest notice of Thomson's being in New England is in Winslow's
"Good News," published in 1624. In describing events, apparently in the
summer of 1623, he says: "At the same time, Captain Standish, being formerly
imployed by the Governor to buy provisions for the refreshing of the Colony,
returned with the same, accompanied with one Mr. David Tomso,, a Scotchman, who also that spring began a plantation twenty-five leagues Northeast
from us, near Smith's Iles, at a place called Pascatoquack, where he liketh well."
Governor Bradford, in speaking of Weston's Colony, under date of 1623, says,
" There were also this year some scattering beginnings made in other places, as
at Paskataway, by Mr. David Thomson, at Monhigen, and some other places, by
sundry others." Bradford also speaks of the arrival of Gorges in the Bay
of Massachusetts, about the middle of September, 1623; of his coming to
Plymouth, and of his dealings with Weston; finally, of his returning from the
eastward " towards the spring" (at which time he visited Thomson, as we
learn fromChristopher Levett), and restoring to Weston his vessel which he
had taken from him. Christopher Levett, who came over here in 1623, returning next year, says: " The next place I came unto was Pannaway, where one
M. Tomson hath made a plantation. There I stayed about one month....
At this place I met with the Governor [Gorges], who came thither in a bark
which he had from one M. Weston, about twenty days before I arrived in the
land.... The Governor told me that I was joined with him in commission as a
counsellor, which being read I found it was so. And he then, in the presence
of three more of the Council, administered unto me an oath." Bradford says
that Admiral West, Levett, and the Governor of Plymouth, for the time being,
were named in Gorges's commission as his Council; but Gorges had power "to
choose such other as he should find fit." West at this time had left New England,
and Governor Bradford does not appear to have been present at Piscataqua, so
that Gorges must have availed himself of his privilege to elect others to fill
those vacancies. It has been said that Governor Gorges at this time organized his
government for all New England. The administering of the oath to Levett was




Winslow, in his " Good News," says that Thomson began his plantation in the " spring" of 1623.  The " Jonathan" would, no doubt, be
fitted out by her owners for fishing upon the coast of New England,
after having landed her freight at Piscataqua River; such general intention being expressed in the indenture, by an agreement that they might
pursue that business, independently of Thomson, if he did not choose
to bear part of the charge. As it was always desirable to reach the
fishing grounds early, by the 1st of March certainly, for the first season of New England fishing, the vessel would be likely to sail as early
as January.*
Every thing therefore combines to make it historically certain that
Thomson came over according to the agreement made in this indenture.
To these considerations it may be added that the theory which has
existed for nearly a hundred years, that Thomson came over in the
employment of the Laconia Company, -a theory promulgated by the
accomplished Belknap, - has no foundation in truth, and had been
exploded before the discovery of this Thomson indenture. Thomson
had removed from Piscataqua to Massachusetts Bay, and had died
there, before the Laconia Company was in existence. Belknap undoubtedly adopted this theory as an inference from some passages in
Hubbard's History of New England. Historical facts seem often to
have lain, in Hubbard's mind, in a loose and chaotic form; yet he appears to have come somewhere near the truth, when he says,." In the
all that appears to have been done here. He had organized his government
before going to Piscataqua, so far as to call a meeting of the assistants at
Plymouth, and to order the arrest and trial of Weston; and soon after, on his
return to Massachusetts, to issue his warrant for his second arrest, and for the
seizure of his vessel. " At the time I stayed with M. Tomson," says Levett, "I
surveyed as much as possible I could, the weather being unseasonable and very
much snow." This was in the winter of 1623-24. Levett's book was published
in 1628.
In the summer of 1623, Weston was cast away on the eastern coast, and,
being stripped of his clothes by the Indians, "got to Pascataquack, and
borrowed a suit of clothes, and got means to come to Plymouth," says Bradford. Phineas Pratt also visited Thomson some time during this year, after
Weston's colony had been dispersed that spring. His narrative was published
only a few years ago, in 1858.
* Captain John Smith says that March, April, and May, and September,
October, and November, are the months for New England fishing; June and
July for fishing at Newfoundland. Ambrose Gibbons, in his letter to the
Laconia proprietors, 13 July, 1633, says that the ships must be sure " to be at
their fishing place the beginning of February." (A Description of N.E., pp.
17, 18; Provincial Papers relating to N. H., I. 81.)




9
year 1623, some merchants about Plymouth and the west of England
sent over Mr. David Tomson, a Scotchman, to begin a Plantation
about Pascataqua," &c.  But in another part of his History, in his
indefinite and generalizing way, he says: —
" Some merchants and other gentlemen in the west of England, belonging to the cities of Exeter, Bristol, and Shrewsbury, and towns of Plymouth, Dorchester, &c.,... having obtained patents for several parts of
the country of New England,... made some attempt of beginning a
plantation in some place about Pascataqua River, about the year 1623.
They sent over that year one Mr. David Thompson, with Mr. Edward
Hilton and his brother, Mr. William Hilton, who had been fishmongers
in London, with some others, that came along with them, furnished with
necessaries for carrying on a plantation there. Possibly others might be
sent after them in the years following, 1624 and 1625; some of whom
first, in probability, seized on a place called the Little Harbor, on the west
side of Pascataqua River, toward, or at, the mouth thereof; the Hiltons,
in the mean while, setting up their stages higher up the river, toward the
northwest, at or about a place since called Dover.  But at that place
called the Little Harbor, it is supposed, was the first house set up that
was built in those parts.... Sir Ferdinando Gorges and Captain John
Mason might have a principal hand in carrying on that design, but were
not the sole proprietors therein," &c. (pp. 105, 214, 215.)
He then cites the grant of the Council, of 3 November, 1631, to
certain persons now known to have been associates in the " Company
of Laconia "; who, the year before, soon after that company had been
formed, sent over Captain Neal as governor. And then he proceeds
to speak of the Shrewsbury proprietors, who had employed Captain
Wiggin to carry on the settlement begun by the Hiltons.
In this half'-conjectural way, Hubbard seems here to group together
certain persons in England, some of whom are now well known as
having been associated in 1630 and 1631, and a few years following,
in the Company of Laconia; and others who about that same period
became interested in the Hilton patent, and fo make them instrumental
in beginning, and carrying on for the first decade of years, the plantations on the Piscataqua River; whereas there is no evidence that any
one of these persons (if we except Thomson's three partners of Plymouth) had any hand in the beginning of the enterprise, or became
interested till at a later period, when some of their names appear.
Dr. Belknap, who used and cites Hubbard's MS., placed too much
reliance on these passages in that History, and was therefore led into
the error which he has handed down. He knew of the grant to Mason
2




10
and Gorges of 10 August, 1622, embracing the territory between the
Merrimack and Sagadahoc.  He also knew  that those two persons
and others were members of the Company of Laconia. Relying on
Hubbard's statement above cited, he concluded that the grant of 1622
was the Laconia grant, and that the associates, under the name of the
Company of Laconia, began the settlements at Little Harbor and Hilton's Point, in 1623, "in two divisions." *  We now know that this
company had no interest in the settlement at Hilton's Point, afterwards
Dover; that it came into' existence at a later period, some years after
both these settlements on Piscataqua River had been begun; and that
the merchants of Shrewsbury and Bristol also now appear for the first
time as purchasers in the Hilton patent of 12 1March, 1629-30.t
What assistance the Hiltons may have received from private sources,
or who rendered such assistance, if any was granted, we knowe not.
This patent is to Edward Hilton himself, reciting that he and his associates had at "their own proper costs and charges transported sundry
servants to plant in New England." $ This shows that he was the prin* John Josselyn, who picked up many things in the country by hearsay, and
jotted them down in his narrative in a form not always exact, confines the
Laconia grant to Gorges alone (p. 199). He also makes a strange confusion
of grants in saying that "the Province of Ml1ain (or the country of the Traquois [Iroquois] ), heretofore called Laconia or New Somnersetshire, is a colony
belonging to the grandson of Sir Ferdinando Gorges," &c. (p. 197). That the
province of Laconia (" so called," says the younger Gorges, " by reason of the
great lakes therein") was located in the neighborhood of the great lake or
lakes of the Iroquois, supposed to lead up from the rivers Merrimack and
Sagadahoc, with privileges for the establishing of depots on the coast, was
true. Josselyn, however, got the notion that this province was included within the province of Maine, from the narrative of the younger Gorges (p. 48),
who had his own claims to establish. The " Laconia" grant, in which the
name first appears, was issued 17 November, 1629; that of "New Somersetshire" was Sir F. Gorges's division of 1635, between the Piscataqua and
Sagadahoc, afterwards enlarged, as to its interior boundary, and confirmed
by the charter of the Province of Maine, 3 April, 1639. The name "Laconia" nowhere appears in the history of Maine or New Hampshire before the
grant of 17 November, 1629, above mentioned, was issued.
t Belknap's N.H., I. 8, 9, 32; Hubbard, 217, 221. The grant of 10 August,
1622, to Gorges and Mason, which the proprietors intended to call the Province
of Maine, appears to have been a dead-letter; at least, the patentees never
made any use of it, and the Council made other grants, covering the same territory, as if it never had an existence. The Council Records are silent as to the
issue of such a grant, and it was wholly disregarded in the grand division of
1623.
t N.E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg., XXIV., 264, 265.




11
cipal person who began and carried on the settlement up to that time.
No one of these prominent persons in London or elsewhere is named
in it,.as they certainly would have been, if they had been his associates.
He, however, soon afterward sold out his patent, or the greater part of
it, and these purchasers subsequently sold to others; and then we begin
to hear of the Bristol men and the men of Shrewsbury, mentioned by
Hubbard, and the Lords Say and Brook and their associates. But,
whatever obscurity may hang over the history of the beginning of the
Hilton settlement, we now know under what circumstances Thomson
began his enterprise at Little Harbor.
What led Thomson to fix his mind upon Piscataqua River as a place
of settlement, we are not told. The selection must have been madle
before he embarked.  Whether his original patent from the Council,
of 16 October, 1622, recited in the indenture, in any manner located the
grant of six thousand acres, we are equally ignorant. Among some
imperfect memoranda which I saw in the Public Record Office in
London, drawn up about the time of the Restoration, and entitled " A
catalogue of such patents as I know granted for making plantations in
New England," is this: " 1622. A Patent to David Thompson, M.
Jobe, M. Sherwood of Plymouth, for a pt of Piscattowa River in
New England." *  This can hardly refer to Thomson's patent above
cited, as that appears to have been issued to himself alone. It may
refer to some earlier project of Thomson's, never perfected. The Records of the Council for New England throw no light upon it. If the
memorandum can be trusted, it shows that Thomson had knowledge
of, and plans relating to, the Piscataway River, some time before he
came to New England.
In this indenture, it will be seen that Thomson and his men are
"to find out some fit place or places there "- that is, in New England
"for the choice of the said six thousand acres of land, according to
the intent of the grant aforesaid." We may not know the precise tenor
of the grant to Thomson; but no location or limitation is recited in
the indenture before us.  By this it appears that Thomson had
actually granted one-fourth part of an island, and had covenanted to
convey one-fourth part of the six thousand acres to be selected. We
may however well believe that the six thousand acres to be selected
were named in that part of the indenture in possession of Thomson's
associates, to be taken up somewhere on the Piscataqua River,
* These memoranda, are printed in the " Popham Memorial" volume, App.
124.




12
inasmuch as some evidence existed, or was supposed to exist, among
the families of Thomson's partners, or their descendants in Plymouth,
England, at a later period, of claims to land where he settled. This
appears in a postscript to a letter of Cotton Mather to George
Vaughan, dated 3 March, 1708, in which he says: " When my parent
lay at Plymouth, bound for New England, on March 24, 1691-2, Mr.
Sherwell, a minister then living there, told him that his grandfather
and one Mr. Coleman [Colmer] and another'had a patent for that
which Mr. Mason pretended unto at Pascataqua.  You may do well
to enquire further concerning it."*
If we had any good grounds for supposing that the covenants in the
indenture had been consummated and the proportion of land agreed
upon actually conveyed, this reference would seem more naturally to
point to such an instrument of conveyance. It is not improbable that
the island named was more definitely described also in the counterpart
to this indenture specifying Thomson's covenants, which are said to be
"more plainly and at large" set forth there.
After the landing of himself and his men, and locating his grant,
Thomson was to proceed to "build some houses or buildings for habitation, on which they are to begin with as much expedition as may
be."
If this agreement between Thomson and his partners reveals the
whole strength of material for building up this colony in the wilderness, his resources at the commencement of the enterprise must have
been small. Four men were to go over with Thomson in the " Jonathan," and three more were to be provided that year. Nothing is
said about wives or families, and nothing definite as to how the future
supplies necessary for the plantation shall be provided, or the extent
of the provision to be made; only that each shall bear his share of the
expenses according to the contract, and receive his share of the land
and profits at the end of five years, when accounts are to be rendered
and a final settlement made.  Whether Thomson could employ resources of his own, if he had any, outside of this agreement, we do not
know. The Records of the " Council for New England," already cited,
under date of 3 December, 1622, eleven days before this indenture was
signed, say: "Mr. Thomson propoundeth to have order from the
Council for transportation of 10 persons with the provisions for New
England. And the persons so transported to pay the Council the
usual rate for their transportation, after the expiration of two years."
* Belknap's N.H., III. 340.




13
No further notice in the Records is taken of this proposition, and
probably nothing came of it.
Thomson continued to live at Piscataqua till 1626; at least, he is
referred to by Bradford as living there then, and as having entered
into competition with the Plymouth people in buying some useful
goods sold at Monhegan, at the breaking up of a temporary fishing
settlement there.  In a petition of his son John in 1648, he says
that his father in and about the year 1626 took possession of the
island in Boston Harbor bearing his name, and there erected a habitation.* So he seems to have lived at Piscataqua three years, at least;
but the glimpses of him  during that time are very infrequent.  We
hear of him the first year he came a number of times. He visited
Plymouth once in the summer of 1623, when Standish returned from
an expedition in search of food for the colony.  What a grateful service Winslow would have rendered us, if he had given us some account
of Thomson's settlement, which perhaps Standish had visited!  But
we know not the name of a single person that composed that settlement except Thomson himself and his wife.  He died, as is supposed,
"'about 1628," leaving a wife and an infant son.
Hubbard - alas! the only authority- says that the Hiltons came over
with Thomson; and it has been supposed that Hubbard was acquainted with the Hiltons, and had an opportunity of informing himself. But he sadly errs respecting William Hilton, at least; and we
find no mention of the name of either of the brothers in connection
with the ship " Jonathan," in which Thomson came. Edward might
have come over on his own account, either in this ship or in the
"Providence," soon to follow. He would hardly have come as one of
Thomson's men.
The first authentic information of Edward Hilton's presence here is
given by Bradford, who says he contributed, in 1628, ~1 toward the
Thomas Morton affair. The various patents issued by the Council for
New England furnish much valuable and exact information as to the
steps already taken, or what was intended to be done by the patentees,
toward the settlement of the places or territory granted.  Of course,
all this information would be furnished by the petitioner to his counsel,
who drew up the original application; and the statement would be likely
to be drawn as favorably as the facts would warrant. Where applicants for a grant had been living a number of years, more or less, on
the spot, or in the country, such term of residence was usually cited
* Mass. Col. Rec., III. 129, 130.




14
as a consideration in the patent. In the grant to Walter Bagnall,
it was said that he had lived in New England "for the space of 7
years."  John Stratton "lhad lived in New England these 3 years
last past," &c. Aldworth and Elbridge had, by their servants, " inhabited for the space of three years last past." In the patent to Vines and
Oldham, on Saco River, it is said that Oldham and "' his servants have
for these six years now last past lived in New England aforesaid."
Oldham had been at Plymouth.  In the patent to Thomas Cammock,
and in that to Richard Bradshaw, it is recited that they had been
living there " some years before."
The following is the language used in Hilton's patent: " For and in
consideration that Edward Hilton and his associates hath already, at
his and their ownle proper costs and charges, transported sundry servants
to plant in New England aforesaid, at a place there called by the
natives Wecanacohunt, otherwise Hilton's Point,.   and for that he
doth further intend... to transport thither more people and cattle."
This is hardly the language that would be used, if IHilton had been on
the spot seven or any considerable number of years; and is of the same
general import as that in the grant to the Laconia associates, 3 November, 1631, after they had been a year or two in operation.
William  Hilton came to Plymouth in 1621, in the " Fortune ": his
wife and two children came in 1623, in the " Anne." By 1627 they had
left, and, if his brother Edward was then living at Dover, it would be
natural to suppose that he joined him; but, though he is subsequently
found in that neighborhood, I believe he cannot be traced as having
lived either at Dover Neck or at Cocheco. Neither his name nor that
of Edward is affixed to the " Dover Combination," of 20 October, 1640.
We have no means of knowing any of the circumstances attending
the abandonment of the Little Harbor plantation by Thomson.  Hubbard says his removal was "out of (lislike either to the place or his
employers." *  Whether his Plymouth partners had previously withdrawn, or whether they yet continued their interest; and whether any
of Thomson's men still kept the settlement alive till the arrival of
Neal and Gibbons and others, in 1630, for the Laconia associates, - are
matters yet uncertain. That there was a settlement somewhere at
"Pascataquack," besides Hilton's, in 1628, appears by the contribution
* With his usual want of accuracy, Hubbard says that Thomson removed
down into Massachusetts Bay within a year after his landing at Little Harbor.
(p. 105.)




15
paid that year toward the charge of expelling Thomas Morton from
Merry Mount.  Of course, this was a voluntary contribution, and not
a proportionate levy. The amount subscribed at Plymouth was but a
small part of her charge. " It cost us a great deal more," says Bradford. They collected what they could.'We know of no other settlement on the river at this date, except that of Edward Hilton, who
also contributed, and it seems reasonable to believe that Little Harbor
was intended by " Pascataquack." *  Prince had some evidence that in
the year 1629 the inhabitants on Piscataqua River entered into a combination for erecting a government among themselves; but it was of
" uncertain authority," and he placed but little confidence in it.
Uniform tradition appears to have designated Little Harbor, or a
point of land now called Odiorne's Point, on the west side of Piscataqua River, at its mouth, as the spot on which Thomson first settled.
This is confirmed by Hubbard, so far as to naming "Little Harbor"
as the place. Little Harbor takes its name from the body of water
on the south side of the " Great Island," and north of the peninsula of
which Odiorne's Point forms a part.  This peninsula, consisting of
about five hundred acres of land, is now included in the town of Rye.
"Odiorne's Point" is a comparatively modern designation. A family
of the name of Odiorne has for a number of generations lived on the
peninsula. From the records of New Hampshire, under the date of
1704 and 1705, it seems then to have borne the name of " Randezvous
Point."   At the time of the celebration of the two hundredth
anniversary of the settlement of New Hampshire in 1823, more than
fifty years ago, the knowledge and traditions which then existed relating to this spot were brought together; and were well summarized in
Adams's Annals of Portsmouth, pp. 9-11, published two years afterward.
This region was early, and for many years continued to be, called
Pascataway, or Pascataqua, -the name of the river covering all the
settlements upon it.  Christopher Levett apparently gives the name of
"Pannaway" to Thomson's place, — a name not preserved.  Had he
not soon after spoken of "a great river and a good harbor called Pascattaway," " about two English miles further to the east," I should not
hesitate to say that " Pannaway" was a misprint for Pascataway.  As
the places on both sides of the river bore the same name, it may have
* 1 Mass. Hist. Coll., III. 63. The contribution was the same as that of
Plymouth, ~2 10s. The solitary Blaxton contributed 12s.




16
caused some confusion in his mind, or he may have made a clerical
error in first entering the name in his journal.*
Belknap says that " Little Harbor" was so called by the first settlers.  I find no confirmation of this statement.  In all the letters
and documents now preserved, relating to the Company of Laconia,
"Little Harbor " is not mentioned. Their three houses (or factories or
trading posts) are described as being at Pascataqua (Little Harbor),
Strawberry Bank, and Newichewanick; though " Pascataqua," as I have
already said, continued to be used to embrace all the places on the
river.t In an interesting map of the " Province of Mayne and Mason's
patent," recently published in a volume of " Original Documents " relating to New Hampshire, by John S. Jenness, Esq., - supposed to have
been drawn about the year 1655, - the name " Little Harbor " is given
to the spot on which Thomson is supposed to have first settled.
Hubbard says that at "the Little Harbor, it is supposed, was the
first house set up, that ever was built in those parts: the chimney
and some part of the stone wall is standing at this day [1680], and
certainly was it which was called then, or soon after, Mason Hall,
because to it was annexed three or four thousand acres of land, with
intention to erect a Manor or Lordship there, according to the custom
of England; for by consent of the rest of the undertakers, in some
after division, that parcel of land fell to his share; and it is mentioned
as his propriety in his last will and testament, by the name of Mason
Hall." 1
By the first " house," subsequent writers have supposed that the first
habitation was intended, and that a large mansion was built by Thomson on his landing; the same that was subsequently occupied by Neal
in 1630, and known as " Mason Hall." Hubbard gives countenance to
this idea, so far as to say that " the agents of Sir Ferdinando Gorges and
Captain Mason, with the rest, had by their order built an house, and done
something also about salt-works, some time before the year 1630."
Hubbard infers the agency of Gorges and Mason, fiom the mention
of a house and salt-works as already on the place, in the indenture, above
cited, of 3 November, 1631.  There seems to be some evidence that
the agents of the Company of Laconia occupied a house at Piscataqua,
that had been built before they came over. In a deposition of William
Seavy, aged about seventy-five years, in 1676, he says he came over to
* See Coll. Maine Hist. Soc., II. 79, 80.
t See Provincial Papers relating to N. H., pp. 61-117.
T History of New England, 214, 215.




17
the Isle of Shoals upon a fishing account, about a year before Neal
left the country (in 1633); and he was credibly informed that Neal,
when he came over in 1630, "lived in a house in Little Harbour, of
Piscataqa, which by common report was formerly built by some merchants, &c., of Plymouth, in England." Also, in a recital made by the
Council of New Hampshire, in 1681, consisting of Richard Waldern,
President, and others, who were opposed to Mason's claim, they say
that " the vast expense of estate," as claimed to have been made by John
Mason, in the settlement of New Hampshire, " is mostly, if not merely,
a pretence.  An house was hired in this province, but the disbursements
laid out were chiefly in the neighboring Province of Meyn, on the other
side of the river, and for carrying on an Indian trade in Laconia, in all
which his grandfather was but a partner, however he would appear
amongst us as sole proprietor." 
That Thomson during his three years' residence at Little Harbor
by assistance of his partners, built a large house there, and left it when
he went to Massachusetts Bay, is certainly possible.t  But that Thomson, or any one after him, built a house there, known as "Mason Hall,"
is extremely improbable.  Hubbard evidently got his notion of "Ma* Jenness's Original Documents, pp. 10, 62, 63, 100.
t A reference to Captain Mason's house at Little Harbor, once occupied
by Neal, is found in a deposition by Major Robert Pike, aged about eightyeight years, in 1704.  He "testifieth  and saith that he was well acquainted with Capt. Walter Neal, Mr. Henry Josselyn, Capt. Francis Norton,
Mr. Sampson Lane, when they lived at Piscataqua above fifty or sixty years
past, at which time they lived at Piscataqua in the right of Capt. John Mason,
and were agents (as was reported commonly) for him or his heirs, and that
Capt. Neal lived in the Stone house at the mouth of Piscataqua river, of
late called Little Harbor, and was always called Capt. Mason's Stone house;
and that some time since one Mr. Gee lived in said house in the right
of Capt. Mason; and that afterwards Joseph Mason, agent for Mrs. Ann Mason,
widow of said Capt. Mason, lived at said house, at the mouth of the river
aforesaid, in Right of said Mrs. Ann Mason, aforesaid; and that this Deponent
lodged one night in said house with said Mr. Joseph Mason, he being employed
by said Joseph Mason to assist him in Mr. Mason's affairs, above fifty years past,"
&c. (Prov. Papers relating to N. H., Vol. II. 530, 531.) Major Robert Pike
was, no doubt, a most respectable person, and would testify to the best of his
knowledge and belief; and there is no reason to question his statement that he
lodged one night with Joseph Mason in a house at Little Harbor. But he could
not have been acquainted with Captain Walter Neal, as Neal left the country
two years before Pike came over here. What he says about Neal was from
hearsay; and the most distant period of which lie deposes, "sixty years,"
would take him back only to 1644, long after Henry Josselyn had left
Piscataqua.
3




18
son Hall" from'Mason's will, made shortly before his death, in which
he designates his whole grant of New Hampshire as "my county of
New Hampshire, or Mason Hall"; or, in another place, "my county
of New Hampshire, or Mannor of Mason Hall."  He seems, in one
part of this instrument, to bequeath to his grandchild, Robert Tufton,
"my mannor of Mason Hall," as though it was some estate well known
within his grant; and then, after other bequests, all the residue to
John Tufton. If any special place is here intended, there are no means
of locating it by the description, as the name is not found in any contemporary letter or document, as applied to any special house or
domain.
About the year 1679, Robert Tufton Mason - who succeeded as heir
on the death of his brother John - presented one of his many cases to
prove his title to New Hampshire. He recites that his ancestor erected
a fort on Great Island, " and mounted it with ten guns for the defence of
the said island and river, and also, within the said -riser, at a place now
called Portsmouth, he built diverse good houses, whereof one was a
very fair and large house of stone and timber, and by him called
Mason Hall, encompassed by a ditch and strong pallisade," &c., and
with above one thousand acres of improved meadow ground.* Now
* Jenness's Original Documents, pp. 77, 78.
No more untrustworthy sources of information relative tothe early settlement of New Hampshire can well be found than the various petitions and
" cases " set forth by and in behalf of Robert Tufton Mason, respecting his
claim to this territory. Of course lie had to rely for infornlation nmostly on
private testimony and tradition, as he was but a child when his grandfather died;
and, besides, he had a "case " to make out. Even the dates to the several
grants of land to John Mason, which his counsel had means to verify, are
frequently wrong, and what was done under them was often strangely misstated.
In a paper drawn up about the year 1679, we read " that in the year 1622 the
said John Mason did send over several servants and passengers to be tenants,
with store of cattle, provisions, and necessaries, unto his lands at Cape Ann, and
did build sundry houses and set up the trade of fishery upon that coast, and employed for his steward there Ambrose Gibbons, gentleman, who continued there
until the year 1630, at which time the Massachusetts colony violently seized
upon that part of the province, stretching their bounds three miles to the northward of Merrimack River, and turned the servants and tenants of the said John
Mason out of their possessions, under pretence of a charter from his late Majesty,
King Charles, in 1628." It would be difficult to find elsewhere in so small a
space, except among Robert Mason's own papers, so many errors as are contained in this extract.
Probably with equal truth it is said, in a paper drawn up in 1675, that John
Mason, after being at Newfoundland about two years, "received orders from
his Majesty to visit that part of America now called New England, who,




19
the house thus described was that called the " Great House," at Strawberry Bank, said to have been built by Chadbourne, in 1631.  This,
of the three houses (houses, as distinguished from  more humble dwellings) in possession of the Company of Laconia, was the most noted
in the history of the Piscataqua settlements.  It stood for a long
time, and was occupied by some well-known persons. This had the
best claim to be called a Manor House; and, if this were thus designated, the one built at Little Harbor could hardly have borne the
name. Probably the name was never applied to either. *
The precise time of Thomson's death is not known. From the
petition of his son John to the General Court of Massachusetts, in
1648, he says that his father, in or about the year 1626, took possession of the island bearing his name, built a habitation there, and died
soon after, leaving the son an infant; " who," says the record, " so soon
together with Sir Ferdinando Gorges, made a voyage along that coast, in Anno
1619, and at their return for England gave his Majesty a satisfactory account
both of their voyage and country." The statement that John Mason spent " upwards of twenty thousand pounds " towards the affairs of New England is probably of a piece with some of his other allegations. This would be equivalent to
five times that sum to-day. It is not probable that he spent a fourth part of
it, or that he ever had such a sum at his disposal. Mason's principal expenditure over here was as a partner in the Laconia Company, of which lhe was
one of some ten associates. After the division of 1634, he sent over two mills,
and some men to set them up on his own land, on the eastern or north-eastern
side of the river (the Maine side). How largely he continued his expenditures
from this time up to the time of his death, we have no means of knowing. They
were probably inconsiderable. In 1634, he wrote to Gibbons: "I have disbursed a great deal of money in the plantation, and never received one penny;
but hope, if there were a discovery of the lakes, that I should in some reasonable time be reimbursed again." Hubbard (p. 226) says that Mason had no
opportunity " to send over the seventy families, which some to this day affirm he
engaged to do."  See Jenness's Original Documents, pp. 55, 77; Prov. Records
of N. H., I. 322.
* In October, 1637, Vines, Josselyn, and Warnerton, as agents of some of the
Laconia associates, granted to Francis Matthews "all that parcel or portion of
lands in Piscataway River, lying upon the north-west side of the Great Island,
commonly called Muskito Hall, being a neck of land by estimation one hundred
acres or thereabouts." The location of this grant was on the Great Island itself, the present town of New Castle; and it was reconveyed in 1656 and in
1664, under the same name..(See Provincial Papers relating to N.H., I. 98, 99;
N. H. Hist. Soc. Coll., VIII. 120, 122.) At this day, a spot a few rods northwest of the present " Wentworth" hotel is called "Musquito Hall," though
this must be some distance from the location of the grant.




20
as he came to age, did make his claim formerly, and now again, by his
said petition, to this Court," who granted the island to him and his heirs
for ever. Samuel Maverick added his testimony as to the year 1626; 
and Johnson says that Thomson assisted Maverick in building a fort
upon Noddle's Island. Among the contributors to the expenses of
capturing and removing Thomas Morton, of Merry Mount, in 1628,
the name of "Mrs. Thomson" appears.  So that we may infer that
her husband was dead at the time she subscribed. I know of no other
data.  Savage says he died "about 1628."
I incline to the opinion that John Thomson, the son, was born at
Little Harbor, and was brought, an infant, to his new home on the
island. My reasons are these. David Thomson was living at Piscataqua ill 1626, and joined the Plymouth people in a trading voyage
to Monhegan in the summer or autumn, as I infer from Bradford, of
that year. So that, if he left there that year, it must have been in the
latter part of it. The year, as it was then calculated, began and ended
in March. It was desirable to show that possession of the island was
taken at as early a period as the facts would warrant; and the son
says that it was "in or about the year 1626."  In the record of the
Court above cited, May, 1648, it is said that John Thomson made his
claim " so soon as he became of age," and it says also that he "did
make his claim formerly," - that is, some time previously, — " and now
again." The Court would not be likely to yield to such a petition without serious consideration, attended with delay. They were jealous of
claims not based on their own grants, and the island had thirteen years
before been granted to the town of Dorchester. If his first petition, the
exact date of which is wanting, had been made only two years before
the present petition, it would give 1625 as the year he was born.
In the year 1650, some curious depositions were made concerning
Thomson's Island. William  Trevore testified that the island was
formerly called " Island of Trevour," which he took possession of in
1619, "and declared the same, as the effect of my proceedings, to Mr.
David Thomson, in London, on which information said Thomson
obtained a grant and patten" of it. William Blaxton testified that he
heard old Mr. Thomson affirm that he had a patent for the said
island, and that those that put hogs on it did it by his consent. Miles
Standish testified "that in the year 1620 I came into this country, and
I take it in the same year I was in the Massachusetts Bay with
William Trevoyre, and then being upon the island lying near Dorches* Blake's " Annals of the Town of Dorchester," p. 81.




21
ter, called the said island Island Trevoyre..... Further, I can testify
that David Thomson showed me la very ancient patent, and that Isle
Thomson was in it, but the terms of it I cannot remember." The
Sagamore of Aggawam  testified that "in the year 1619, or thereabouts," he went himself with Mr. David Thomson, and took possession of the island before Dorchester, &c.*
William Trevore, who seems to have forgotten the year he arrived in
New England, came over in the " Mayflower" in 1620, as a seaman,
hired to stay in the country one year.  He then went back, but subsequently made voyages to Massachusetts.  The first visit the Pilgrlims
made to Boston Harbor was in September, 1621, and Standish was
of the party, and Trevore may have been of the number. That is the
earliest period at which Standish and he could have been together
on Thomson's Island. Trevore may then, on his return, have given
the information to Thomson to which he refers, which led to his procuring a grant of the island fiom  the Council of New England.
Blaxton's testimony is interesting, as showing his acquaintance with
Thomson, while the former was the solitary resident of Shawmut.
It shows also that Thomson claimed the island under a grant fiom
the Council. The Massachusetts Colony would not probably have acknowledged such a claim, but would be disposed to regard his early
residence and possession as entitling his son, through him, to consideration, as they did in the case of Blaxton. The memory of the old
"Sagamore of Aggawam " quite deserts him in the matter of dates.
If Thomson's Island was that named in this indenture, of which
he had granted one-fourth part to his partners, it might be asked
whether Thomson may not have removed to it for the purpose of
taking possession and creating a habitation with a view to its future
cultivation and the pursuit of his business there, agreeably to the terms
of his indenture, and without intending to abandon his interest at
Little Harbor.  We have no facts or data on which to indulge in such
speculations, except Hubbard's statement that he left there out of dislike of the place or his employers. We hear of no claims made by his
heir to the estate at Piscataqua, subsequently taken possession of by
the Company of Laconia, and none by his late partners to that or to
the island. No provision seems to have been made in this indenture,
in case of the death of Thomson before the five years should be ended.t
* See N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg., IX. 248.
t Hubbard says that Thomson "possessed himself of a very fruitful island
and a very desirable neck of land" in Massachusetts Bay, "since confirmed to




22
To recur once more to the settlement of Piscataqua: The general
reader of the history of New Hampshire will be surprised to learn the
length of time that elapsed after the first settlements were there made
before the name "New Hampshire" was applied to the place. The
patent of 7 November, 1629, to Miason, in which it appears that the
proprietor intended to call the territory granted "New  Hampshire,"
seems to have been -like the previous grant to him of Mariana, and
that to himself and Gorges in the same year — of no practical significance, and would scarcely have been heard of again, had it not been
cited in the claims set forth by the heir to Mason's estate after the Restoration. No use was ever made of it by the proprietor.* After the
issuing of the Laconia grant, ten (lays later, 17 November, 1629, active
measures were entered upon; every thing being done under the name
of the " Company of Laconia," an unincorporated association of persons
whose head-quarters were in London, who afterwards, 3 November,
1631, procured from the Council a new grant of lands on both sides the
Piscataqua River, -the former grant being one of indefinite and uncertain franchises. In a few years, this company broke up, and the servants were discharged; the whole scheme proving a failure.  On a
division of some of the company's property, Miason bought the shares
of two of his associates, and sent over a new supply of men, and set up
two saw-mills upon his own share of lands.t  Shortly before the surrender to the king of the Grand Patent, Mason procured for himself
the grant of 22 April, 1635, $ between Naumkeag and Piscataqua, in
which it was recited that the lands embraced in it, "with the consent
him or his heirs by the Court of the Massachusetts, upon the surrender of all
his other interest in New England, to which yet he could pretend no other title
than a promise, or a gift to be conferred on him, in a letter by Sir Ferdinando
Gorges, or some other member of the Council of Plymouth." Hubbard evidently supposed that Thomson had claims to other lands in New England, which
he or his heirs surrendered on receiving a confirmation of the Island. The
records are silent as to this.
* Sir William Jones, the Attorney-General, in an opinion on Mason and
Gorges's claims, in 1676, says of each of these patents that " the grant was only
sealed with the council seal, unwitnessed, no seizen indorsed, nor possession
ever given with the grant."  (Hutchinson, I. 316.)
t See all the correspondence extant relating to the Laconia Company in
the Provincial Papers relating to N. H., I. 61 et seq.; and a complete copy of
the grant of 3 November, 1631, in Jenness's Original Documents, pp. 8-14.
t " The grants which were made, or pretended to be made, in 1635, were tlhe
efforts of a number of the members of the Council to secure some part of the
dying interest to themselves and posterity, in which they all failed."  (Itutchinson, I. 316.)




23
of the Council, shall from  henceforth be called New Hampshire."
Mason died before the close of that year; and Mrs. Mason, his executrix, committed the management of the estate to her agent, Francis
Norton.  But the expense exceeded the income. Thle servants were
clamorous for their arrears of wages, so she was compelled to abandon them to shift for themselves.*  Ill a few years, the several communities there, including those that the Laconia Company had no hand
in settling, being destitute of a proper government, placed themselves
under the protecting care of the Massachusetts.  Subsequently, Mrs.
Mason sent over her agent, Joseph Mason, to look after her late husband's interest; and he presented a number of petitions to the Massachusetts government, and brought suits in the Massachusetts courts, in
Mrs. Alason's behalf.
During the whole period which I have here gone over, in all the letters and documents of the time,' New Hampshire," as an accepted name
for this territory, so far as I have observed, never is used. In a letter
from the selectmen of Dover to the Council in Massachusetts, dated 20
July, 1665, after the disaffection caused by the arrival of the king's
commissioners, they speak of a petition there to his majesty, presented
by the hands of Abraham  Corbet, "for the inhabitants of New Hampshire, as they called it." t  In a deposition of several aged persons, including Edward Colcord, taken at Piscataqua, 25 August, 1676, they
make oath and affirm "' that Captain John Mason did never settle any
government nor any people upon any land called the province of New
Hampshire, on the south side of Piscataqua River, either by himself, or
any of his agents to this day." $ In an humble petition of Joseph Mason,
the agent of the executrix, to Massachusetts, in May, 1653, he makes no
claim other than to the Laconia interest. Nothing is said about other
grants, and nothing about "New  Hampshire."  In a statement of
Robert Alason's claim in 1674-5, reference is made to John Mason's
various franchises, "' afterwards enlarged " and " now called New Hcmpshire."  Were it not for the accidental circumstance of the prosecution
of this claim, thus bringing  forward a name used in John IMason's
patent, it is not improbable that New Hampshire would have rejoiced
to-day in the old euphonious Indian name of "Piscataqua."  By the
appointment of a commission for the government of the territory as a
royal province, in 1679, the name "New Hampshire" became fixed
upon the place.
* See Belknap's N. H., I. 39.
t The italics are mine.
t Original Documents relating to N. H., edited by John S. Jenness, p. 62.




24
It would probably be doing no injustice to history to say that the
recognition of Robert Mason's claim to the territory of New Hampshire, fostered by a government unfiriendly to the liberties of its subjects,
was one of the greatest misfortunes that could have befallen the settlers on the soil. It was a prolific source of annoyance, which continued for over a century.
To go back once more to the Laconia Company, in which the original
MIason was an influential partner: The whole history of their proceedings shows that they never intended to plant a colony in any sense
analogous to those communities which sprung up elsewhere in New
England.  It was chiefly a trading and fishing  company; an experiment, inspired by adventure and speculation. The intended basis of
its operations was the great lakes, which seem never to have been discovered, and its greatest reliance the peltry trade. The cultivation of
the soil, the proper foundation of all such enterprises, was regarded
as of secondary importance.  The non-residence of the proprietors,
and the absence of any settled government, were serious drawbacks
to the building up of an orderly community.  The letters of their
factor, Ambrose Gibbons, to the adventurers in London, were full of
excellent advice and serious warnings.  The interest of the settlers
was not so much considered as the profitable returns; and, when
these failed, the whole scheme failed. " You complain," says Gibbons,
" of your returns. You take the course to have little ": think not " the
great looks of men and many words will be a means to raise a plantation." *
* The Company of Laconia was probably formed soon after the Laconia patent of 17 November, 1629, was issued. It was an unincorporated association of
less than a dozen persons, the most of whose names are mentioned in a second
grant of lands on both sides the Piscataqua River, taken out for their benefit
two years later, 3 November, 1631. Some of these associates, it appears, had
previously been members of the " Canada Company," which, headed by Sir
William Alexander, had undertaken tile conquest of that province as a private
enterprise, under the command of Sir David Kirke. The fur-trade of Canada
was the inspiring motive, united to what might be acquired by conquest.
"Loaded with booty, and bringing Champlain himself as prisoner, the expedition returned triumphantly to England, November 6, 1629, only to learn that
peace had been for several months restored, and that by the articles of the
treaty all their hard-won conquests in the New World were required to be restored to France.
"Among the most stirring members of the now sadly baffled Canada Company was one Thomas Eyre, a London merchant, who had acted as its
Accountant and Treasurer. Thomas Wannerton, a notary public and merchant
of London, George Griffith, another London merchant, as well as Captain John




25
After Mason had secured his patent of 1635, he had fruitless visions
of manors and quit-rent and fee-farm estates floating before his mind.
In his last will, as we have already seen, he calls his whole grant
Mason and Sir Ferdinando Gorges, seem to have been interested in the Canada
Company, and must have been chagrined at its disastrous issue.
"These men now inquired after some shorter and easier way of reaching the
fur country than by the river of Canada, and one which might be used by the
English without infringement of the late treaty....
"It was but ten days after the return of the Canada Co. Expedition that, accor(lingly, Sir Ferdinando Gorges and Captain John Mason took out for themselves and their associates a grant, dated November 17, 1629, of a large, vaguely
bounded territory on the Iroquois Lake, named Laconia, and admitted as their
associates in the patent, Thomas Eyre, Thomas Wannerton, John Cotton, Henry
Gardner, George Griffith, Edwin Guy, and Eliezer Eyre. The scheme of these
patentees is apparent from the language of the grant itself. It was to send over
cargoes of Indian truck-goods to the Piscataqua, and unlade them at the factories near thle mouth of the river, and thence to transport them in boats or canoes
up the Piscataqua to Lake Champlain, to be bartered there for peltries for exportation from  the factories to Europe. For the better accommodation of this
traffic, the Company were authorized to take up one thousand acres of land on
the side of the' Piscataqua River as a site of their factory; but they seem not
to have availed themselves of this privilege, the territory at the mouth of the
river being acquired by the adventurers under a subsequent patent."
The connection between the Canada Company and the Laconia Company,
thus indicated, and the circumstances attending the formation of the latter, are
well stated in a volume entitled " The Isles of Shoals, An Historical Sketch, by
John Scribner Jenness, second edition," New York, 1875, pp. 58-69, written
from information gathered from the public archives in London. The extracts
above quoted are taken from that book.
David Kirke, while in the Canada waters, had probably heard of the treaty
of peace of the 14th (24th N.S.) of April of that year, but he chose to ignore it,
and of course the members of the Canada Company at home knew of it soon
after it took place (the king's proclamation was dated 10 May, 1629); but no
one knew what precise bearing it would have on the large interests, which the
Company might have, to be affected by it. Charles, however, gave his word to
the French minister that every thing captured should be at once restored.
This was a grievous blow to the Canada merchants, who had fitted out their
fleet at a cost of ~60,000; and they did not relinquish their property without a
struggle. Kirke claimed that the larger part of the skins which he brought
home had been obtained by trading with the Indians. In a London news-letter,
dated 18 November, 1629, is the following: " Upon the French ambassador's
great complaints against Kirke, for his action in Canada, the matter hath been
debated in Council; and it is thought that, for the good of the peace, the place
will be restored unto the French, although there is nothing as yet resolved about.
Neither is there any order hitherto taken between the two States for the settling
of the trade for the time to come, or the satisfying of the merchants' complaints for the time past." (The Court and Times of Charles the First, II. 43.)
4




26
on the Piscataqua "my county of New  Hampshire, or Mannor of
Mason Hall."  He had then no charter of government, though he
may have intended to procure one, as Gorges afterwards did for Maine.
The formal restoration of Quebec to France did not take place till the 5 July,
1632.
By an arbitration in Paris, it was decided that the French government should
pay ~20,000 to Kirke as an indemnity for his loss, and the government pledged
that sum, but not a penny was paid. By the treaty of peace, it was agreed
between the two crowns that there should be no restitution for prizes taken on
either side, before the date of the treaty, and no reprisals should be made for
such captures. See " The First English Conquest of Canada," by Henry Kirke,
M.A., London, 1871, pp. 63-93; Parkman's "Pioneers of France in the New
World," pp. 401-411. See also the Treaty of Suze in Rymer, vol. xix. p. 88;
and the Proclamation of Peace with France, dated May 10, 1629, in the same
volume, p. 66.
The first vessel which the Company of Laconia despatched to Piscataqua
was sent out from London the last of March, 1630, and by the 1st of June had
arrived, with Walter Neal, governor, and Ambrose Gibbons, fiactor, and "some
others. In the following year, others were sent. At the end of three years,
the principal associates became discouraged by the inadequate returns, and
the alleged unfaithfulness of a master of one of the fislhing-vessels; and in a
letter to their factor, dated the 5th December, 1632, they say: " They have
no desire to proceed ant further, until Captain Neal come hither to confer
with them, that by conference with hlim they may settle things in a better
order. We have written unto Captain Neal to dismiss the household, only such
as will or can live of themselves may stay upon our plantation, in such convenient place as Captain Neal, Mr. Godfrie, and you slhall think fit; and, after
conference had here with Captain Neal, they shall have a reasonable quantity
of land granted unto them by deed."  See notes (A) (B).
These letters were not received till the 7 June following, and Captain
Neal, being called home, left the colony 15 July, and sailed from Boston 6
August. According to instructions, the care of the house at Newichlewanick
was committed to Gibbons, that at Pascattaway (Little Harbor) to Edward
Godfrie, and that at Strawberry Bank to Thomas Warnerton. Not long after
the probable arrival of Neal in London, the company, on the 6 I)ecember,
made a division of the land on the north-east side of the river (the document
from which I quote says, clearly by mistake, the "north-west side "), and of the
"swine" belonging to the company.  They also "agree(l that Pascattaway
house and the house at Strawberry Bank, and all the islands and isletts within
the river of Piscattaway, together with all the land on the south-west side of the
said river which is mentioned in the patent, as also the Isles of Slmoals, and the
house at Newicliewanock, witlh the land tlhereunto belonging, shall remain in
common until a division thereof hereafter to be made." The division of lands on
the north-east side, made at this meeting, is referred to in a letter of Gorges and
Mason to Warnerton and Gibbons; dated Portsnmoutlh (England), 5 May, 1634,
in wvlich is enclosed a copy of the draft of the "lands and bounds agreed upon
for every man's part "; and a further division of all the " movables" left in




27
Whatever his intentions may have been, without a radical change of
policy andl measures, he never would have succeeded in building up a
colony on these shores. Death put an end to his schemes. New
trust by Neal with Warnerton and Gibbons was also now directed to be made.
It appears that Mason had now bought out the shares of John Cotton and his deceased brother, William Cotton, so that he and Gorges now owned together
one-half of these effects, and of this one-half Mason owned three-fourths.
(Mason also appears to have owned independently of the rest some cows and
goats.)  The remaining one-half belonged to the other adventurers. Gorges
and Mason directed their own shares to be paid over to Henry Josselyn, who
now came over especially to look after Mr. Mason's interest. See note (C).
They each give notice that they have now sent over men to work upon their
several divisions of land, that Mason had sent over two saw-mills, witli people
and provisions to set them up, and each had given authority to invite and
"receive such others as may be had to be tenants, to plant and live thlere, for
the more speedily peopling of the country."  No encouragement was given that
the other partners would adventure this year to the plantation, and we find no
instrhctions from them as to the disposal to be made of the other half of the
divided effects, or as to their future plans or intentions. Mason instructs Gibbons in his letter of 5 May, 1634, to discharge the servants, and all that are
upon the company's charge, and to pay them off in beaver, about which he will
hear more at large from the company. Gibbons replies to Mason's letter, under
date of 6 August, saying that the servants had been paid their wages for the
past year, but that he shall expect a "general letter" before paying them
their old wages or dividing the goods, &c., or a further letter from him.
Although the adventurers as a body may not have made any further advances to the colony after their letter of 5 December, 1632, referred to above,
still the company, as we have seen, was kept alive to a later period, for the
purpose of winding up its affairs.
To what extent Mason pursued the business alone on the east side the river
after the date of the letter of instructions of 5 May, 1634, we may not fully
know, or whether any thing was done by him or by any other of the adventurers on the west side. I have seen no evidence of any division having been
made of the land on the west side of the river. Hubbard, in speaking of Little
Harbor, and the Manor to be erected there by Mason, says, " By consent of
the rest of the undertakers, in some after division, that parcel of land fell to
his share, and is mentioned in his last will and testament by the name of
Mason Hall." Hubbard probably infers that it fell to Mason's share " by a
division," because he mentions it in his will; whereas, in this instrument,
Mason claims and wills, as his property, his whole grant of New Hampshire, of
22d April, 1635, which included the part mentioned by Hubbard. Mason died
before the close of the year 1635. What course was taken by the late partners,
or by the heirs of Mason, during the two following years, we have but few
contemporary documents to inform us. In 1638, Mrs. Mason, the widow and
executrix of the late John Mason, appointed Francis Norton her general
attorney for her whole estate in those parts. " But," says Dr. Belknap, " the
expense so far exceeded the income, and the servants grew so impatient for




28
Hampshire has but little cause to cherish his memory; and he would
probably have been forgotten but for the accidental revival of his
name, by the claims of his heirs, who used them as an instrument to
their arrears, that she was obliged to relinquish the care of the plantation, and
tell the servants that they must shift for themselves; upon which they shared
the goods and cattle."  Charges were afterwards brought against her agents and
servants for "imbezzling the estate."  Years afterward, the claims of Robert
Mason brought out depositions of old people, on both sides, from which some
truth may be gleaned; but all such documents should be received with caution.
In March, 1651, Mrs. Mason appointed Joseph Mason to come over and look
after the estate of her late husband here; and in that same year he brought a
successful suit in the Massachusetts courts against Richard Leader for encroaching upon the lands at Newichewanick. Two years later, lie presented a petition
against sundry inhabitants of Strawberry Bank and others, for encroaching
upon the property of the Laconia patent, " molesting our tenants, and disposing
of our lands and of our tenants', vhiich for sixteen years past was granted unto
them by lease from the then agents of the proprietors," &c.; and lie prays for
relief in " the behalf of Mistress Anne Mason and the rest of the proprietors."
This would show that others of the Laconia proprietors still had an interest in
the lands on the west side of the river. In all these claims made by Mrs.
Mason, her whole reference is to her late husband's interest in the Laconia
Company. No mention is made of the grant of New Hampshire, by that or by
any other name, claimed by Robert Mason after the Restoration. Indeed, to
Robert Mason's first petition, in 1660, appear the names of Henry Gardiner and
George Griffine (Griffith), two of the partners of the Laconia Company.
The operations of the Laconia Company, whose franchises, as we have already
seen, were quite distinct from those of Edward Hilton and his associates, were
chiefly on the east side of the river, on lands subsequently included in Gorges's
grant of New Somersetshire; and Mason's transactions after the division, whatever they may have been, were principally confined, no *doubt, to the same
section. This territory, at first called " Pascataqua," was, in 1647, incorporated
as " Kittery," from which subsequently the towns of Eliot, South Berwick, and
Berwick, have been taken. The permanent settlement of this territory should
undoubtedly date from its occupation by the Laconia Company in 1630.
And here I am reminded of the tendency which appears to have existed
among some of our local historical writers to antedate the settlements on the
eastern coast. Williamson, in his History of Maine (I. 243-4), says that some
of the territory on its western border, early known as Pascataqua, was settled
as early as 1624. He evidently infers this from a supposed connection and intercourse between this section and the settlements of Dover and Portsmouth,
all bearing the same general name.
Williamson also says (I. 227) that, "as early as 1623, a permanent settlement was commenced at Saco." His principal authority for this statement is
the language of the patent to Vines and Oldham of 1629-30, reciting that Oldham and his servants had lived " in New England" for six years preceding.
He supposed that they had lived at Winter Harbor, where Vines is known to
have passed the winter of 1616-17. Now Oldham and his servants came to




29
annoy and perplex the settlers on the soil, who had acquired a right to
their homesteads and farms by long undisturbed possession.
In conclusion, let the reader of New Hampshire history bear in mind
Plymouth in 1623, in the Anne, and had some land assigned to them in the
following year. He was afterwards expelled from that community; but lie never
settled on the land granted to him and Vines, either before or after the patent
was received.
This same writer (I. 231) follows Dr. Belknap, in hlis Life of F. Gorges, in
fixing upon the same period as that at which grants of land were made to
some members of the Gorges family, of 12,000 acres on each side the York
River, at which time William Gorges, Lieut. Col. Norton, and others, came
over with all the necessary materials for building vessels, saw-mills, &c. This
error of about a decade of years occurred by a misreading of Gorges's imperfect narrative, where the chronology of events is rarely noted, or is incorrectly
given. But Williamson gratuitously makes this addition to the account; viz.,
that the immediate management of the enterprise was intrusted to Ferdinando
Gorges, the grandson of Sir Ferdinando, "a young gentleman of rank and ambition." Now the truth is that the grant of 12,000 acres on each side the York
River was made 2 December, 1631. F. Gorges, the grandson, was interested in
the grant through his grandfather, who caused his name to be inserted in the
patent; but lie was only two or three years old at this time. The period hitherto
assigned for this grant and settlement was some six years before lie was born.
But I will not. pursue this rather irrelevant criticism further.
(A)
The bark " Warwick," which brought over Neal and Gibbons in 1630, came
to New England again in the following year; sailing from " the Downes " 4
July, 1631, and arriving at the harbor of Piscataqua the 9th September. She
may at this time have brought over to the colony some of those stewards and
servants of the Laconia Company, whose arrival Adams, in his Annals of Portsmouth, places under the year 1631. (Of course he errs in including Neal and
Gibbons in that list, and quite likely as to others.) The " Warwick " then, on
the 19th, sailed directly for Virginia and the Potomac River. Her factor, IIenry
Fleet, had commission from her owners to be absent one year " for trade and
discovery." In the following winter, she brought thence a cargo of corn to Piscataqua, and on her return to the South put into Salem and Boston. On the
9th April, 1632, she sailed from Boston for Virginia, where she remained for
some time in charge of her factor, trading in the waters of the Chesapeake.
The bark belonged to George Griffith and Company (George Griffith was
one of the Laconia partners), and her owners subsequently claimed that Fleet
had, by the connivance of Governor Harvey, "restrained the vessell and profits
to the petitioner's great loss." Griffith appears to have had other schemes
kindred to those in which the Laconia Company was engaged. In 1638, in a petition to the king, "he sets forth his great loss by sending men to the river
Amazon, and planting on the coast of Guiana, through the Portuguese, and the
treachery of the natives," &c. See Neill's " English Colonization of America,"
pp. 223-237; Winthrop, I. 39, 71, 72; Cal. S. P. Col. Ser., pp. 184, 270.




30
that that State was not founded by John Mason, nor by the Company
of Laconia, of which he was a member. A permanent settlement had
already taken root into its soil before the bark "Warwick" first
appeared in the Piscataqua waters.
(B)
Sidrach Millar, of London, cooper, presented a petition to the Privy Council,
saying that, by a contract made with Captain John Mason, John Cotton, and
Henry Gardner, on behalf of the company of adventurers for the Province of
Laconia, in New England, the petitioner and two servants were transported to
Piscataqua, where they worked eighteen months for the Company. Millar, being sent to England, left his servants behind him, who have since been discharged, destitute of means or friends. The Governor would not pay their
passage-money, and the Company will not pay what is due to them; prays
that the Company may be ordered to pay the money due to him and his two
servants for the work done according to the contract.  See Cal. S. P. Col.,
p. 138; Folsom's Original I)oc., p. 8. Millar may have returned to England with
Neal in August, 1633, some eight of Neal's company having gone back with
him at that time.
The Laconia associates in London, after the suspension of their operations,
seem to have had dissensions among themselves, resulting in law-suits, the evidence of which exists among the Records of the Privy Council and of the Court
of Requests. See N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg., VIII. 142, 143; Jenness's Isles
of Shoals, 185-190. Thomas Eyre was probably secretary of the company. He
had been secretary of the Canada Company; and in June, 1632, was chosen
secretary for the Council for New England..
(C)
The editor of the Provincial Papers relating to N. H., a valuable work,
often consulted by me, at p. 69 of Vol. I., assumes that Thomas Warnerton,
the Laconia associate, is identical with the emigrant who bore the same name;
though lhe had immediately before him a letter of the partners, dated at London,
5 December, 1632, signed by Warnerton, among others, in which instructions
are given to the emigrant here. The Laconia associate was a notary public
and merchant of London, and is found living there in 1632, 1633, and 1636.
Thomas Warnerton, the emigrant (sufficiently illustrated by Winthrop and
his editor, II. 177, 178), had been a soldier; quite likely he was a son of the
proprietor, and "left his country for his country's good." Hubbard's account
of the winding up of his career, pp. 484, 485, is taken from Wintlhrop. See
Jenness's Isles of Shoals, 2d edition, p. 61; Sainsbury's Cal. (Col.), p. 289.
[The Indenture of David Thomson and his three partners,
of Plymouth, England, here follows]:V- "'J "'"~"'7  -~11~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~In




31
2rtirles of Covenannts JIndentid made and agreed on; the foureteenth daye of December, in the twentieth yeare of the Uaigne of
our  iofieigne Lord  anmes by the grace of god of England Fraunce
and Ireland King Defender of the faith &c. And of Scotland the
Sixe and fiftieth 33etbccne  Dauid Thomson of Plymouth in the
County of devon gentleman of thone parte,'And Abraham  Colmer
Nicholas Sherwill, and Leonard Pomery of Plymouth aforesaid marchants of th'other parte.
Emnprinmis, whereas the Councell established, by the said Kings
Matets Lies.patents, for the ruling, orderinge & disposing of the terrytories and affayres of Newe England in America, tlaue graunted vnto
thaboue named Dauid Thomson, his heires and assignes, for ever, Sixe
Thousand acres of land, and one Iland lyeing & being in & vpon
the coaste of Newe England aforesaid, wth dyuers Royalties, ymmunities
priveledges franchises and liberties, As by the same graunt, bearinge
date the Sixteenth daye of October laste paste more at large. it dothe
& maye appeare, Ato farther wheareas also the said Dauid Thomson
by his deed Indentid beareing date wth these prsents tatll fieely and
absolutely graunted the foureth parte of all the said Iland wth' thappurtefifics therevnto belonging or in any wise apperteyninge, unto thaboue
named Abraham  Colmer Nicholas Sherwill and Leonard Pomery
their heires & assignes forever, wth Covenannte also therein expressed,
to grannte and convey, vnto them their heires and assignes in free simple,
the foureth. parte of the before recyted Sixe thousand acres of land and
other the premysses wth thappurtefiuics, As by the said deed thereof
Indentid to them  made more plainely and at large it doth & maye
appeare.  In Collniiberacon whereof it is fullie couenannted & agreed
by and betweene the said parties to these presents in manner and
forme followinge, that is to saie   "    "    "    "    "    "
j:irt, that they the said Abraham Colmer Nicholas Sherwill, and
Leonard Pomerie their heires and assignes, shall and will at their owne
proper costes and charges, this present yeare provid and send, two
men, with the said Dauid Tllom.on, in the good shipp called the
Jonathan of Plymouth aforesaid (by gods permission) to be landed in
Newe England aforesaid, wth soe muche victualls & prouisionl, as
shall suffice them, till they be their landed, And yf they land there,
within the space of three moneths, after the said shipp shall passe
Ramehed, The residue of the three moneths victualls (yt any be). shall
be delyuered to the said Dauid Thomson, at his landing there, the said
men and victualls, there to be disposed of, by the said Dauid Thomson,
as well towards the finding-e of a fitt place for thintended planta-on
there, as also to begin the same   "    "        "    "    "    "
Item, that they, the said Dauid Thomson, Abraham Colmer, Nicholas Sherwill, & Leonard Pornerie, their heires and assiglles, shall and




32
will this present yeare, at their wone proper costes & charge, find
prouide and send, three men more, in the good ship called the Prouidence of Plymouth aforesaid, yf they maye be so sonne gotten, Or in
some other shipp wth the first expedicon that maye be, To be also (by
god his permyssion) landed in Newe England, their to be disposed of
as aforesaid, the Charges of' wch men lastlie mencoed are to be paid
and borne equallie betweene them the said parties to theis prsents "'
Jtem, it is farther agreed by and betweene the said parties to theis
ints, that two men more (ouer & aboue the former three) shal be
this prsent yeare, prouided & sent, in the foresaid shipp the Jonathan;
wth their victualls and prouisions, To be likewise (by gods permyssion)
landed in Newe England aforesaid, the charge of we" two men lastlie
mencoed soe to be sent, shalbe equallie borne and paid, betweene
the said Dauid Thomson, Abraham  Colmer, Nicholas Sherwill, and
Leonard Pomerie    "'"    "    "    "    "    " "  
dtem, it is farther agreed by and betweene the said parties to theis
pnts, that after suche tyme, as the said Dauid Thomson, And the foresaid Seaven men or any of them, shalbe soe landed in Newe England
as aforesaid The said persons soe landed, shall and will vse their b)est
Endeavor. (by the dirreccon of the said Dauid Thomson) wtll as muche
conveniencie as maye be, to find oute some fitt place or places there,
for the choise of the said Sixe thousand acres of land, accordinge to
th'intent of the graunt aforesaid; Anb also of some fitt place, to settle
and Builde:some houses or buildings for habitacons, On wCh they are
to begyn, wth as muche expedicon as they maye, To the lymits and precincts of we" habitacons or buildings soe intented to be there erected,
thiere shalbe allotted, of the landes next thereunto adioyninge, at or
before thend of five yeares, next ensuing the date hereof, the full quantitie of Sixe hundred acres of land, or neere thereaboutes, tl'-I said
Sixe hundred acres of land, wth all and singular the tenemts and buildings, that inaye be raised thereupon, duringe the said space of five
yeares, together wth the Seas, Riuers harbor or harbors ports creeks
and all and singeler other the premysses whatsoeuf, conteyned wt"in the
said sixe hundred acres of land, wththe seas Anent the same, shall
at thend & expiracon of the said five yeares, Blie equallie diuided,
betweene them the said Dauid Thomson, Abraham  Colmer, Nicholas
Sherwill and Leonard Pomery by lotts, 7Alt  that all costs chargs and
disbursments whatsoeuer, to be paid & layde forth, fi'om and after
the landing of the said men or any (of them in Newe England aforesaid,
towards the finding oute of the said sixe thousand acres of land, or for
the buildinge planting and husbanding, of the said sixe hundred acres
of land, shall During the said five yeares be equallie borne and paid,
betweene all the said parties to theis prsents ijlc residue of the said
Sixe thousand acres of land, to be also in such convenient tyme as maye
be Deuided betweene them the said parties in foure parts, and by lots as
aforesaid, wth all the seas & Riuers Anent the same, and all other the
premysses to the same belonging, Whereof the said Dauid Thomson
his heires and assignes, are to haue three Quarters, And the said Abraham  Colmer Nicholas Sherwill & Leonard Pomerie, their heires &




33
assignes, One quarter accordinge to the true intent & meaning of the
last before recyted graunt, to them  thereof to be made by the said
Dauid Thomson his heires & assignes'    "    "    "'
steim, it is farther agreed, by and betweene the said parties to theis
prsents, that the said Iland, wth the grounde soyles, Hauens, Rivers
ports, Creeks, wth th appurtefifics therevnto belonging at thend of the
said five yeares, shall alsoe be Devided amongste them, the said parties
in foure partes, by lotts as aforesaid, AWhereof the said Dauid Thomson
his heires & assignes are to haue three of the said foure partes, And the
said Abraham Colmer, Nicholas Sherwill and Leonard Pomerie, their
heires and assignes, thother foureth parte, accordinge to the true
intent & meaninge, of the laste before recyted graunt thereof to them
made    "           "     "     "     "     "     "     "    "    "'Jte1m, farther it is fully couenanted & agreed by and betweene the
said parties to theis 1ants, That all costes, chargs, expenses, and disbursmts whatsoeli wch shall happen to be expended laid forth or disburssed for and towards the planting & husbanding of the said Iland
wth thappurtefifics, And for and towards the Erecting of habitaZcons or
buildings there vntill the same be divided as aforesaid, shalbe borne and
paid betweene the said parties, in this sorte (viz), three partes, by the
said Dauid Thomson, his heires and assignes, and the other foureth
parte, by the said Abraham  Colmer, Nicholas Sherwill &  Leonard
Pomerie their heires and assignes     "    "    "    "    "
Jiem, it is farther agreed by and betweene the said parties to theise
prsents, that all benefitts and profitts whatsoeuer, that shall or maye,
duringe the said terme of five yeares happen to accrewe arise & growe
oute of or upon, the said sixe hundred acres of land, be it more or lesse,
and of the Seas and Rivers therevnto belonging, or by trading, fishing,
Setting & Setling* of the same landes & tenements, or any parte of them,
or by any other industrie waies or meanes whatsoeuer (the fishing of
such shipp or shipps of the said Abraham Colmner Nicholas Sherwill &
Leonard Pomerie, or of either or any of them, or of either or any of
their assignes, sett forth onely at their costs and charges, and wherein
the said Dauid Thomson, doth not, or will not, put in his parte of the
costs and charges, onely excepted & foreprised,) shall also be equallie
divided betweene them the parties to these presents parte and parte
like  "     "    "    """    "',,' "  "               *
item, it is also agreed by and betweene the said parties to theis
prsents, that all benefitts and profits, that shall or maye, duringe the said
terme of five yeares, happen to accrewe aryse and growe, oute of or
upon, the residue of the said, sixe thousand acres of land wth appurtefifics,
or oute of, or upon the said Iland wth thappurtefifics shalbe devided into
foure parts Whereof the said Dauid Thomson his heires and assiognes
shall haue three partes, And the said Abraham Colmer Nicholas Sherwill, and Leonard Pomery their heires & assignes shall haue th'other
foureth parte, tnib that every of them, shall and will vpon reasonable
request, delyuer to th'other a iuste & perfect accompt of his receipts
* Obscure; " Setling" may be the word intended.
5




34
& payments concerning the premisses LnOl for the true performance of
all and singuler, the said covenannts and agreements, either of the said
parties bindeth himself to th'other firmly by these presents   "    "~ 
Jitn wittnes wDheareof the said parties interchangablie, to theis prsent
covenafits Indented, their handes and seales haue sett, peolen the daye
and yeare ffirst aboue wrytten        lAnnoq. him.            1622
p me [Abraham] t Colmer p me Nicholas Sherwill Leonard Pomery
[Endorsed]
Sealed and delyuered in prsents of
John flowell
Teste me Tho. Cruse
Teste     Hugoe Bull
Michael Herring $
* The inverted commas between the paragraphs in the text represent
similar marks in the original instrument, intended to fill up the spaces not written upon. Nothing is omitted.
t The Christian name of each signer was written upon the three tags inserted
into the parchment by an incision made in it in the usual way. The tag on
which Colmer wrote is gone, so that his first name here is wanting. There are
no seals: the tags remaining are cut off even with the lower margin of the parchment.' "Michael Herring, of London," was a son-in-law of Nicholas Sherwill, as
appears by an abstract of Sherwill's will, proved 8 June, 1639, kindly sent to
me by Mr. J. L. Chester, of London, since these notes were in type. Mr. Chester has also sent me abstracts of the wills of Abraham Colmer and Leonard
Pomery; that of the former proved 22 Nov., 1631, and the latter 30 March,
1629. It appears that the ship " Providence" was owned by Pomery. These
wills throw no additional light on the transactions of these merchants with David
Thomson, and no further documents as yet have rewarded inquiry.




ADDENDA.
A reference to DAVID THOMSON, which perhaps should not be
omitte(l here, is found in Thomas Morton's " New English Canaan,"
published in 1637, at the close of chapter 2, which treats Of the
Original of the Natives: "Therefore, since I have had the approbation of Sir Christopher Gardiner, Knight, an able gentleman that lived
among them, and of David Tompson, a Scottish gentleman, that likewise was conversant with those people, both scholars and travellers,
that were diligent in taking notice of these things, as men of good
judgment,... I amn bold to conclude that the original of the Natives
of New England may be well conjectured to be from the scattered
Trojans," &c. Morton came over to New England in 1622, and lived
here altogether some ten years.