DAVID THOMSON, THE SCOTTISH FOUNDER OF NEW HAMPSHIRE... A GENTLEMAN, AND A SCHOLAR by Genevieve Cora Fraser Copyright 2000. All rights reserved. (Revised 2002) PART 3 "Thus, thus begin the yearly rites Are due to Pan…. ...away, This is the shepherd’s holiday." Pan’s Anniversary, Ben Jonson. "The next place I came unto was Pannaway, where one M. Thomson hath made a Plantation." Christopher Levett. (1) It is stated in dozens of histories written on early colonial New England in the last 350 years that in 1622 the Council for New England granted to Sir Ferdinando Gorges and Captain John Mason "all the lands situated between the rivers Merrimack and Sagadahock, extending back to the great lakes and river of Canada." The alleged 1622 grant is sometimes referred to as the Laconia Patent. These histories also claim that the proprietors, Gorges and Mason, sent over a "Scotchman," David Thomson, with Edward and William Hilton, who began a plantation that was the first settlement in New Hampshire, the Piscataqua (aka Pannaway) Plantation. (2) On 9 March 1622 Captain John Mason received a grant from the Council for New England for Cape Anne, and in 1628 was granted a patent a few mile north at "Agawam now pos’sed by the peple of the Massechusets." (3) Historians may have confused David Thomson with Maurice (Morris) Thompson, an Englishman, who in the 1630s set up a fishing stage at Cape Anne. (4) However, as evidenced in a letter written by William Bradford, Governor of the Plymouth Colony on 8 September 1623, Bradford believed that David Thomson wanted to have Cape Anne for himself. (Perhaps neither party knew that Captain Mason had received a grant for Cape Anne, or perhaps they were seeking a different section of the region.) The Pilgrims, to secure a patent for that location, enlisted the aid of Mr. Weston. "Mr. Weston hath written for it, and is desirous to get it before us; and the like doth Mr. Thomson; which is one special motive that hath moved us to send over this messenger fore-named," Bradford wrote. (5) As for the Laconia grant, it was issued 17 November, 1629, a year or so after Thomson’s death. However, the validity of the 1622 grant (which is so often cited to justify the claim that David Thomson, a Scottish Gentleman, was sent by two Englishmen - Gorges and Mason - to act as their agent) is disputed by Charles Dean in his "Notes on the Indenture of David Thomson," published by the Massachusetts Historical Society in May 1876. According to a notation made by Dean: "The grant of 10 August, 1622, to Georges 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." (6) In "The History of York County Maine" there is a quote ascribed to Sir William Jones, the attorney general in 1679, which states that the 1622 grant "was only sealed with the Council seal, unwitnessed, no seizen endorsed, nor possession ever given with the grant." (7) There is a possibility that the patent was created surreptitiously, after the 1622 date, in an effort to establish a right to the Piscataqua territory prior to Thomson’s. As Charles Dean also notes, there appeared "in a postscript to a letter of Cotton Mather to George Vaughn, dated 3 March, 1708, in which he says: ‘When my parents lay at Portsmouth 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 Piscataqua. You may do well to enquire further concerning it.’" (8) (As a further note, I located this "grant" at the PRO, Kew Garden, England during a visit in 2001. The terms are clearly spelled out to benefit Gorges and Mason, but it is unsigned!) Though members of the Council, as well as the King held Captain Mason in high esteem, further research produced the following information from the "Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Vol. IX, A.D. 1610 – 1613" which at first glance tends to support the confidence placed in him. Though in the final analysis, the record casts considerable doubt about the sound character of the "good" Captain. The items concern business in the Islands and West Highlands. "From our Court at Thetforde the aught of Maii 1610." "…And, because the said Bishop of the Iles intend at his awne cost and charges to visite those Illis this sommer, hath aggred with one Johnne Masoun of Kingsline to go thither with thrie schippis weill furnished, and haith desired that he may….at our charges to persew all outlawis fugitive and disobedient personis, to tak and apprehend thame and present tham justice…" (9) Records from the Court at Edinburgh, 26th May 1612 state: "…understanding the good service done to the King by Captain Johnne Maisonn, captain of his Majesty’s ship called ‘The Golden Fleis’ in that "imployment quhilk he laitlie had with his schippis in the north and west Illis of this kingdome, quhair he caryed himself with suche a respective dewtie, alswele towardis the inhabitantis of the Illis as towardis his Majesties subjectis hanting the trade of fischeing thair, that all of thame had contentment and satisfactioun of his aboad and residence among thame:…commission is accordingly given to the said Captain Johnne Masoun to uplift the whole assize herring due to his Majesty within the North Isles and coasts adjacent…" (10) Later that year there is a harbinger of things to come with the notation: "Chageis aganis the provest and bailleis of Anstruther (Fife) to putt Johnne Masoun to libertie." At the Court Session in Edinburgh on the 14th January 1613, full blown charges against Mason are heard: "Supplication by the community and inhabitants of the burghs of Carrail, Anstruthir, Pittinweyme, Sanctmonanis, Elye, Weymiss, Dysart, Kirkaldy, and of all other towns upon the south and north coasts of the River of Forth, as follows: - Most of the petitioners are "seafairing men, hanting the trade of fischeing in Orknay and utheris the north yllis," and in that trade have had free exercise hitherto, "without any dewtie craved of thame or ony impositionis layed upoun thame for thair fischeis… By their trade, "quhilk is verie, panefull, chairgeable, and hazardous," they have not only maintained their families and given employment to great numbers of people who would have otherwise been idle, but have furnished the country with fishes, and by transporting these fishes, oil, and other commodities to foreign countries, have brought much treasure and increase of commodities within the country, augmented his Majesty’s customs, and helped to provide his Majesty’s cunyiehouse with bullion." "Nivertheles, this yeir bigane, the saidis supplicantis hes bene verie havelie troublit, and the course of their trade interruptit by one Capitane Masoun, Englischman, who pretends to have had commission from the Lords of Council "for lifting of the assize of the North Yllis" and under colour thereof has imposed very heavy burdens upon petitioners, exacting great sums of money from them for their fishes. So much did he trouble them that year, "pairtlie with payment of these impositionis, and partlie by hindering of thame from thair fischeing," that in fact petitioners lost "the haill fruictis of thair labour and travellis, …grite nomberis of thame who hes bene and ar reducit to extreme beggarie and povertie by this kind of trade" is too evident.’" ( 11) Despite an extensive search for primary sources, nowhere in Sir Ferdinando Gorges’ or Captain John Mason’s writings have I uncovered a claim, by either gentlemen, that Thomson was their agent. However, Gorges states without equivocation in his "A Description of New-England," that Richard Vines (also of Plymouth, England) was "a Gentleman and Servant of mine owne who was settled some years before…" (12) Along with references to Thomson as attorney and acting governor for the Council in the December 1622 grant for the Massachusetts, another official description of Thomson’s role in the affairs of the Council for New England is documented in the 4th July 1637 letter written by the Scotsman Sir William Alexander, aka the Earl of Stirling. Sir William refers to "David Thompson sometyme sirvant to the Councille for those affaires." Lord Gorges and Sir Ferdinando Gorges cosigned the letter. (13) At the time of Thomson’s grant in 1622, Sir Ferdinando Gorges was the Council treasurer, Edward Collington, the secretary, and William Boles, the Clerk. Boles replaced Collingwood who had been clerk in 1621. In a meeting dated 25 February 1623, it was ordered "that the Clerke call upon Mr. Collingwood for the copie of Sr. John Bruce’s pattent. Mr. Collingwood answered me that he hath delivered all the books to Sr. Ferd. Gorges and to Mr. Thompson." (14) Unwittingly, Sir Ferdinando Gorges in his "Description of New England," may have revealed a prejudice concerning the Scottish people by stating, "I confessed (indeed) that I had earnestly sought by all meanes the planting of those parts by those of our own Nation and that for divers weighty considerations approved of by the King and his Councell…" (15) The king in question was a Scotsman who was resented and even hated in some quarters for his nationality. David Thomson’s nationality was also well known and often stated. In contrast to what is typically suggested, it seems clear from an examination of primary source documents, including a letter he wrote to the Earl of Arundel in 1625 (which is printed in its entirety in this article), Thomson was not an agent for Sir Ferdinando Gorges and Captain John Mason, but rather an agent for the Council for New England as well as a principal patentee receiving a 6,000 acre grant. Christopher Levett was also a principal patentee. As recorded in the Council records dated 5th May 1623, Levett is "to be a principal patentee, and to have a grant of 6,000 acres of land." (16) In addition, Thomson served as an agent and attorney for the Council, governor of his own plantation at Piscataqua, and acting governor of the Massachusetts for the Council Lords until August 1623, when Robert Gorges arrived to claim his grant for the Massachusetts which extended for 10 English miles along the north-east side of the bay and 30 English miles inland. After Gorges return to England and death in 1624, Thomson may have reluctantly resumed his position as de facto or acting Governor for the Bay Colony as evidenced by the interest he displays in Massachusetts in his 1625 letter to Arundel. Thomson may also have served as a Scottish agent for "his Majesties Kingdome of Scotland" as well as for England. David Thomson is believed to have died in 1627/28. In a letter from the Privy Council of Scotland "To His Majestie Anent the Baronettis" dated 23 November 1624, several months prior to the death of King James, the following was proposed: "...And whereas we ar given to vnderstand that the country of New Scotland being dividit in two Provinces and eache province in severall Dioceises or Bishoprikes, and eache diocese in thrie Counteyis, and eache countey into ten Baronyis, everie baonie being thrie myle long vpon the coast and ten myle vp into the countrie, dividit into sex parocheis and eache paroche contening sax thousand aikars of land and that everie Baronett is to be ane Barone of some one or other of the saids Barroneis and is to haif therein ten thowsand aikars of propertie besydis his sax thowsand aikars belongeing to his burg of baronie To be holdin free blanshe and in a free baronie of your Majestie as the barronies of this Kingdome ffor the onlie setting furth of sex men towardis your Majesties Royall Colonie..." (17) Thomson’s 6,000 acres would be roughly equal to a parish as outlined by Sir William Alexander. However, Thomson’s Piscataqua plantation contained far more then 6,000 acres. The patent granted to David Thomson in December 1622 also included an island about one mile in length, today referred to as New Castle, NH, and 7 men that were to be sent over. According to Samuel Maverick, "Strawberry Banke is part of 6000 acres granted by Patent about ye yeare 1620 or 1621, to Mr. David Thompson... And having granted by Patent all the Island bordering on this land to the Midle of the River, he tooke possession of an Island comonly called the great Island and for the bounds of this side he went up the River to a point called Bloudy Point, and by the sea side about 4 milles he had also power of Government within his owne bounds..." (18) The point of land refered to as Bloody Point (now within the town of Newington, NH) is approximately 9 miles from Ordione Point where Thomson established his home, outbuildings and fort. Bloody Point may be the grant referenced in the Public Record Office in London, under Colonial, Vol. II., No. 16: "A Catalogue of such Pattentes as I know granted for making Plantacons in New England. The Councell of New England. Imps the Originall Patent granted to divers Lords some times in the Custody of Tho. Eyres, the Lords granted others. 1622. 1. A Pattent to David Thompson M Jobe, M Sherwood of Plimouth for a pt of Piscattowa Riuer in New England." The next patent cited is for "a Plantation at New Plimouth." The third dated 1628 concerns the new patent for "Massechusets Bay," and the 4th, 5th and 6th, and 7th "pattents" under the 1628 date involve territories (including Agawam) granted to either Captain John Mason, Sir Ferdinando Gorges or both. (19) Using Maverick’s statement to approximate the size of his grant, Thomson’s territories stretched out 4 miles by sea and 9 miles by land. If this land mass were in the shape of a rectangle, it would encompass approximately 36 square miles, or over 23,000 acres, considerably more than the 30 square miles proposed for the New Scotland Knights-Baronnet. In addition, Thomson Island in Boston Harbor is approximately one mile long, and over 1/2 mile wide in spots. A phrase written in a 23 November 1624 letter to King James by the Scottish Privy Council may also shed light on some of David Thomson’s activities on behalf of the Scottish Crown. It reads, in part, "...being no les hopefull the plantatioun of New Scotland in the narrest pairt of America alreadie discovered and surveyed be (by) some of the subjects of his Majesties Kingdome in Scotland joyning unto New England..." (20) Might Thomson be one of his Majesty’s Scottish subjects that "discovered" and surveyed this land? In Thomson’s 1625 letter to Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel, he makes reference to Newfoundland as well as "Kinnabecke, Amilcagen, Pemmiquid, Penobscot" which bordered or included the French territory of Acadia claimed by Sir William Alexander. Thomson also references, " a plantac’n at Mohigan... Neither is it farr in likelihood from the place I dwell in, over to the river of Canada; for the great lacke which is in the frenche mapps called lac de Champlaine is but a daye and a halfe journeying from my house. I intend God willing to see it in a moneth hence. It is soe long and large that whoe lives on the one syde cannot see the shoare on the other. There are divers great Islands in the same." (21) Based on his own words, it is clear that David Thomson had considerable knowledge of the northeast coast, including the territory proposed for New Scotland, which was finally granted to Sir William Alexander by King Charles Ist several months following his father, King James’ death. In my opinion, Thomson acted as an agent for the King as his step uncle David Foulis, the Baron Ingleby had before him. (Based on the presumption that he is David Thomson of Corstorphine.) However, Thomson’s task was to not only serve as courtier but to survey the intricacies of the coastal territory of the future New Scotland as well as New England, to investigate the territory for its natural resources, its mammals and fish, forests and medicinal plant life, and its mining potential, including stones and precious metals such as gold. As a well-connected scholar, world traveler, apothecary and alchemist, he was well suited for each of these roles. From 1621-1624, Sir Ferdinando Gorges was repeatedly asked to appear before the Parliamentary Grievance Committee, to answer questions concerning his monopolistic practices in regard to the Royal Charter for New England. In contrast, Thomson was was never censured but repeatedly "ordered" by the Council for New England to appear before the "Council Lords" (the Privy Council), a prestigious assignment requiring diplomacy and finesse among the most powerful men in the kingdom. This scenario is illustrated by the following sequence of recorded events: On 5th July 1622, the records of the Council for New England state, "It is ordered that David Thomson do attend the Lords… 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." (22) The next step in this sequence is found in the "Acts of the Privy Council of England, Volume 1," under 23rd October 1622. The Privy Council was meeting at Whitehall that day and all the principal members were present, including three noblemen who, two months later, named David Thomson, Gent., their attorney under the Massachusetts patent. These three included two Scottish nobles, the Lord Stewart (Duke of Lennox), and James the Lord "Marquisse" Hamilton, and England’s Earl Marshall, Thomas Howard, the Earl of Arundel. Also present was "Mr. Secretarie Calvert." (23) Based on Council for New England records, it can be presumed that the presenter of the petition to the Privy Council is David Thomson, who one week earlier, on the 16th of October had been granted "six thousand acres of land and one island in New England." "The Councell for the Affaires of New England, presenting their humble Petition this day unto the Board, and shewing, That whereas his majestie by his letters Patentes hath bin pleased to grant unto them the managing of the affaires of New England prohibiting all other his Subjectes, not Adventurers or Planters to frequent those Coastes, And that letters were written from the Board, to severall Townes of the west partes of the Kingdome, to conform themselves unto his majesties said Royall grant. Nevertheless sundrie irregular persons (Contrarie to the tenor of the said letters Patentes and the said letters written by the Board) haue this yeare sent and gone into those partes, And dispossessed some of the Shipps and Planters of their proper places and Committed other outrages, tending to the hinderance and great prejudice of the Plantation, as in their said Petition more at large is expressed. Upon this their information, It was this day ordered by their Lordships, that Mr. Attorney Generall, should make readie a Proclamation fitt for his majesties Signature, prohibiting all persons to resort unto the Coastes of New England, contrarie to his majesties said Royall grant." (24) The King acknowledged the petition on the 6 November 1622 with a "Proclamation Prohibiting Interloping and Disorderly Trading to New England in America." Ten days later, Thomson’s Patent was signed. On 26 June 1623, the record of the Council for New England meeting at Greenwich states, "The King judges well of the undertaking in New England." (25) The King was likewise taken with Christopher Levett’s plan to build a city there and call it York. "The King requests that he will by fair persuasion, win assistance from the county in a work so honorable to the nation and to the city of York." This city would be north by north east of Thomson’s plantation. Two years later, in his letter to Arundel, Thomson states in contrasting what would have become the City of York to Massachusetts that "Neither can anyplace wee yett know compare with it, all advantages considered. And where it has been proposed by some to yor Lo: that a publick plantacon be setled about Kinnabeck, be assured it comes farr short of the Messachusets." (26) George Calvert (later Lord Baltimore) was admitted as a member of the Council for New England on the same date Thomson was requested to obtain the King’s proclamation. He was clearly an associate of Thomson and considering his interest in colonization possibly a friend. Calvert, a Catholic and favorite of the King, was able to obtain a grant for territory in Newfoundland in an attempt to escape religious persecution. Though later in life he wrote that he was "a long time a man of sorrow," in 1623, he was Secretary of State for England and described as "very gay and gallant." (27) In a letter by him, preserved in the Autograph Collection at Arundel Castle, Calvert writes to a friend in a manner that clearly illustrates the madcap lifestyle of the King’s entourage. "I am my Lord Digby’s next neighbor, being both of us lodged in the Pallace, his Lordship over the scalding house, and I over the scolding house, for sure a contynuall dinne and brawling night and day was never heard in any civill country." Roiston, 13 October 1620. (28) Thomson’s 6,000 acre Piscataqua Plantation was underwritten, in part, by three Plymouth, England merchants: Abraham Colmer, Nicolas Sherwill and Leonard Pomeroy, who were each given 1/3rd an interest in 1/4th of the plantation as payment for their assistance. Mathematically speaking, each merchant owned 1/12th of the plantation to Thomson’s 3/4ths. These merchants agreed through Thomson’s Indenture to, "at their own charge, this present year, provide and send two men, with Thomson in the ship Jonathan of Plymouth, to New England…" Charles Dean states that the ship, Jonathan, was owned by Abraham Colmer and Nicolas Sherwill. Part Two of the Indenture further recites that the three merchants will "this present year, at their own charge provide and send three more men in the ship Providence of Plymouth, if they may be so soon gotten, or in some other ship…" It is reported that Edward Hilton came over in 1623 in the ship, Providence and Plymouth and later began a settlement at Dover Point, west of the Piscataqua Plantation. This ship was owned by Colmer and Sherwill as well as Leonard Pomeroy. William Hilton, Edward’s brother arrived at the Plymouth Plantation two years earlier in 1621, and later joined his brother in establishing a fishing business at Dover. On 12 March 1629/30, the Council for New England issued to Edward a patent known as the Squamscott Patent for this upland "River Piscataquack" territory. (29) Scant attention seems to have been paid to the fact that several of the most powerful members of King James’ Privy Council were also members of the Council for New England. Thomas Howard, the Earl of Arundel; the King’s cousin Ludvick Stuart, the Duke of Lennox; and James Hamilton, the Marquis of Hamilton were principal figures of influence on both Councils. Though Sir Ferdinando Gorges may have been a driving force for colonization, his monopolistic tendencies hindered his influence by outraging Parliament. It was clearly through the support of the King and his Privy Council that New England Council business was allowed to proceed, despite intense opposition. The Earl of Arundel, as the Earl Marshall for England, was charged with heraldry matters for the kingdom, just as the Lord Lyon is for Scotland. The Earl of Arundel was also at the center of British political, civic and cultural life and presided over the Building Commission set up by King James. Though Arundel’s manner could "be off-putting in the best of times," he was ready to give a scholar practical help. (30) He collected ancient Greek and Roman statues, and prized paintings. Consequently, painters, architects, and scholars were attracted "to his classical galleries like bees to a hive." One of the greatest artists of all time, Sir Peter Paul Rubens painted several portraits of Arundel and his wife, Aletheia Talbot, the Countess of Arundel. His estates became the Renaissance headquarters for England, hosting such figures as the Lord Chancellor and philosopher Francis Bacon, the noted author Ben Jonson, the great painter and architect Indigo Jones, and a host of other notables of the day. "Moreover, Arundel House was the first place Van Dyke visited when he arrived in England." (31) It was also the place where Francis Bacon "at the end of March 1626, being near Highgate on a snowy day, ...left his coach to collect snow with which he meant to stuff a fowl in order to observe the effect of cold on the preservation of its flesh. In so doing he caught a chill, and took refuge in Lord Arundel’s house where on 9 April he died of the disease which is now know as bronchitis." (32) Samuel Maverick, Thomson’s close friend who later married his widow Amias, was distantly related to the Earl of Arundel through his mother Mary Gye (Guy). (33) In his letter to the Earl of Arundel, though appropriately deferential, Thomson reveals that he was not only on intimate terms with the Earl, but had visited "his Lordship’s chambers" on many occasions. This is not surprising if David Thomson of Corstorphine is the Mr. David Thomson, Gentleman of Devon who settled in Piscataqua and later at Thomson’s Island in the Massachusetts Bay. Another of David Thomson of Corstorphine’s family ties was Thomas Hamilton, the Earl of Haddington, who was the Secretary of State of Scotland at the time of Thomson’s Patent for Piscataqua in New England. David’s father Reverend Richard Thomson married Agnes Foulis in 1604, two years after David entered the University of Edinburgh. Agnes Foulis came from a Midlothian family of conciderable wealth, influence and power. Her niece was Thomas Hamilton’s second wife. As mentioned in Part 2 of this series, Agnes’ nephew, David Foulis, was the King’s trusted "servant" who later became Baron Ingleby, treasurer to the King’s son, Prince Henry, and brother-in-law of Sir Thomas Challoner, the Prince’s tutor and governor. Toward the close of Queen Elizabeth’s reign, David Foulis was strongly supported by Lord Henry Howard, the future Earl of Arundel’s great uncle, who was not only a member of the Privy Council, but "was amongst those who early encouraged settlements. In 1610, the patent for the Plantation of Newfoundland contains Lord Henry Howard’s name, and that of Francis Bacon," whose essay "On Plantation" greatly influenced early colonial adventures. (34) In an undated letter from Foulis to Lord Howard, he writes, "Most honorable and woorthie 3 (Lord Henry Howard) …I shall ever pray for the continewance of your disposition to see the crown putt upon your owne work, and that I, in spetiall, who owe you so muche for my owne particular, and others for the generall, as yit unknowne to you, may ever live happy to see you and your busines flouryshe. Fairwell, noble lord, and I pray you love him who lovithe you, and so shall remain with resolution…to serve you, 9. (David Foulis) (Fastened with a band of paper, and sealed in two places with red wax, with impressions of a seal bearing three leaves.) (35) Fortunately for both Foulis and the young Thomas Howard, who at that time was styled Lord Maltravers, Lord Henry Howard (later the Earl of Northampton) survived life at Court "despite intrigues with Mary, Queen of Scots which brought his brother, Thomas, forth Duke of Norfolk to the scaffold." It seems the Earl of Arundel ‘s grandfather, Thomas, had hoped to save Queen Mary Stewart by becoming her forth husband. Thomas Howard, the future Earl of Arundel’s father, Saint Philip Howard also died in the Tower, but as a Catholic martyr in 1595. (36) David Thomson’s letter to the Earl of Arundel has been preserved in his collection of Autograph Letters. Fortunately for those interested in early colonial America, Mary F. S. Hervey had the letter transcribed and placed in the appendix to her book, published posthumously in 1921, entitled, "The Life Correspondence & Collections of Thomas Howard Earl of Arundel." The original manuscript of Thomson’s letter is housed in Arundel Castle, Sussex, England in the Duke of Norfolk’s library. Thomson’s letter is published in this article (both in print and on the world wide web) with the kind permission of the Duke of Norfolk. David Howarth, in his "Lord Arundel and His Circle", also published the opening lines of the letter in 1985. However, Howarth seems not to have understood that the author was a New England "Planter." Instead, he refers to Thomson as Captain Thomson (though the appellation "Captain" is not stated in the letter) and focuses on Thomson’s description of the marble he had come upon near Naemkeek (Salem, MA) and at other locations. (37) As a patron of the arts, collector of many of the world’s greatest paintings and sculpture, and member of the King’s Building Commission, according to Howarth, "Thomson knew his priorities; he knew what Arundel would really want to hear. Thus, he began his letter with an account of marble." In 1639, the great artist Van Dyke commemorated Arundel’s ventures into colonization in an illustrated painting. (38) Thomson’s letter is of profound cultural and historic importance. The manuscript provides a unique glimpse into early colonial life, and Thomson’s role in that history, which to date has focused primarily on the establishment of the New England fishing trade. Ironically, the "graye marble" to which he refers may not be marble at all, but rather the Porphyritic Greenstone of the ancients which was refered to as marble but contains embedded crystals of feldspar. This stone is found on the northeast side of Cape Ann and at nearby Marblehead, as described in Edward Hitchcock’s 1841 "Final Report on the Geology of Massachusetts." (39) David Thomson’s letter is Number 275 of Arundel’s "Autograph Letters." The first page seems to echo what Captain John Smith stated in 1616 in his Description of New England, that the Massachusetts country to him, was "the paradise of all those parts…" (40) Right honble Lo: desyring to answer honors expectaen & preforme my duetifull promise, I made bold to wrytt to yor ho: by the waye of Plymouth in England, and as I understand Mr. Colmer brought the same for London, together with an example of graye marble I found in this countrie neere to Naemkeek which is between Cape Anne and the Messachusets. But cannot learne if the same came to yor Lo: hande. I heare of farr better and of greater diversities about Poconoakit which is to the west of Cape Codd. I have seene a tobacco pype of a transparent stone lykest in my simple judgemt to pure whyte Alabaster, I enquyred the Salvage that had it, where he had it, he told me at Pokonokit, and that there was much of that sorte. I must acknowledge I could never have the convenience of seing the other syde of Cape Codd. Amongst other thinges yor Lo: desyred this last autume has taught us that noe man neede expect any better place then the Messachusets. The few planters that are seated in that Baye did usuallie in an howre or thereabouts make 5 or 6 gallons of wyne lyke to heighe Countre Frenche wyne. And though one man did it, yett 3 or 4 would make an end of it almost as speedilie as it was in doing. And their providence was such that they never saved any for wintr, noe, not soe much as to make Verius one bevverage. And thoughe they had store of codd whithin the bay amonst the Islands at their doors, herrings driven on shoare at their doores, Mackerell, Basse and large Eelles in aboundance, yet not any of them saved any for the winter. But the supaboundance of fowlle supplyed their defects and neglecte. And where two families by their owne acknowledgemt in ten dayes might have killed 120 deere or above, they were soe pitifull as to lett all goe but six. Since my arrivall to this countrey that place of Messachuset has caste foorthe two plantaens (plantations) the one being of about 60 psones, the second not much inferior, the third upon yeeilding his last breathe, the fourthe hopeful. The place it self is the onlie and sole place of the land woorthie praise, I meane of all wee yett knowe to the east of Cape Codd. The soylle wonderfullie fruitfull, cleere & deepe mould. The woode in places gone; sufficient ground for 10,000 people. Neither can anyplace wee yett know compare with it, all advantages considered. And where it has been proposed by some to yor Lo: that a publick plantacon be setled about Kinnabeck, be assured it comes farr short of the Messachusets. If his Ma(jes)tie and the Ryt Ho: his Ma(jes)ties most ho: Privie Counsell were truelie informed of the state of the Southe Colonie, the difficultie of ever bringing the same to some goodnes, something by reasonne of the unhealthfulnes of the Clyme, the distemperature of the Ayre there, the enemitie of the Salvages, the want of fishe for the maintenance of the people, which yeerly they come to fetche from this Countrie and Newfoundland, I am verely p(er)suaded his Ma(jes)tie would goe neere to remove all & settle them heere. There are so many pregnable reasons to sollicit the same. Butt wee fowr that are here should be unwilling of their Companie, it being a bodie composed…. Page 2 of the Thomson letter continues: composed of some few good people, many bade, amongst whome reignes excessif pryde in Apparell, the lyke never hard of in Europe. Excessive drunkenness when they can have it, how deere soever; other vices I dare not name. Yett dare I not excuse ourselfs of infinit abuses and vile enormities by promiscuous trading as well unfree as free, runagates that comes only and stayes to trade w(it)h the Salvages, spoylling the trade in sort that what the last yeere wee were wont to have for one thousand Beads wee must now give 6. Besydes the shippes that comes a fishing, where they frequent have cleene overthrowen all. They give an old pennie for a newe, which is to them great gaine, for the most part of what manie of them trades are victualls, imbezelled from their owners. The manifold inconveniences that insues heerupon are infinit. Their Company when Victualls drawes short, gives over going to Sea. The owners loosses, and are discouradged from further adventuring, little plate as brought home as formerlie. The planters having for the present noe other hopes to mainteine themselfs with neccessities, as apparell, pouder, shott, and noe meanes to transport cattell & more people, all I saye (are) utterly lyke to be overthrowne by the same, as lykewayes by their continuall bartering & trading with the Salvages peeces from 4 foote longe in the barroll to six foote, pistolls, swoords, pouder & shott, notwithstanding his Ma(jes)ties proclama’n. I speake no untruthe to yor Honor for I have taken peeces from some of them, and told them his Ma(jes)tie wills them to use their Bowes and not our peeces. They are growen soe expert as that they exceed most of the Englishe. And to leave them and come to our selfs, the planters, wee are lyke a bodie without a head, none to rule us, none to minister justice, infinit greevances amongst us, none to redresse, especiallie amongst the Brownists of Newplym’t. I have often called to mynd the speeches used in yor ho: chamber, speaking of the Soute Colonie: A Swoorde put in a madmans hand, a Chylds hand or a foolles hand is danngerous. What can be expected that a rude ignorant mechanicke can doe w(it)h a sharpe swoord of justice. The Complaints amongst them are soe many that to p(ar)ticularise would be tediuos to yor ho: upon Comannd it shalbe done. Only my humble and hartie prayer to yor ho: is you would be pleased to acquaint his Ma(jes)ties most ho: privie Counsell and procure some comiserac’n to be taken off us. Also that wee maye knowe his Ma(jes)ties pleasure of the continuance of us heere, which is impossible without more people. For the Salvages increasses daylie, wee diminish rather then otherwayes. Wee daylie discover in the countrie greater and greater multitudes of Salvages, also they beginne to growe verie arrogant and insult over some. Wee are dispersed 16 leagues, 15 leagues, 12 leagues, 7 leagues and 2 leagues asunder. And soe none of us is able therefore to adverteise one an othr or succor one an other, if need should requyre. If his Ma(jes)tie intend not that plantac’ns shall p(ro)ceed, and that some good people be not sent speedilie oute, for Gads sake most ho: Lo: let us receave soe much honor favor & happines as to knowe it, that wee maye either relinquishe all or use some meanes to prevent our utter destrucen and overthrowe. The final page concludes with the following: The onlie beneficiall places of trade are to the East about Kinnabecke, Amilcagen, Pemmiquid, Penobscot, and soe east to the river of Cannada, which the frenche yeerlie pulles from our mouthes; & none will adventure to drive them from it, for whosoever shall doe it shall but beate the bushe and others shall afterwards catche the birds. Also to the west of Cape Codd from Narrohgansett to Delawarre Baye the Dutche frequent and have a plantac(io)n about Hudsons river, under the name of New Netherlands, where they have a forthe (fort) of stone, divers peeces of ordnannce.... the shipps stayes some goes in pinnaces trading, the loades aboord in the shipps hold an earthe in maudes (baskets) upon their shoulders. This relation has bene confirmed by many and severall Salvages. Divers Salvages have also assured me of a plantac’n at Mohigan where is a man or two amongst others makes swoords, hatchets, arrowheads, for truck with long knives. Neither is it farr in likelihood from the place I dwell in, over to the river of Canada; for the great lacke which is in the frenche mapps called lac de Champlaine is but a daye and a halfe journeying from my house. I intend God willing to see it in a moneth hence. It is soe long and large that whoe lives on the one syde cannot see the shoare on the other. There are divers great Islands in the same. The River of Merameck comes from hence; the plentifullest river wee yett knowe, of Salmo(n), Sturgeon, Basse & Mullet, in their season. All the Salvages that are travellers constantly affirme this Countrie to be an Iland. I presume yor ho: will not imput it to indiscretion or too much boldnes to show yor lo: that in my opinion it were most necessarie that all the Land plantac’ns in the Countrie should be forced to drawe together to live in the Messachusets. That they might have one gnall (general) gouvernor, that none despached abroad should live under 40 50 or 60 in Companie, I meane of the fishermen - the carelessest people of all the rest, aptest to quarrell with the Salvages & to stealle their great kettles, skinnes, deeres suett & suchlyke, from them, as this yeere they have done. (But those Brownists of New Plym’t to conmtinue where they are, for as they desyre the Societie of none but such as are of their owne p’fession, soe I am assured non regares them or their fellowship.) Only it were fitt some discreete man sent from his Ma(jes)tie should oversee them. Cap’n Jhon Mason in Foster Lane, formerly gouvernor of a plantac’n in Newfoundland, and now as I understand in England, were a fitt instrum’t to this effect, for it is more then necessarie that whosoever shall undergoe such a charge should be experienced heerine. The work of undiscreet gouvernors and unskilfull, is lyke amongst us to undoe all, even in privat families. Thus comitting or necessities to yor ho: noble generous & pious considerac’n, my boldnes to yor honors clemencie, my tediousnes to yor Lo: wonted pacience, and yor ho: to Gods protection, I humbie rest Yor Lo: most duetifull Ser’t David Thomson. Plymesland in New England the first of Julie 1625 I had omitted to insert how that this yeere hardlie escaped great murder & bloodshed, at Cape Anne for stage roome. 16 or 17 muskateers came from Newplym’t, bothe p(ar)ties seemed not only resolute but desperat. By good fortune I was there accidently, and used many argum’ts on bothe sydes to dissuade such ungodlie, violent & unaswerable p(ro)ceedings. The daye & tyme, yea place, appointed to fight, on shoare. Barricades & Bulw"kes made. Shippes readie, not to faylle to playe their pts. These are the fruits of unrulie multitudes. The last yeere they scoft the gouvernor & his authoritie becaus he wanted power. (41) Reverend William Hubbard’s "General History of New England from the Discovery to MDCLXXX," covers the same incident Thomson recorded in his postscript. However, the resolution as told by Hubbard credits Conant and Pierce, not Thomson. Indeed, David Thomson’s presence at the incident is never mentioned! "In one of the fishing voyages about the year 1625, under the charge and command of one Mr. Hewes, employed by some of the West Country merchants, there arose a sharp contest between the said Hewes and the people of New Plymouth, about a fishing stage, built the year before about Cape Anne by Plymouth men, but was now, in the absence of the builders, made use of by Mr. Hewes’s company, which the other, under the conduct of Captain Standish, very eagerly and peremptorily demanded: for the Company of New Plymouth, having themselves obtained a useless Patent for Cape Anne about the year 1623, sent some of the ships, which their Adventurers employed to transport passengers over to them, to make fish there; for which end they had built a stage there, in the year 1624. The dispute grew to be very hot, and high words passed between them, which might have ended in blows, if not in blood and slaughter, had not the prudence and ((moderation)) of Mr. Roger Conant, at that time there present, and Mr. Pierce’s interposition, that lay just by with his ship, timely prevented. For Mr. Hewes had barricaded his company with hogsheads on the stagehead, while the demandants stood upon the land, and might easily have been cut off; but the ship’s crew, by advise, promising to help them build another, the difference was thereby ended. Captain Standish had been bred a soldier in the Low Countries… A little chimney is soon fired; so was the Plymouth Captain, a man of very little stature, yet of a very hot and angry temper." (42) In the Records of the Virginia Company of London, under the date of 1st of December 1619 is the following notation: "Mr. Deputy informed the Court that Capt: Tompson haveinge a good ship burthern 320 Tunn, the Committees att their meetinge have agreed with him if the Courte shall allow thereof to give him 1200 to transport them into Virginia Two hundred men; and for 50 Tunn fraight of goods in the said Ship 100 more, in all Thirteen hundred pound and to victual their men after that proporcon as by a not was shewed him, Capt Tompson promisinge to give Caution to the Company for such monneye as hee shall receive aforehand; And for pformance of the said Voyadge the said Capt: Tompson was demaunded when he would sett outt, who promised to be redy in Tilbury Hope in sixth of ffebruary next, and would stay there fower daies to take in such as should come, and fower daies more att Deale butt if above Tenn daies that then itt might be lawfull for him to departe, Demaundinge of the Company Eight hundred pounds in hand and five hundred pounds vppon certificate of the men and goods to be landed in Virginia wch hee insistinge vppon mr Threr (treausurer) in the behalfe of the Company made offer to give him Seaven hundreth pounds, and Six Hundreth vppon Certificate as aforesaid: He being so farr from exactinge of the Company that he promised that if they would lay into the Ship halfe a Tunn of Aquavitae for ther Sicke men hee would forbeare the present payment of the 100 (pounds) in question w(hi)ch the Courte promised to tp pforme…" (43) Might this Captain Tompson be the David Thomson? In David Thomson’s letter to the Earl of Arundel, he states, "If his Ma(jes)tie and the Ryt Ho: his Ma(jes)ties most ho: Privie Counsell were truelie informed of the state of the Southe Colonie, the difficultie of ever bringing the same to some goodnes, something by reasonne of… the want of fishe for the maintenance of the people, which yeerly they come to fetche from this Countrie and Newfoundland, I am verely p(er)suaded his Ma(jes)tie would goe neere to remove all & settle them heere." This and other statements make it clear that David was familiar with the Southern Colonies as someone who had actually been there. In addition, his information concerning the "Southe Colonie" settlers coming to the Northern Colony and Newfoundland to fish may have been derived from a report he would have received on his petition, as well as other issues brought before the court on the first of December 1619. Sir Ferdinando Gorges was present on that occasion. His concern was presented prior to Captain Tompson’s. The subject was fishing in Northern waters. A dispute had arisen because a Mr. John Delbridge was "purposinge to settle a pticuler Colony in Virginia desyringe of the Company that for the defrayinge some pt of his charges, that hee might be admitted to fish att Cape Codd. Which request was opposed by Sir Ferdinand George aleaginge that hee allwaies favoured Mr Delbridge butt in this hee thought himselfe somethinge touched that hee should sue to this Company, and not rather to him as proplie belonginge to the Nor: Collony to give libertie for the fishinge in that place… which was answered by mr Trer (treasurer), that the Comp: of the So: and North Plantacons are the one free of the other, And that the Tres (Treasurer’s) Pattent (s) is cleer that each may ffish within the other, the Sea being free for both. W(hi)ch if the No: Colony abridge them of this, they would take away their means and encouragement of sending of men…" (44) There is another reason to suspect that Captain Tompson and David Thomson may be one and the same. According to the Indenture which informs us of the particular details of Thomson’s funding for his Piscataqua plantation, he was to sail to New England in a ship called Jonathan. On "December Ye 23: 1619" the court records of the Virginia Company state: "The Charter party beinge drawn and now psented between Sr Edw: Sandys knt Threr and Sir Anthony Aucher, and Capt Tompson expressinge ye Coueñnte between the Compª : and the said Capt Thompson for fraight of the good Ship called Jonathan, and transportation of passengers; Mr Deputy Desired that Mr Threr beinge to seale yt for the vse of the Company, there might be an order of this Court to save him harmeless. Wch the Courte so willingly assented vnto yt they confirmed his securitie (beinge putt to ye question) by erec?con of hands." (45) As was stated in Part 1 of this series, we learn that David was in London in 1619 and later may also have been at Thomson’s Island according to testimony presented in 1650, when his son John laid claim to Thomson’s Island in Boston Harbor, Massachusetts. William Trevour, a sailor on the Mayflower and later Captain of his own ship, the William claimed he "took possession of the island in 1619 and declared the same (as the effect of my proceedings) to Mr David Thomson in London; on which information the said T. obtained a grant and patten for peaceable and quiet possession of said island to him and heirs forever." (46) This places Thomson in London in 1619, which is where Captain Tomson would have testified before the Virginia Company of London. Captain Thomson also set sail for Virginia in 1619. So the question becomes, was David Thomson traveling along the east coast of America in 1619? In additional testimony presented on the 13th July 1650, the Saggamore of Aggawam testified "that in the year 1619; or thereabouts I Remember I went in my owne person with Mr. David Thompson and then he took possession of the Island before Dorcester he likeing no other but that because of the Smale River and then no Indeans upon it or any wigwam or planting nor hath been any Endeans inhabited or claimed since but two years ago Harmlen an old Indean of Dorcester…" (47) The impression one gets of Captain Tompson is that he is aimiable and well liked, perhaps due to his willingness to compromise and the concern he showed by requesting aquavitae for the sick in lieu of money. In contrast, leafing through the pages of the Virginia Company Court records, that is not always the case. Captain Brewster and Captain Samuell Argoll seemed to be continually at each other’s throats and a Captain Bargraue petitioned the Court against the Adventurers of the Joint Stock Company. Sir Thomas Smith, the Company Treasurer, not only fought with the Court about meeting at his house, the Auditor called his accounts into question and Sir Edward Sandys assumed the post. Particularly damning is Mr. George Chambers request "to make examinacion of some abuses offred to their Corporacion by the Mr and Marriners of the Ship…" Several months after Captain Tompson’s charter party was approved by the Virginia Company, on March 19th, Sandys approached the Company with a special request: "Mr. Thrrer signified that accedentally haveinge some Conference with ye Right Hon: the Earle of Arrundell itt pleased his Lo: to demonstrate the exceedinge much love hee beareth to the Accon, insomuch that hee could be content to come sitt amongst them; Hee therefore moved that the Court would admitt his Lo: into their Society, wch being putt to ye question was joyfully embraced by general consent, and referred according to order to a great Courte for electing of his Lo: to be one of the Counsell. Hee Allso acquainted My Lord of London of the Companies intent for the sendinge ouer Mynisters, and their request vnto his Lo: for his good furtherance and assistance therin together wth what maintenance, they had there ordeyned for them, wch he very well approved of, promisinge to his vttmost power to doe what lyeth in him for the good of that Plantacon." (48) For Arundel to have demonstrated "much love" for the Virginia Company means that he must have heard a great deal about their undertakings. In his letter to Arundel, David Thomson exercises decorum in addressing his Lordship, but he also writes volumes with easy and familiarity. At one moment he is amusing and satirical, at another moment deadly serious in revealing the gravity of the planters situation. Thomas Howard, the Earl of Arundel was known for his austerity in manner and dress. Yet formality aside, David writes as if to an old confidant, revealing his distaste for the extravagant clothing and lifestyle of the Southern colonists, "being a bodie composed of some few good people, many bade, amongst whome reignes excessif pryde in Apparell, the lyke never hard of in Europe. Excessive drunkenness when they can have it, how deere soever; other vices I dare not name," he writes. This statement also affirms Thomas Morton’s claim, mentioned in Part 1 of this series that David was also a "traveler." (49) In 1619, Captain Tompson demonstrates a willingness to both serve and please, but his charter party extravaganza appears to be a new adventure for him at that time. If the author of the 1625 letter and the Captain are one and the same, experience vividly taught him the farcical nature and possible tragic consequences born from a lack of civility and social order. As he states, "I have often called to mynd the speeches used in yor ho: chamber, speaking of the Soute Colonie: A Swoorde put in a madmans hand, a Chylds hand or a foolles hand is dangerous…" In 1619, his Lordship, the Earl of Arundel is anxious to assist the Virginia colonists with a supply of ministers. David Thomson of Corstorphine, the minister’s son, would have easily assessed that ministers were sorely needed. For me, the images of Captain Tompson, Mr. David Thomson "of Plymouth in the County of devon gentleman of those Parte," and David of Corstorphine, Scotland easily meld into one seamless image. Perhaps it is more than coincidental that his closest friend in New England was Samauel Maverick, also the son of a minister, the beloved Rev. John Mavericke who came over in 1630 with his wife and children. (50) Through David’s letter to the Earl of Arundel, we discover that though life in New England had opened his eyes to the cruelty, stupidity and vices of the settlers in his wilderness paradise, somehow his idealism, courage and basic sense of human decency are maintained. David puts himself at risk by approaching the natives to give back arms sold them by settlers, such as Thomas Morton. "I have taken peeces from some of them, and told them his Ma(jes)tie wills them to use their Bowes and not our peeces," he states. In Part 1 of this series, it was noted that the entry of the Council for New England dated 5th of July 1622 "ordered that David Thomson ...solicit the Lords for procuring from his Majesty a proclamation concerning the fishermen of the western parts." (51) The petition was acknowledged by the King on the 6 November 1622 with a "Proclamation Prohibiting Interloping and Disorderly Trading to New England in America." The second part of the King’s Proclamation echoes the language used by Thomson in his letter to Arundel on speaking of the "promiscuous trading" of the "sundry interlopers, irregular and disobedient persons" who frequent those coasts: "...they did not forebear to barter away to the savages swords, pikes, muskets, fowling pieces, match powder, shot, and other warlike weapons, and teach them to use;thereof; not only to their own present punishment, divers of them being shortly after slain by the same savages whom they had so taught, and with the same weapons which they had furnished them withal, but also to the hazard of the lives of our good subjects already planted there... We, for reformation and prevention...and for the more clear declaration of our kingly resolution...do hearby staightly charge and command that none of our subjects whatsoever,...frequent those coasts, to trade or traffic with those people, or to intermeddle in the woods or any of the freehold of any of the planters or inhabitants, otherwise by the license of the said council or according to the orders estabished by our privy council...(52) Despite the neglect of historians to chronicle David Thomson’s involvement in preventing an altercation over stage room at Cape Anne, we learn from his postscript to Arundel that David prevented bloodshed when over 16 or 17 musketeers from the Plymouth Plantation descend hotheadedly on the settlers. The musketeers were headed by Miles Standish who though known for his temper, respected Thomson. As Winslow notes, when the Plymouth Colony became desperate for want of food, Miles Standish, at the request of their Governor had gone "to buy provisions for the refreshing of the Colony." He returned "accompanied with one Mr. David Tomson, a Scotchman, who also that Spring began a Plantation twenty-five leagues northeast from us, near Smiths Isles, at a place called Pascatoquack, where he liketh well..." (53) Though Thomson’s adventures in New England began with excitement and promise, they came to a tragic close. He died in 1627/8 from unknown causes and left his widow Amias a target for unscrupulous and unwanted attention after her husband’s death. Charles Knowles Bolton in his book, "The Real Founders of New England," states that "she was an heiress after Thomson’s death, and suitors came by water from all about the Bay to pay their court to here." (54) However, "David Thomson’s widow," according to Governor Bradford, supported the arrest of Thomas Morton for selling firearms to the natives…a practice that her husband frowned upon as revealed in his 1625 letter to Arundel. (55) This act plus the possible dismissal of him as a suiter may have inspired revenge on the part of Morton whose ego and bravado were matched by his lewdness and arrogance. Despite Morton’s praise of Thomson as a Gentleman and Scholar, his widow may not have been afforded the same respect, and her husband may have been surreptitiously ridiculed. Amias appears to have been made an object of public scorn at Morton’s May Day Merry Mount activities. In his book, New English Canaan, Morton tells of a poem he "fixed to a Maypole" which "being Enigmattically composed, puzzled the Seperatists most pitifully to expound it…" Rise Oedipeus, and if thou
canst unfould, Bolton suggests that "Scilla solitary on the ground," referred to Amias following David’s death. Her new "parramore" would be Samuel Maverick who had to be as strong as Sampson and as patient as Job to handle such a woman. David was "Caribdis underneath the mould," according to Bolton. (57) I suspect that "Oedipeus" who was instructed to rise (from the dead) was also meant to be a satirical allusion to David, the Gentleman and Scholar, who if he were indeed from Corstorphine, would have entered the University of Edinburgh in 1602 as a Philosophy major. (58) Consequently, he could be described as a "reader of riddles" which is how Morton describes Oedipus further on in Chapter XIV, Of the Revells of New Canaan. And because the poem was "Enigmattically composed" Thomson could also be the husband whose death is lamented "as Niobe for her children." "Oedipus is generally received for the absolute reader of riddles, who is invoaked: Silla and Caribdis are two dangerous places for seamen to incounter, neere unto Vennice; and have bin by poets formerly resembled to man and wife. The like licence the author challenged for a paire of his nomination, the one lamenting for the losse of the other as Niobe for her children. Amphitrite is an arme of the Sea, by which the newes was carried up and downe of a rich widow, now to be tane up or laid downe…and, the Coast lying circuler, all our passage to and froe is made more convenient by Sea and Land. Many aimed at this marke; but hee that played Proteus best and could comply with her humor must be the man that would carry her; and hee had need have Samsons strength to deal with a Dallila, and as much patience as Job that should come there, for a thing that I did observe in the life-time of the former. But marriage and hanging, (they say,) comes by destiny and Scogans choise tis better (than) none at all…. And this the whole company of Revellers at Ma-re Mount knew to be the true sense and exposition of the riddle that was fixed to the Maypole, which the Seperatists were at defiance with…" (59) David Thomson’s request to Arundel for additional settlers was answered, soon after his death, by Mr. John Endicott’s arrival "with sundry ships" in 1629 to settle Neumkeak, (Salem) a town infamous at the close of the seventeenth century for the witchcraft trials. The following year, John Winthrop arrived with a Massachusetts Charter that eventually grew into Boston and its thriving suburbs. Meanwhile back in England, in 1626 the newly crowned King Charles sent Arundel to the Tower when Lord Maltravers, his son, "suddenly appeared with Lady Elizabeth Stuart as his wife." She was Ludwick Stuart, the Duke of Lennox’s niece. However, King Charles had planed for her to marry Lord Lorn and was furious, sent Arundel to the Tower and later banished him to the country until his temper cooled and his need for Arundel developed following the Duke of Buckingham’s murder in 1628. (60) Ironically, the newcomers to Massachusetts Bay, a population which David Thomson had ardently wished for, challenged the rights of the old planters to their territories and religion. This lead to many hardships for Amias, her second husband Samuel Maverick, and their combined families. Maverick joined with Dr. Robert Child, David Yale (father of the patron of Yale University, Elihu Yale) and others in challenging the rigid and intolerant theocracy of Massachusetts law and policy. They signed a Remonstrance, or petition, that was presented to the General Court in May 1646, which declared that "the Colony had no 'setled forme of government according to the lawes of England'; that no 'body of lawes' secures them enjoyment of their lives, liberties and estates, and no settled rules of judicature provide due process; for which many are in fear of arbitrary government." Maverick received a stiff fine and was imprisoned briefly. (61) Eventually, Amias and Samuel Maverick were forced into exile. They left their island haven in Massachusetts Bay for the Province of Maine, controlled by Gorges. Following the Reformation, Maverick was made a Royal Commissioner by Charles II and returned to Massachusetts on behalf of the Crown. Samuel and Amias eventually settled in Manhattan, in a home gifted to him by the Duke of York, who later became King James II. On 15 October 1669, Samuel Maverick wrote from "N. Yorke" to a fellow Royal Commssioner Colonel Nicolls who has secured Manhatten from the Dutch: Ever honored Sir: May it please yow to take notice that yors of 12th July I receaved, for which I humbly thanke yow as alsoe for the favor yow have been pleased to show me in procuring for me from His Royall Highnesse the guift of the house in the Broadway. I beseech yow when yow see a fitt opportunity present my most humble service to His Royall Highnes with many thanks for that his favor towards me, and I assure it wilbe a greate rejoycing to me if (yett before I die) I may be any wayes servisable to His Ma(j)ties or His Royall Highnes in these p(a)rts, or any where else..." (62) Maverick may have used, on at least one occasion, David Thomson’s coat of arms in his official capacity as a Royal Commissioner, perhaps in memory of the role David had once played in the colonies. As the husband of Thomson’s widow; early colonial practice allowed for this use. What is unique about the arms is the use of an ouroboros, a snake eating its own tail, in the chief, the upper portion of the seal. (Further details of this seal will be discussed in Part 4.) The ouroboros is the ancient symbol of alchemy used since Cleopatra and long before. But to many 17th century hermetics, this was a mark of scientific inquiry, the search for a universal panacea to mankind’s ills. The vision that Maverick shared with David Thomson of a just, safe, and sane society followed him, and as the record shows, inspired many of his actions to the end of his days. SOURCES: 1. Ben Jonson Selected Works, edited by Harry Levin. (Randon House, New York 1938) p. 871 See Levett, Christopher. Voyage to New England, 1623-1624. "Maine in the Age of Discovery." (Portland: Maine Historical Society 1988) p. 38. 2. W.W. Clayton. History of York County Maine, Maine. (Everts & Peck, Philadelphia 1880) p. 15 3. Robert Charles Anderson. The Great Migration Begins. (NEHGS, Boston 1995) Volume II, p 1321 4. "Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Period, 1574 - 1660." Edited by W. Noel Sainsbury. (Longman and Green, Longman and Roberts: London 1860) pp. 28, 88 5. Bradford letter. American Historical Review, Volume 8 (1903):294-301. 6. Charles Deane. Indenture of David Thomson and Others. (Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society: Boston, May 1876). p. 364 7. Clayton. History of York County Maine, Maine. p. 17 8. Deane. Indenture of David Thomson and Others. p. 366 9. Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Vol. IX, A.D. 1610 – 1613. Edit. David Masson. (HMGRH, Edinburgh 1889) p. 18 10. Ibid. p. 377 11. Ibid. p 531 12. James Phinney Baxter. Sir Ferdinando Gorges and his Province of Maine. (Burt Franklin: New York 1967 reprint of 1890 ed.) p. 58 13. Facsimile: letter dated 4th July 1637, signed by Stirling, Gorges, etc., Massachusett Historical Society Manuscript Collection. 14. Clarence S. Brigham. The Records of the Council for New England. (American Antiquarian Society: Worcester, MA 1912) pp. 241-243 15. Baxter. Sir Ferdinando Gorges. p. 63 16. Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Period, 1574 - 1660. p. 45 17. "Royal Letters, Charters, and Tracts, Relating to the Colonization of New Scotland, and the Instituition of the Order of the Knights Baronets of Nova Scotia, 1621 - 1638." Edited by David Laing. (G. Robb: Edinburgh 1867) p. 18. 18. Samuel Mavericke. "A Description of New England." New England Historical and Genealogical Register, Volume 39. (NEHGR: Boston 1885) pp. 36-37. 19. "A Catalogue of such Pattentes as I know granted for making Plantacons in New England." The Councell of New England. Public Record Office: London 1860) Colonial, Vol. II., No. 16. 20. "Royal Letters, Charters, and Tracts." p. 20. 21. Mary F. S. Hervey. "The Life, Correspondence & Collections of Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel." (The University Press: Cambridge 1921) Appendix VII, Autograph Letters, Arundel Castle, No. 275. Letter of David Thomson to the Earl of Arundel, from Plymesland in New England, 1st July 1625. 22. Deane. Indenture of David Thomson and Others. pp. 360-61. 23. Acts of the Privy Council of England, Volume 1. A. D. 1613-1680. edited by W. L. Grant. First publ. HMSO, London 1908. (Kraus Reprint LTD: Liechtenstein 1966) p. 55 24. Ibid. 25. Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Period, 1574 - 1660. p. 47 26. Ibid. Also, 1625 Letter of David Thomson to the Earl of Arundel. 27. Charles Knowles Bolton. "The Founders, Portraits of Persons Born Abroad who Came to the Colonies in North America Before the Year 1701." Vol. 1. (Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc: Baltimore 1976) 28. Geo. Calvert. Roiston 13 October 1620. Autograph Letter No. 250. Arundel Castle. Transcribed February 2000 by Sara Rodgers, Assistant Librarian, Arundel Castle Library. Published by kind permission of His Grace the Duke of Norfolk. 29. The Great Migration Begins. pp. 947-955 30. David Howarth. "Lord Arundel and His Circle." (Yale University Press: New Haven and London 1985) p. 121 31. Ibid. p. 2 32. The Dictionary of National Biography. Edited by Sir Leslie Stephen and Sir Sidney Lee. (Oxford Univ. Press: London 1964) Vol. I. p. 33. Gary Boyd Roberts. "The Royal Descents of 500 Immigrants to the American Colonies or the United States Who Were Themselves Notable or Left Descendants Notable in American History." (Genealogical Publishing Company: Baltimore 1993) p. 295 34. "The Life, Correspondence & Collections of Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel." p. 147 35. "Correspondence of King James IV. of Scotland with Sir Robert Cecil and Others in England during the Reign of Queen Elizabeth." edited by John Bruce. (Camden Society, J.B. Nichols and Son: London 1849.) p. 52 36. "The Life, Correspondence & Collections of Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel." pp. 20-21, pedigree chart. 37. "Lord Arundel and His Circle." p. 186 38. Ibid. p. 167 39. Edward Hitchcock. "Final Report on the Geology of Massachusetts." (J.S.&C. Adams:Amherst 1841) p. 152 40. J. S. Barry. "The History of Massachusetts, The Colonial Period." (Phillips, Sampson and Company: Boston 1855) p. 22 41. "The Life, Correspondence & Collections of Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel." Appendix VII, Autograph Letters, Arundel Castle, No. 275. 42. Rev. William Hubbard. A General History of New England from the Discovery to MDCLXXX. (Reprint Edition: Arno Press: NY 1972, Original from the Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Vol V of the 2nd series, Boston MDCCXV) 43. Records of the Virginia Company of London. Edited by Susan Myra Kingsbury. Vol 1, Part A. (Government Pring Office: Washington 1906) pp. 277-278 44. Ibid. p. 277 45. Ibid. p. (p 289) 46. New England Historical and Genealogical Society, Vol. 9, July 1855. p. 248. 47. Ibid. 48. Records of the Virginia Company of London. p. 317 49. Thomas Morton. New English Cannan. (Holland 1637) Reprinted: (Amsterdam: Da Capo Press 1969). Chapter II, p. 20 50.The Great Migration Begins. Volume II, p 1241-1243 41. Indenture of David Thomson and Others. p. 360-361 52. Foundations of Colonial America. A Documentary History. Vol 1, Part 2 Northeastern Colonies. Edit. W. Kieth Kavenaugh. (Chelsea House: New York 1983) pp 515-516. 53. Indenture of David Thomson and Others. p. 362. 54. Governor Bradford’s Letter Book in Col. Hist. Soc. III. 63. 55. Charles Knowles Bolton. "The Real Founders of New England." (F. W. Faxon Company: Boston 1929) p. 91 56. New English Cannan. Chap. XIV. p. 133 57. The Real Founders of New England. p. 91 58. Thomas Craufurd. History of the University of Edinburg from 1580 to 1646. (Edinburgh: A. Neill & Co. 1808) p. 55. See also "Extracts from the Records of the Burgh of Edinburgh, A.D. 1589 to 1603" (Corporation for the City of Edinburgh, Oliver and Boyd: London 1927) p. 312. Rev. Charles Rogers. Register of the Collegiate Church of Crail. (Grampian Club: London, 1877) pp. 3-4. 59. New English Cannan. Chap. XIV. p. 136-137. 60. Lord Arundel and his Circle. p. 192 61. Bingham, Hiram. Elihu Yale, The American Nabob of Queen Square. (Dodd, Mead & Company: New York 1939) pp. 5, 6, 7 Also: Samuel Eliot Morison. Builders of the Bay Colony. ( Houghton Mifflin: Boston 1930). pp. 251, 256 62. "Documents Relative to the Colonial Historyof the State of New York Procured in Holland, England and France." Edited by John Romryn Brodhead. (Weed Parsons and Company: New York 1853) Volume III, p. 185 PHOTOGRAPH: BEAVER PHOTOGRAPHY WEST SUSSEX Autograph Letters, Arundel Castle, No. 275. Letter of David Thomson to the Earl of Arundel, from Plymesland in New England, 1st July 1625. PUBLISHED BY THE KIND PERMISSION OF THE DUKE OF NORFOLK |