January, 1636. When he sold it, Oct. 18, 1641, it appears by the deed,
that there[i.70] were on it edifices, gardens, yards, enclosures, and
meadows. A large force must have been put and kept upon it, from the
first, to have produced such results in so short a time. Orchards had
been planted. The manner in which the grounds were laid out is still
indicated by embankments, with artificial slopes and roadways, which
exhibit the fine taste of the proprietor, and must have required a
large expenditure of money and labor. Although the estate has always
been in the hands of owners competent to take care of it and keep it in
good preservation, none but the original proprietor would have been
likely to have made the outlay apparent on its face, on the plan
adopted. The mansion in which he resided stands to-day. Its front,
facing the south, has apparently been widened, at some remote
intermediate date since its original erection, by a slight extension on
the western end, beyond the porch. It has been otherwise, perhaps,
somewhat altered in the course of time by repairs; but its general
aspect, as exhibited in the frontispiece of this volume, and its
original strongly compacted and imperishable frame, remain. No saw was
used in shaping its timbers; they were all hewn, by the broad-axe, of
the most durable oak: they are massive, and rendered by time as hard to
penetrate almost as iron. The walls and stairway of the cellar, the
entrance to which is seen by the side of the porch, constructed of such
stones as could be gathered on the surface of a new country, bear the
marks of great antiquity. A long, low kitchen, with a stud of
scarcely[i.71] six feet, extended originally the whole length of the
lean-to, on the north side of the house. The rooms of the main house
were of considerably higher stud. The old roadway, the outlines of
which still remain, approached the house from the east, came up to its
north-east corner, wound round its front, and continued from its
north-west corner, on a track still visible, over a brook and through
the apple-orchard planted by Bishop, to the point where the
burial-ground of the village now is; and so on towards the lands then
occupied by Richard Hutchinson, also to the lands afterwards owned by
Nathaniel Ingersol, towards Beaver Dam, and the first settlements in
that direction and to the westward. In general it may be said, that the
structural proportions and internal arrangements of the house, taken in
its relations to the vestiges and indications on the face of the
grounds, show that it is coeval with the first occupancy of the farm.
But we do not depend, in this case, upon conjectural considerations, or
on mere tradition, which, on such a point, is not always reliable. It
happens to be demonstrated, that this is the veritable house built and
occupied by Townsend Bishop, in 1636, by a singular and irrefragable
chain of specific proof. A protracted land suit, hereafter to be
described, gave rise to a great mass of papers, which are preserved in
the files of the county courts and the State Department; among them are
several plots made by surveyors, and adduced in evidence by the
parties. Not only the locality but a diagram of the house, as then
standing, are given.[i.72] The spot on which it stood is shown.
Further, it appears, that in the deeds of transference of the estate,
the homestead is specially described as the house in which Townsend
Bishop lived, called "Bishop's Mansion." This continues to a period
subsequent to the style of its architecture, and within recent
tradition and the memory of the living. In the old Salem Commoner's
records, it is called "Bishop's Cottage," which was the name generally
given to dwelling-houses in those early times. Having, as occasion
required, been seasonably repaired, it is as strong and good a house
to-day as can be found. Its original timbers, if kept dry and well
aired, are beyond decay; and it may stand, a useful, eligible, and
comely residence, through a future as long as the past. It may be
doubted whether any dwelling-house now in use in this country can be
carried back, by any thing like a similar strength of evidence, to an
equal antiquity. Its site, in reference to the surrounding landscape,
was well chosen. Here its hospitable and distinguished first proprietor
lived, in the interims of his public and official service, in peace and
tranquillity, until ferreted out by the intrusive spirit of an
intolerant age. Here he welcomed his neighbors,—Endicott, Downing,
Peters, John Winthrop, Jr., Read, and other kindred spirits.[A]
[i.73]
In the course of a mysterious providence, this venerable mansion was
destined to be rendered mem[i.74]orable by its connection with the
darkest scene in our annals. As that scene cannot otherwise be
comprehended in all the elements that led to it, it is necessary to
give the intermediate history of the Townsend Bishop farm and mansion.
In 1641, Bishop sold it to Henry Chickering, who seems to have been
residing for some time in Salem, and to whom, in January, 1640, a grant
of land had been made by the town. He continued to own it until the 4th
of October, 1648; although he does not appear to have resided on the
farm long, as he soon removed to Dedham, from which place he was deputy
to the General Court in 1642, and several years afterwards. He sold the
farm at the above-mentioned date to Governor Endicott for one hundred
and sixty pounds. In 1653, John Endicott, Jr., the eldest son of the
Governor, married Elizabeth, daughter of Jeremiah Houchins, an eminent
citizen of Boston, who had before resided in Hingham, which place he
represented as deputy for six years. The name was pronounced "Houkins,"
and so perhaps was finally spelled "Hawkins." By agreement, or
"articles of marriage contract," Endicott bestowed the farm upon his
son. "Present possession" was given. How long, or how much of the time,
the young couple lived on the estate, is not known. Their principal
residence was in Boston. The General Court, in 1660, granted John
Endicott,[i.75] Jr., four hundred acres of land on the eastern side of
the upper part of Merrimac River. After the purchase of the farm from
Chickering, the Endicott property covered nearly a thousand acres in
one tract, extending from the arms of the sea to the centre of the
present village of Tapleyville. On the 10th of May, 1662, the Governor
executed a deed, carrying out the engagements of the marriage contract,
giving to his son John, his heirs, and assigns for ever, the Bishop
farm. Governor Endicott died in 1665. A will was found signed and
sealed by him, dated May 2, 1659, in which, referring to the marriage
gift to John, he bequeathes the aforesaid farm to "him and his heirs,"
but does not add, "and assigns." Another item of the will is, "The land
I have bequeathed to my two sons, in one place or another, my will is
that the longest liver of them shall enjoy the whole, except the Lord
send them children to inherit it after them." Unfortunately, there were
no witnesses to the will. It was not allowed in Probate. The matter was
carried up to the General Court; and it was decided Aug. 1, 1665, that
the court "do not approve of the instrument produced in court to be the
last will and testament of the late John Endicott, Esq., governor." In
October of the same year, John Endicott, Jr., petitioned the General
Court to act on the settlement of his father's estate; and the court
directs administration to be granted to "Mrs. Elizabeth Endicott and
her two sons, John and Zerubabel," and that they bring in an inventory
to the next county court at Boston, and[i.76] to dispose of the same as
the law directs. Upon this, the widow of the Governor, and his son
Zerubabel, again appeal to the General Court; and on the 23d of May,
1666, "after a full hearing of all parties concerned in the said
estate, i.e., the said Mrs. Elizabeth Endicott and her two sons, Mr.
John and Mr. Zerubabel Endicott, Mr. Jeremiah Houchin being also
present in court, and respectively presenting their pleas and evidences
in the case," it was finally decided and ordered by the court, that the
provisions of the document purporting to be the will of Governor
Endicott should be carried into effect, with these exceptions: that the
Bishop or Chickering farm shall go to his son John "to him, his heirs
and assigns for ever;" and that Elizabeth, the wife of said son John,
if she should survive her husband, shall enjoy during her life all the
estate of her husband in all the other houses and lands mentioned in
the instrument purporting to be his father's will. The court adjudge
that this must have been "the real intent of the aforesaid John
Endicott, Esq., deceased, who had during his life special favor and
respect for her." They give the widow of the Governor "the goods and
chattels" of the said John Endicott, Esq., her late husband, provided
that, if "she shall die seized to the value of more than eighty pounds
sterling" thereof, the surplus shall be divided between her two sons:
John to have a double portion thereof. Finally, they appoint the widow
sole administratrix, and require her to bring in a true inventory to
the next court for the county of Suffolk, and to pay all debts.[i.77]
John and his father-in-law had it all their own way. The decision of
the court was perhaps correct, according to legal principles; although
it is not so certain that it was, in all respects, in conformity with
the intent of Governor Endicott. Undoubtedly, as the language of the
deed shows, he had made up his mind to give to his son John and "his
assigns" absolute, full, and final possession of the Bishop farm. But
it seems equally certain, that he meant to have the rest of his landed
estate, including the Orchard Farm and the Ipswich-river farm, go
directly and wholly to the survivor, if either of his sons died without
issue. The facts and dates are as follows: His son John was married in
1653. The Governor's will was made in 1659. It had then become quite
probable that John might not have issue. The will gives him and his
heirs, but not his assigns, the Bishop farm. In the event of his death
without issue, his widow would have her dower and legal life right in
it, but the final heir would be Zerubabel. In 1662, the Governor, who
had, some years before, removed to Boston, where he resided the
remainder of his life, executed a deed, giving to his son John, "his
heirs and assigns," a full and permanent title to the Bishop farm. This
was a variation of the plan for the disposition of his estate as shown
in his will. He probably designed to make a new will, securing to his
natural heirs, so far as his other landed property was concerned, what
he had thus permitted to pass away from them in the Bishop farm; that
is, the full and immediate possession by[i.78] the survivor, if either
of the sons died without issue. It was a favorite idea, almost a sacred
principle, in those days, to have lands go in the natural descent. The
sentiment is quite apparent in the tenor of the Governor's will. When
he deprived, by his deed to John in 1662, Zerubabel's family of the
right to the final possession of the Bishop farm, it can hardly be
doubted that he relied upon the provisions of his will to secure to
them the immediate, complete possession of all his other lands, without
the incumbrance of any claim of dower or otherwise of John's widow. But
the pressure of public duties prevented his duly executing his will,
and putting it into a new shape, in conformity with the circumstances
of the case. The troubles that followed teach the necessity of the
utmost caution and carefulness in that most difficult and most
irremediable of all business transactions,—the attempt to continue the
control of property, after death, by written instruments.
John Endicott, Jr., died in February, 1668, without issue; leaving his
whole estate to his widow, "her heirs and assigns for ever." His will
is dated Jan. 27, 1668, and was offered to Probate on the 29th of
February, 1668. His widow married, Aug. 31, 1668, the Rev. James Allen,
one of the ministers of the First Church in Boston, whose previous
wife, Hannah Dummer, by whom he received five hundred acres of land,
had died in March, 1668. His Endicott wife died April 5, 1673, leaving
the Townsend-Bishop farm and all her other property to him; and[i.79]
on the 11th of September, of the same year, he married Sarah Hawlins.
By his two preceding wives he received twelve hundred acres of land.
How much he got by the last-mentioned, we have no information. Besides
these matrimonial accumulations, the accounts seem to indicate that he
was rich before.
It may well be imagined, that it could not have been very agreeable to
the family at the Orchard Farm to see this choice and extensive portion
of their estate, which was within full view from their windows, swept
into the hands of utter strangers in so rapid and extraordinary a
manner, by a series of circumstances most distasteful and provoking.
But this was but the beginning of their trouble.
On the 29th of April, 1678, Allen sold the Bishop farm to Francis
Nurse, of the town of Salem, for four hundred pounds. Nurse was an
early settler, and, before this purchase, had lived, for some forty
years, "near Skerry's," on the North River, between the main part of
the settlement in the town of Salem and the ferry to Beverly. He is
described as a "tray-maker." The making of these articles, and similar
objects of domestic use, was an important employment in a new country
remote from foreign supply. He appears to have been a very respectable
person, of great stability and energy of character, whose judgment was
much relied on by his neighbors. No one is mentioned more frequently as
umpire to settle disputes, or arbitrator to adjust conflicting claims.
He was often on committees to determine boundaries or estimate[i.80]
valuations, or on local juries to lay out highways and assess damages.
The fact that he was willing to encounter the difficulties connected
with such a heavy transaction as the purchase of the Bishop farm at
such a price at his time of life proves that he had a spirit equal to a
bold undertaking. He was then fifty-eight years of age. His wife
Rebecca was fifty-seven years of age. We shall meet her again.
They had four sons,—Samuel, John, Francis, and Benjamin; and four
daughters,—Rebecca, married to Thomas Preston, Mary to John Tarbell,
Elizabeth to William Russell, and Sarah, who remained unmarried until
after the death of her mother. With this strong force of stalwart sons
and sons-in-law, and their industrious wives, Francis Nurse took hold
of the farm. The terms of the purchase were so judicious and ingenious,
that they are worthy of being related, and show in what manner
energetic and able-bodied men, even if not possessed of capital,
particularly if they could command an effective co-operation in the
labor of their families, obtained possession of valuable landed
estates. The purchase-money was not required to be paid until the
expiration of twenty-one years. In the mean time, a moderate annual
rent was fixed upon; seven pounds for each of the first twelve years,
and ten pounds for each of the remaining nine years. If, at the end of
the time, the amount stipulated had not been paid, or Nurse should
abandon the undertaking, the property was to relapse to Allen.
Disinterested and suitable men, whose appointment was[i.81] provided
for, were then to estimate the value added to the estate by Nurse
during his occupancy, by the clearing of meadows or erection of
buildings or other permanent improvements, and all of that value over
and above one hundred and fifty pounds was to be paid to him. If any
part of the principal sum should be paid prior to the expiration of
twenty-one years, a proportionate part of the farm was to be relieved
of all obligation to Allen, vest absolutely in Nurse, and be disposable
by him. By these terms, Allen felt authorized to fix a very high price
for the farm, it not being payable until the lapse of a long period of
time. If not paid at all, the property would come back to him, with one
hundred and fifty pounds of value added to it. It was not a bad bargain
for him,—a man of independent means derived from other sources, and so
situated as not to be able to carry on the farm himself. It was a good
investment ahead. To Nurse the terms were most favorable. He did not
have to pay down a dollar at the start. The low rent required enabled
him to apply almost the entire income from the farm to improvements
that would make it more and more productive. Before half the time had
elapsed, a value was created competent to discharge the whole sum due
to Allen. His children severally had good farms within the bounds of
the estate, were able to assume with ease their respective shares of
the obligations of the purchase; and the property was thus fully
secured within the allotted time. Allen gave, at the beginning, a full
deed, in the ordinary form, which[i.82] was recorded in this county.
Nurse gave a duly executed bond, in which the foregoing conditions are
carefully and clearly defined. That was recorded in Suffolk County; and
nothing, perhaps, was known in the neighborhood, at the time or ever
after, of the terms of the transaction. When the success of the
enterprise was fully secured, Nurse conveyed to his children the larger
half of the farm, reserving the homestead and a convenient amount of
land in his own possession. The plan of this division shows great
fairness and judgment, and was entirely satisfactory to them all. They
were required, by the deeds he gave them, to maintain a roadway by
which they could communicate with each other and with the old parental
home.
Here the venerable couple were living in truly patriarchal style,
occupying the "mansion" of Townsend Bishop, when the witchcraft
delusion occurred. They and their children were all clustered within
the limits of the three-hundred-acre farm. They were one family. The
territory was their own, secured by their united action, and made
commodious, productive, valuable, and beautiful to behold, by their
harmonious, patient, and persevering labor. Each family had a
homestead, and fields and gardens; and children were growing up in
every household. The elder sons and sons-in-law had become men of
influence in the affairs of the church and village. It was a scene of
domestic happiness and prosperity rarely surpassed. The work of life
having been successfully done, it seemed that a peaceful and serene
descent into the vale of years was[i.83] secured to Francis and Rebecca
Nurse. But far otherwise was the allotment of a dark and inscrutable
providence.
There is some reason to suspect that the prosperity of the Nurses had
awakened envy and jealousy among the neighbors. The very fact that they
were a community of themselves and by themselves, may have operated
prejudicially. To have a man, who, for forty years, had been known, in
the immediate vicinity, as a farmer and mechanic on a small scale,
without any pecuniary means, get possession of such a property, and
spread out his family to such an extent, was inexplicable to all, and
not relished perhaps by some. There seems to have been a disposition to
persist in withholding from him the dignity of a landholder; and, long
after he had distributed his estate among his descendants, it is
mentioned in deeds made by parties that bounded upon it, as "the farm
which Mr. Allen, of Boston, lets to the Nurses." Not knowing probably
any thing about it, they call it, even after Nurse's death, "Mr.
Allen's farm." This, however, was a slight matter. When Allen sold the
farm to Nurse, he bound himself to defend the title; and he was true to
his bond. What was required to be done in this direction may, perhaps,
have exposed the Nurses to animosities which afterwards took terrible
effect against them.
In granting lands originally, neither the General Court nor the town
exercised sufficient care to define boundaries. There does not appear
to have been any well-arranged system, based upon elaborate,
accurate,[i.84] scientific surveys. Of the dimensions of the area of a
rough, thickly wooded, unfrequented country, the best estimates of the
most practised eyes, and measurements resting on mere exploration or
perambulation, are very unreliable. The consequence was, that, in many
cases, grants were found to overlap each other. This was the case with
the Bishop farm; and soon after Nurse came into possession, and had
begun to operate upon it, a conflict commenced; trespasses were
complained of; suits were instituted; and one of the most memorable and
obstinately contested land-controversies known to our courts took
place. In that controversy Nurse was not formally a principal. The case
was between James Allen and Zerubabel Endicott, or between Allen and
Nathaniel Putnam.
An inspection of the map, at this point, will enable us to understand
the grounds on which the suit was contested. The Orchard Farm was
granted to Endicott, as has been stated, July 3, 1632, by the General
Court. The grant states the bounds on the south and on the north to be
two rivers; on the east, another river, into which they both flow; and,
on the west, the mainland. Where this western line was to strike the
rivers on the north and south is not specified; but the natural
interpretation would seem to be, in the absence of any thing to the
contrary, that it was to strike them at their respective heads. The
evidence of all persons who were conversant with the premises during
the life of the Governor as connected with the farm was unanimous and
conclusive to[i.85] this point; that is, that he and they always
supposed that the west line was, as drawn on the map, from the head of
one river to the head of the other; that the farm embraced all between
them as far up as the tide set. It was objected, on the other side,
that this made the farm much more than three hundred acres; but as an
offset to that was the fact, that a considerable part of the area was
swamp or marsh, not usually taken into the account in reckoning the
extent of a grant, and the additional fact, that the language of the
General Court in reference to quantity was not precise,—"about" three
hundred acres. At the same date with the grant to Endicott, the General
Court granted two hundred acres to Mr. Skelton, which tract is given on
the map.
As has been stated, the General Court conferred upon the towns the
exclusive right to dispose of the lands within their limits, March 3,
1635. On the 10th of December of that year, the town of Salem granted
to Robert Cole the tract of three hundred acres subsequently purchased
by Emanuel Downing, which is indicated on the map. On the 11th of
January, 1636, the grant of three hundred acres was made to Townsend
Bishop. Its language is unfortunately obscure in some expressions; but
it is clear, that the tract was to be four hundred rods in length, one
hundred and twenty-four rods in width at the western end, and one
hundred and sixteen rods at the eastern. At the north-east corner it
was to meet the water or brook that separated it from the grant to
Skelton; and it[i.86] was also to "but" upon, or touch, at the eastern
end, the land granted to Endicott by the General Court. After the grant
to Bishop, the town, from time to time, made grants to Stileman of land
north of the Bishop grant. Stileman's grants adjoined Skelton's at the
north-eastern corner of the Bishop farm. That part of Stileman's land
had come into possession of Nathaniel Putnam, and the residue
westwardly, together with the grant to Weston, into the possession of
Hutchinson, Houlton, and Ingersol. Still further west, the town had
made grants to Swinnerton. Their respective locations are given in the
map. The point of difficulty which gave rise to litigation was this:
The Bishop farm was required, by the terms of the grant, to be one
hundred and sixteen rods wide at its eastern end. But there was no room
for it. The requisite width could not be got without encroaching upon
either Putnam or Endicott, or both. As Endicott stood upon an earlier
title than that of Bishop, and from a higher authority, and Putnam upon
a later title from an inferior authority, the court of trials might
have disposed of the matter, at the opening, on that ground, and Putnam
been left to suffer the encroachment. But it did not so decide; and the
case went on. The struggle was between Endicott to push it north, and
thereby save his Orchard Farm, and the land between it and the Bishop
grant, given by the town to his father, called the Governor's Plain,
and Nathaniel Putnam to push it south, and thereby save the land he had
received from his wife's father, Rich[i.87]ard Hutchinson, who had
purchased from Stileman. Allen stood on the defensive against both of
them. The Nurses had nothing to do but to attend to their own business,
carrying on their farming operations up to the limits of their deed,
looking to Allen for redress, if, in the end, the dimensions of their
estate should be curtailed. But, being the occupants, and, until
finally ousted, the owners of the land, if there was any intrusion to
be repelled, or violence to be met, or fighting to be done, they were
the ones to do it. They were equal to the situation.
After various trials in the courts of law in all possible shapes, the
whole subject was carried up to the General Court, where it was
decided, in conformity with the report of a special commission in May,
1679, substantially in favor of Putnam and Allen. Endicott petitioned
for a new hearing. Another commission was appointed; and their report
was accepted in May, 1682. It was more unfavorable to Endicott than the
previous one. He protested against the judgment of the court in earnest
but respectful language, and petitioned for still another hearing. They
again complied with his request, and appointed a day for once more
examining the case; but, when the day came, Nov. 24, 1683, he was sick
in bed, and the case was settled irrevocably against him.
The map gives the lines of the Bishop farm as finally settled by the
General Court. It will be noticed, that it is laid directly across the
Governor's Plain, and runs far into the Orchard Farm "up to the
rocks[i.88] near Endicott's dwelling-house," or, as it is otherwise
stated, "within a few rods of Guppy's ditch, near to" the said house.
It may be said to have been a necessity, as the original three hundred
acres of the grant to Townsend Bishop had to be made up. It could not
go north; for Houlton and Ingersol stood upon the Weston grant, and
Hutchinson and Nathaniel Putnam stood upon Stileman's grants, to push
it back. It could not go west or south-west, for there Swinnerton stood
to fend off upon his grants; and there, too, was Nathaniel Putnam, upon
his own grant, and lands he had purchased of another original grantee.
It could not be swung round to the south without jamming up the lands
of Felton and others, or pushing them over the grants, made to Robert
Cole—under which Downing had purchased—and to Thomas Read. All these
parties were combined to force it south-eastwardly over the grounds of
Endicott. Nathaniel Putnam was his most fatal antagonist. He was a man
of remarkable energy, of consummate adroitness, and untiring resources
in such a transaction; and he so managed to press in the bounds of the
Bishop farm, at the north-east, as to gain a valuable strip for
himself. With this strong man against him, acting in combination with
the rich and influential James Allen, minister of the great
metropolitan First Church, and licenser of the press, who brought the
whole power of his clerical and social connections in Boston and
throughout the colony to bear upon the General Court, Zerubabel
Endicott had no chance for justice, and no redress for[i.89] wrong. In
vain he invoked the memory of his father, or of Winthrop, the
grandfather of his wife. His father and both the Winthrops had long
before left the scene: a new generation had risen, and there was none
to help him.