Baby of the Beach, Home Page!

Jonathan Dunham alias Singletary
©2010-2024 Doug Wilson

Jonathan Dunham alias Singletary and Mary Bloomfield are born just two days shy of two years apart. During their childhood, he lives in Salisbury and Haverhill and she in Newbury, of Essex County, Massachusetts. This is likely where he learns something of construction and milling as there is considerable mill construction and operation along the rivers there. At the age of 19 and 17, respectively, he and Mary start their family in Haverhill with Esther and Mary. They move briefly to Connecticut where they have two more girls, Ruth and Eunice, and where he may have built a house and mill. Upon their move to Woodbridge, New Jersey, he builds the house and mill for which he is known, serves as town clerk, and has some of his more controversial exploits. It is in Woodbridge that their four boys are born - Jonathan, David, Nathaniel, and Benjamin. Mary dies there in 1705 at age 63 and he in 1724 at age 84, survived by just three of their eight children.

To me, he seems the embodiment of the American character. At various times throughout the many decades of his life he demonstrates courage, faith, fortitude, loyalty, industriousness, perseverance, and determined independence. Yet he is but one representative of the ingenious, self-reliant yeomen, women, and their children that made colonial America the birthplace of a great democracy. He is also someone several puritans, researchers, historians, and genealogists have most unfairly characterized. I trust an objective review of the documentation offered helps to set the record straight on the extraordinary and exemplary character of this individual.

For a possible explanation of his name change to Dunham alias Singletary, please see the discussion on the origins of Jonathan's father, Richard Singletary.

Select a title below to explore some of the events and controversial episodes of his full life or open all sections and browse.

1640-1649: Childhood in Salisbury

1650-1659: Adolescence in Haverhill of Puritan New England

1660-1669: Young Adulthood, the Trials of John Godfrey and a Move to Connecticut

This decade follows the apparent acquittal of John Godfrey on witchcraft charges and years of strange encounters, cursing speeches, drunkenness, stealing, and problematic business deals between Godfrey and his neighbors throughout the county. (Upham, p.429; Hall, p.114; Demos, p.36-50)

The first half of this decade Jonathan and Mary begin raising their young family together in Haverhill. They are likely living with his parents as court records dated October 8, 1662, state "The warrant was left at Jonathan Singlltary's father's house, where Jonathan resided." (Ray, v.3 p.6)

In March 1661, John Godfrey successfully sues Edward Clarke over a half paid debt of corn and wheat that he wanted put in a tub at Goodman Singletree's. This is likely Jonathan Singletary as court records over the next two years seem to associate Jonathan with this band of corn. John Griffin and Job Tiler testify to witnessing partial payment at Clarke's house. It seems a typical example of how Godfrey involves multiple people and seems reluctant to settle the deal without going to court. (Ray, v.2 p.274)

On May 5, Jonathan's cousin, Philip Cooke, is baptized by Jonathan "Matchless" Mitchell at First Church of Cambridge. He is the second of that name to have been born into that family group. Sadly, the baptism is just one week before the death of Susanna's young niece, Sarah Cooke. (Savage, p.449) Jonathan will later recall a sermon by Mitchell that provides him some comfort while in the Ipswich jail. Perhaps the baptism of his cousin is the very occasion of the reassuring sermon and/or if they were yet there for a service for Sarah. This also provides us more evidence of Susanna's connection with the elder Phillip of that town and that Jonathan may have travelled to Cambridge with his mother for the baptism of her nephew.

June 5, Charles II is restored to the throne. Upon receiving word, the inhabitants of New Plymouth declare themselves loyal subjects. Just three days later laws against Quakers are repealed as Charles expresses his displeasure regarding such an expression of religious prejudice in the governance of the colonies. (Plimouth Plantation)

On December 29, a second daughter, Mary, is born to Jonathan and Mary. She will die within two years, perhaps in birth or shortly thereafter as there is no record of her death. Certainly she passed sometime during the extended controversy with Godfrey already unfolding since another by that name is born in early 1664. (MVRP) What effect these troubles had upon her death or her death upon Jonathan's actions one can only wonder. We do know that Jonathan and Mary's next child will not be born in Massachusetts.

Just two and a half months later, Jonathan, his father, and father-in-law have some difficult dealings with Godfrey in order to settle a dispute over a band of corn in a barter between Godfrey and Clarke. Upon Feb. 18, 1662, Richard Singletary and Thomas Bloomfield are in Ipswich as agents for Jonathan Singletary, who is then in that town's jail upon several executions of John Godfrey. They tender said Godfrey a parcel of land in satisfaction of these executions. Richard recalls in later testimony their discussion as follows. (Ray, v3 p.27)

John Godfrey said, "Ye land I will never meddle wth except ye Law constraineth me to take it." And so turned his back.
"Nay stay, John," said one of us "and let us have a few words with you. Our coming is to make a full and final end between Jonathan and you if we can without any more law."
"Well," said Godfrey, "as for ye land I will not meddle with but if you will fetch me or pay me in goods for these executions which he is now in prison upon, I will give him a full and general acquittance of all debts and dues and all things, etc."
Godfrey said he would take the goods whenever they were brought to him.

While Jonathan is in Ipswich jail, Richard Singletary and Thomas Bloomfield come to John Todd’s house for some goods to redeem their son out of prison. Todd delivers to Thomas Bloomfield a hundred odd yards of canvas, which the latter took away, both promising to pay Todd for it. At Todd's house, Anthony Austin asks Thomas Bloomfield to whose account the canvas is to be charged. Bloomfield replies that it did not matter. Austin, having Singletary’s account ready at hand, charged it to him. According to court records, Anthony Austin makes a deposition to this effect and a copy is made, Feb. 2, 1663, by Robert Lord, cleric. Austin will swear to it in Ipswich court, Sept. 29, 1663, before Robert Lord, cleric. Lord later deposes that he was at Mr. Wilson’s when Richard Singletary and Thomas Bloomfield were there to see after redeeming Jonathan out of prison. Lord had part of the goods for fees and the rest was delivered to John Godfrey and the keeper of the prison. (Ray, v.3, p.214)

And Jonathan will later recall this curious incident with Godfrey while he sits in the Ipswich jail. (Upham, v.1 p.434)

Date the fourteenth the twelfth month, '62. -- The Deposition of Jonathan Singletary, aged about 23, who testifieth that, I being in the prison at Ipswich this night last past between nine and ten of the clock at night, after the bell had rung, I being set in a corner of the prison, upon a sudden I heard a great noise as if many cats had been climbing up the prison walls, and skipping into the house at the windows, and jumping about the chamber; and a noise as if boards' ends or stools had been thrown about, and men walking in the chambers, and a crackling and shaking as if the house would have fallen upon me.
I seeing this, and considering what I knew by a young man that kept at my house last Indian Harvest, and, upon some difference with John Godfre, he was presently several nights in a strange manner troubled, and complaining as he did, and upon consideration of this and other things that I knew by him, I was at present something affrighted; yet considering what I had lately heard made out by Mr. Mitchel at Cambridge, that there is more good in God than there is evil in sin, and that although God is the greatest good, and sin the greatest evil, yet the first Being of evil cannot weane the scales or overpower the first Being of good: so considering that the author of good was of greater power than the author of evil, God was pleased of his goodness to keep me from being out of measure frighted. So this noise abovesaid held as I suppose about a quarter of an hour, and then ceased: and presently I heard the bolt of the door shoot or go back as perfectly, to my thinking, as I did the next morning when the keeper came to unlock it; and I could not see the door open, but I saw John Godfre stand within the door and said, 'Jonathan, Jonathan.'
So I, looking on him, said, 'What have you to do with me?'
He said, 'I come to see you: are you weary of your place yet?'
I answered, 'I take no delight in being here, but I will be out as soon as I can.'
He said, 'If you will pay me in corn, you shall come out.'
I answered, 'No: if that had been my intent, I would have paid the marshal, and never have come hither.'
He, knocking of his fist at me in a kind of a threatening way, said he would make me weary of my part, and so went away, I knew not how nor which way; and, as I was walking about in the prison, I tripped upon a stone with my heel, and took it up in my hand, thinking that if he came again I would strike at him.
So, as I was walking about, he called at the window, 'Jonathan,' said he, 'if you will pay me corn, I will give you two years day, and we will come to an agreement.’
I answered him saying, 'Why do you come dissembling and playing the Devil's part here? Your nature is nothing but envy and malice, which you will vent, though to your own loss; and you seek peace with no man.'
'I do not dissemble,' said he: 'I will give you my hand upon it, I am in earnest.'
So he put his hand in at the window, and I took hold of it with my left hand, and pulled him to me; and with the stone in my right hand I thought I struck him, and went to recover my hand to strike again, and his hand was gone, and I would have struck, but there was nothing to strike: and how he went away I know not; for I could neither feel when his hand went out of mine, nor see which way he went."

As Upham describes it in a discussion of the witchcraft hysteria of the time, "there is one particularly interesting item in Singletary's deposition. It illustrates the value of good preaching. This young man, in his gloomy prison, and overwhelmed with the terrors of superstition, found consolation, courage, and strength in what he remembered of a sermon, to which he had happened to listen, from Matchless Mitchel.' It was indeed good doctrine; and it is to be lamented that it was not carried out to its logical conclusions, and constantly enforced by the divines of that and subsequent times." (Upham, v.1 pp.434-437) In the context of John Godfrey's odd behaviors and taunting ways, one might otherwise see how faith can make room for reason to confront an antagonist rather than be overwhelmed by superstition or attempts to terrorize. Why do so many "divines" today rely so little on this Christian faith? One wonders what faith it is upon which these "divines" do rely for all this time?

The Ipswich jail is just the second in the county, built ten years earlier in 1652-3. The structure is round and of three stories, with height and windows similar in design to the watch-house nearby. From the description above, it would seem there is a cell on the first floor and Jonathan is the only prisoner kept there that night with no keeper in attendance. This jail becomes so infamous for a holding cell for witches awaiting trial and execution that some say the very ground upon which it stands is yet haunted today. (Bennett; Arrington, v.1 p.48)

On March 20, Richard Singletary and Susanna, his wife, depose that "John Godfrey being occasionally at their house said, concerning the corn in controversy, that he thought he should never get it of Goodman Clarke for he would pay him in papers as he did the last year. Godfrey said several times, 'I would rather it were in a heap in ye street and all ye town hogs should eat it than he should keep it in his hands.'" (Ray, v.3 p.40) Eleven days later the court in Ipswich heard the case of John Godfrey v. Jonathan Singletary for a debt of £8 in wheat and Indian corn. The verdict is for Singletary. (Ray, v.3 p.39)

April 8, Richard and Susanna convey to Jonathan's wife, Mary, 150 acres of upland and meadowland in Haverhill "up ye river to the west end of town in ye 3d division." Eighty acres of this land was bounded by the lots of Theophilus Satchwell and Thomas Lilford, 70 acres on the south side of Spicket River, and nearly seven acres of "accomodations" belonging to it. [probably a village houselot and access to common grounds] (Perley, v.3 p.1087) It is difficult to know if this first parcel of land is the same land Jonathan's father offered to John Godfrey to settle their differences two months earlier. Perhaps it is just coincidence that later the same month Richard describes that offer in testimony in the case.

At about this time yet seemingly of a separate matter, Edward Youmans encounters John Godfrey with Jonathan Singletary coming out of Rowley, and deponent asks if said Godfrey might lend him five shillings and he says "he could not for he had lent Jonathan Singletary all the money he had." (Ray, v.3 p.6-7) Most curious here is that Godfrey would lend any money to Jonathan when he considered Jonathan already in debt to him or that Jonathan would borrow from Godfrey while their last deal remains unresolved.

In May, John Godfrey says to Abraham Whitaker that he gave Jonathan Singletary the £8 that Edward Clark owed him, but then says that if he had it in his hands again, Singletary should never have it.

June 10 the commissioners of Haverhill find for John Godfrey when Edward Clark sues him "for not coming to receive a parcel of wheat and Indian corn due upon bond" from "March 1, last." Godfrey delays the proceeding to see that Jonathan Singletary was in attendance. (Ray, v.3 pp.39-40)

Come October 8, John Godfrey sues Jonathan over a bond that Godfrey assigned to Jonathan and was due from Edward Clark to Godfrey (the band of corn?) and for refusing to give him security. As a result, the court orders an attachment of Jonathan’s land lying about a mile beyond the river called Hook’s meadow river, and abutting the river Merrimac on one end and joining next to Goodman "Souhell" (Henry Sewall or Theophilus Sacthwell misspelled?) on one side. The warrant for the attachment is left at Jonathan Singeltary's father's house, where Jonathan resides. (Ray, v.3 p.6) If this refers to Satchwell and not Sewall with property along the Merrimac River town at that time, it may well be that this is some of the same property recently conveyed to Mary yet still vulnerable to attachment by Godfrey's legal actions.

Throughout the period of 1658-1663, John Godfrey is also embroiled in a deal with Daniel Clark, Francies Urselton, Anthony Carroll, William Pritchett, and Phillip Fowler over possession of a house and 26 acres land in Topsfield, involving a payment of £50 from Urleston to Godfrey in 1659 extended to March 1661, a 1660 payment from Godfrey to Pritchett of £59 9s. 8d., and a 1658 debt due in 1662 by Godfrey in wheat and corn. (Ray, v.3 p.23) It would seem that Godfrey engages in a lot of the proverbial "borrowing from the Peter to pay Paul" in his business dealings. John Godfrey is cited again in June 1662 when he gets a judgment in Salem court against Richard Ormsby and is granted an attachment that August of 102 acres of Ormsby land valued at £56. (Ray, v.3 p.21)

At a session of the court in Salem on November 22, Susanna and Richard Singletary provide three statements regarding the dispute between Jonathan and Godfrey, as follows. (Ray, v.3 pp.6-7)

As I had occasion to come by Thomas Lilford where he was at work he said unto me "What will your son, Jonathan, do with Godfrey? He is resolved to have him to court about the band of corn yet he had him of Clark."
And he saith "he will have me for a witnes about it."
"Nay," said I. "It doth not much trouble me for he has given him ye corn if he can get it of Clark. Can you witness yet he promised to give Godfrey security for ye band of corn?"
Thomas Lilford said, "Nay. I heard him speak of security, but I do not know for what it was."

Susana Singletary, aged about forty-six years, also testified that in her own house John Godfrey assigned the band of corn. Richard Singletary, aged about sixty-three, testified, that

as I was going to Salisbury this last Monday past along with John Godfrey, he was in a great passion against Jonathan Singletary at his house a while ago. And I had forty or fifty shillings in money about me and Jonathan would have it, but I considered yet I had often use for money at law and so I did not let him have any.

Judgment is granted John Godfery at Salem Court, November 27. A few days later, John Johnson, Constable of Haverhill, Deputy of Samuel Archard, Marshal of Salem, serves the warrant against Jonathan Singletary.

The year 1663 turns more favorably for Jonathan. On January 12, Jonathan receives land in the third division of Salisbury, Massachusetts. (Myers, p.530)

On March 20, Richard and Susanna Singletary depose that "they asked Thomas Davis about the evidence that he had given at the last Salem court [November 25, 1662], and if he could testify that Jonathan was to give Godfrey security for that corn. Davis said that he could not testify that he gave security for the corn, etc." They then swear to their deposition on the 27th before Simon Bradstreet. However, I find no testimony by Davis that November and wonder to whom they refer with the pronoun "he." On this occassion, they also deposed a repeat of their testimony from November 22 regarding Godfrey's statements at their house.

The last day of March the issue with John Godfrey and Jonathan's liability in Edward Clark's debt of corn to Godfrey is almost fully settled in Ipswich. This is the same town where Jonathan spent the night in jail more than a year earlier. The judges are Mr. Bradstreet, Mr. Symonds, Major General Denison, Major Hathorne and Mr. Woodman. The jurists are Lt. Appleton, Joseph Mettcalfe, Thomas Bishop, Mr. Rogers, Thomas Low, Robert Day, Hercules Woodman, Robert Addams, William Cottle, James Barker, Ezekiell Northend and William Nicolls. Entered into evidence are the:

The court hears Jonathan's suit against Godfrey "for not giving [Jonathan] a general acquittance." John Woodum, Theophilus Wilson and Robert Lord, Marshal, testify that

when Jonathan Singletary and John Godfrey were in said Wilson's house, Singletary was answering the said Godfrey for the executions for which he was put into prison and agreed to end all, but Jonathan said, "If I answer for all it may be when I come to Haverill. The constable will serve them." Godfrey said he would give him an acquittance for them, so when the goods were delivered to John Godfrey, Singletary put an attachment upon them in an action of review.

In addition to the testimony of Jonathan's father and father-in-law about their offer to settle the dispute, Theophilus Wilson certifies that Godfrey received the goods. The court grants Jonathan "an acquittance from the beginning of the world to Feb. 18, last." (Ray, v.3 p.27-28) That would be the time when the 23 year old Jonathan is jailed for slandering Godfrey in a youthful outburst, i.e., calling him a witch, and would seem to absolve him of that offense as well as resolve the underlying issue of debt.

Later in that session, the court hears Godfreys suit against Jonathan for £8 in wheat and corn. The jury decides for Singletary and the court accepts the verdict "provided [Singletary] except in his general acquittance to save said Godfrey harmless from Edward Clarke about his bond of £8." (Ray, v.3, pp.39-40)

June 20, 1663, Theophylus Satchwell dictates his last will and testament to Jonathan Singletary. He and Edward Clarke witness the will, which is proved in October 1663. Perhaps to help settle a dispute among Satchwell's heirs, Jonathan swears an oath to that effect in 1680. (Dow, v.1 p.425)

Come June 28, Godfrey wins a suit against George Hadley of Rowley for a debt of "thirty-three bushels of wheat which said Hadley had taken up of Robert Clements upon John Godfrey's account." Godfrey attaches 6 [or 36] acres of Hadley's land; most of which is planted with corn. While Hadley acknowledges receipt of the wheat in 1657, Richard and Mary Littlehale testify that

when John Godfrey renewed his bond on March 25, 1661, with George Hadley, they heard said Godfry demand nothing of Hadley save five shillings, which the latter agreed to pay to Bartholomew Heath upon Godfrey's account. Since which at the last Salem court John Godfrey would have sued George Hadley about a receipt of twenty bushels of wheat Hadley had of Singletary upon Godfrey's account, but being put in mind by deponents, that the twenty bushels were contained in the bond, he desisted, but for the thirty-seven bushels of wheat which Godfrey now sued for, they knew not whether it were included in the thirty bushels or not. (Ray, v.3, pp.166-167)

By fall, all is not yet settled for the suits over the bond of corn and wheat that had Jonathan in the Ipswich jail a year and seven months earlier. On September 22, 1663, the court hears the suit of John Todd v. Thomas Bloomfield regarding a debt for a "parcel of canvas" used to bail Jonathan out of jail. The verdict is for John Todd. His bill of cost to the court is £1 1s. 4d. Robert Lord, Marshal of Ipswich, serves the action against Bloomfield by taking two of Bloomfield's heifers valued at £7 10s. and delivers them to John Todd on account of the canvas.

A year later at Salem, the court hears Thomas Bloomfield v. John Todd in a review of an action of £6 tried November 29, 1663, at Ipswich court.

Thomas Blomfield’s plea:

  • First, that he was arrested for a debt to John Tod, but nothing appeared on the latter’s books.
  • Second, that according to the books, the debt was charged to Richard Singletary, who should be sued for the amount instead of himself.
  • Third, that even if Anthony Austin said he he was engaged to pay it, the evidence of one man ought not to be sufficient to take away a man’s estate, which would be contrary to law on the first page.
  • Fourth, that Austin’s evidence that the cloth was delivered to him was a mistake, for John Tod laid it upon his horse and he was forced to carry it to Ipswich because Richard Singletary was sick, and disposed of it according to Singletary’s appointment.
  • Fifth, that Mr. Tod had two young heifers, which were both with calfe, etc.

Answer:

  • First, that he was arrested for what was engaged as per testimony of Anthony Austin and Richard Singletary.
  • Second, that the book showed canvas delivered, etc.
  • Third, one evidence is sufficient.
  • Fourth, the cloth was delivered to Bloomfield, who brought it to Ipswich and with it redeemed his son out of prison, and Richard Singletary did not return to Ipswich but went away home.
  • Fifth, both were engaged to pay, and John Tod was suing him for only one-half, Singletary having satisfied for his part. "It is too much Ingratitude for Tho. Bloomfield soe ill to requite the sayd Tod for his lose."

William Chandler, aged forty-eight years, deposes that a year earlier, in September 1663, Thomas Bloomfield owned for the debt to John Todd and said it should be paid and if the latter would not enter his action, Bloomfield would pay him in the spring. Robert Lord, Marshal, deposes that he served Bloomfield at that time and submits a copy of the action from 1663.

John Severance is deposed, but I see no record of his statement. Richard Singletary deposes that they took £12 worth of canvas and both engaged to pay John Todd. And John Godfrey and Jonathan Singletary depose that John Todd told them that Richard Singletary and Goodman Blomfield were "able men both & I look only to Goodman Singletary, etc." Anthony Austin, swears to his February 1663 deposition before Robert Lord regarding the record of the transaction at Todd's house in Ipswich court on Nov. 29, 1664, before Daniel Dennison. Robert Lord also swears in court this day to his deposition regarding the transaction. The verdict is for Thomas Bloomfield and his bill of cost is £3 9s. 6d. (Ray, v.3, p.213-214)

Also at court in Salem November 29 we find the herdsman, John Godfrey, acting as attorney to John Todd in an action against William Nicholls over some debt for diverse years. Curiously, Godfrey just testified to Todd's regard for Bloomfield as Bloomfield wins his suit against Todd. William Nicholls was also on the jury the previous spring when Singletary won his case against Godfrey. Godfrey loses this case, as well. (Ray, v.3, p.213-214)

Move to Connecticut

In October 1663, a committee chosen by the General Assembly of the Connecticut Colony sets forth several requirements for the settling of the new plantation in a bay fed by two rivers that provides safe harbor, seafood and fowl, planting land, and sources for water-powered mills. George Fenwick is instrumental in the purchase of the land from the local tribe's sachem, or chief. One of the requirements is that there be 30 families to establish an economically and politically viable community. So another requirement is that any planter who fails to settle there with their family in the first two years would forfeit their land grant which is selected by lot.

The Killingworth community is started with about twenty-two families in the first drawing of lots situated along what is now Main Street set back comfortably from the low-lying harbor area and is a segment of the shoreline path between Guilford and New Haven. Unfortunately, about half of the original families do not satisfy the resettlement requirement. The community is not fully populated until December 1665 with the addition of the following families listed below.

Thomas SMITH, William BARBER, John MEGGS, William KELCEY, Mr. John WOODBRIDGE, Josias ROSITER, Henry FARNAM, William WELLMAN, George CHATFIELD, Thomas STEVENS, Edward GRISWOLD, William HUYTON, Samuel BUELL, John KELCEY, Robert WILLIAMS, granted, John NETTLETON, granted, Annanias TURNERY, purchase, John ROSSITER, by agreement, John MEGGS, granted, John SHETHER, purchase of Jonathan DUNNING, George SANDERS, granted, William STEVENS, Josiah HULL senr., Eliezer ISBEL, granted, Isaac GRISWOLD, purchase, Jonathan DUNIN.

The last of whom listed is Jonathan Dunin. (Buell, 1884; Killingworth Historical Society) Also note there is a Jonathan Dunning listed a few names above Dunin. I believe this indicates Dunning sold his share and never moved to the new settlement. He could easily be confused with Jonathan Dunin. Savage has three Dunning families in New England - George of New Haven, Hicks of Hingham, and Jonathan that served in the Connecticut militia. He also notes that Hicks married Sarah Joy, had Edmund, and that Sarah's father refers to that family in his will as Dunham or Denham. (Savage, p.82)

It would seem that by 1665 Jonathan moved his young family to a settlement along the Connecticut shoreline known at that time as Hammonasset (a part of Killingworth) that is now known as Clinton. It is at this time that he appears to have changed his name as he is there recorded as Dunen, or Dunnin, alias Singletary. (Savage, p.80)

Connecticut was not the only colony encouraging the settlement of new towns at this time. On February 10, 1664, the Proprietors of New Jersey, Lord Berkeley and Sir George Carteret signed a constitution which they distributed to the settlements of New England to encourage settlement in their new land west of Manhatten Island. This document is entitled "The Concessions and agreement of the Lords Proprietors of New Jersey, to and with all and every of the adventurers, and all such as shall settle and plant there." This document was among the first to express principles of self-government and no taxation without representation by conveying to the settlers all the rights granted to the proprietors by the Crown. (Whitehead, v.1, p.37-39)

To encourage planters, every freeman who should embark with the first governor, or meet him on his arrival, provided with a "good musket, bore twelve bullets to the pound, with bandeliers and match convenient, and with six months' provisions for himself," was promised one hundred and fifty acres of land, and the like number for every man-servant or slave, brought with him, provided with the same necessaries. To females over the age of fourteen, seventy-five acres were promised, and a similar number to every Christian servant, at the expiration of his or her term of service. Those going before the first of January, 1665-6, were to receive one hundred and twenty acres, if master, mistress, or able man-servant or slave; and weaker servants, male or female, sixty acres. Those going during the third year, three-fourths, and during the fourth year, one-half of these quantities. On a failure to people their respective tracts within three years, the proprietors reserve the right of conferring them on others.

On the same day the Concessions are signed, Captain Philip Carteret is comminsioned as the Governor of New Jersey. By April of 1665, preparations are complete so he and 30 people, including some servants and Hugenauts that took refuge on his Isle of Jersey, set sail for the New World. They arrive first in Virginia in May, make their way to New York by the end of July, and arrive in the soon-to-be-named Elizabethtown in August.

Carteret there meets four families he did not expect who were granted patents on December 1, 1664, on land purchased from the local native tribes. The heads of those families were Captain John Baker, John Ogden, John Baily, and Luke Watson. (Wheeler, p.24) The New York Governor Nicolls that had approved those patents had not yet been informed of the authority granted to Carteret. This would be the seed of a long-standing and troublesome dispute among the settlers, the Proprietors, and the respective Governors. (Whitehead, v.1, p.41) Carteret planned to bring in many settlers and so published the Concessions in New England. In six months, the first wave of new immigrants were transferred by his ship, The Philip, from New England ports to Elizabethtown. Another wave followed in 1667. (Whitehead, v.1, p.47)

Joseph Bloomfield, a former Governor of New Jersey, Patriot General and descendant of Thomas Bloomfield, writes in a letter dated May 4, 1818, that Thomas Bloomfield was one of the associates that purchased much of Middlesex County, New Jersey, (including Woodbridge) from the Proprietors on 26 May 1666. (DAR, p.95) This date may represent the point at which Daniel Pierce formally organized his original associates: "Joshua Pierce, John Pike, John Bishop, Henry Jaques, and Hugh March (or Marsh), of Newbury; Stephen Kent, of Haverhill; Robert Dennis, of Yarmouth, and John Smith, of Barnstable, in New England." (Whitehead, v.1, p.48)

Whitehead (v.1, p.48; p.355) also reports that the settlement of Woodbridge as a township is negotiated in an agreement entered into by Daniel Pierce and his associates, with Governor Carteret, John Ogden, and Luke Watson, on December 11th, 1666. For £80 sterling, the Proprietors transfer to Pierce and associates for the settling of two townships "one half of the tract known as 'Arthur Cull or Amboyle,' as originally granted by Governor Nicolls; extending from the Raritan to Rehawack-river, and running back in to the country according to the Indian deed." One week later, Pierce transfers one-third of the land he had just acquired to John Martin, Charles Gilman, Hugh Dunn, and Hopewell Hull, who settle the township of Piscataway.

Nowhere does Whitehead mention Thomas Bloomfield among these associates, yet he lists Thomas Bloomfield as receiving 326 acres among the original 1670 list of Woodbridge Freeholders - right behind John Smith "Wheelwright" (512), John Bishop (470), Daniel Pierce (456), Robert Dennis and Rehoboth Gannit (448 each), and Samuel Moore (356). Bloomfield's share also ranks just above other associates Hugh March (320), John Pike (308), and Stephen Kent (249). Jonathan Dunham joins this list in 1672 with a 213 acre alotment for establishing the first mill in Woodbridge. (Whitehead, p.355)

Also in 1666, Ruth is born to Jonathan and Mary in Hammonasset. (Savage, p.80) I have not been able to find by search or inquiry any records of the earliest milling activity, but one must wonder whether Jonathan is admitted with the intention of establishing a mill on the river or in the tidal basin.

The agreement between Pierce's associates, the New Jersey Proprietors, et. al. is confirmed by a deed dated December 3, 1667. And on the same day, Pierce is commissioned as Deputy Surveyor to run the boundary lines, and lay out the lands to the different associates. (Whitehead, v.1, p.48; Whitehead, p.355)

Jonathan's family remains in Connecticut at least two more years as Eunice is born there in 1668. (Savage, p.80) The land adjacent to the minister's house and parsonage in Hammonasset became the birthplace of Yale University in 1704. A century later Benjamin Franklin, as Postmaster General, will ride his carriage down Main Street through this town to this spot and place a mile marker (25 N.H.) on, what would then be, the Boston Post Road. (Adler)

Back in Massachusetts, on November 24 of 1668, Jonathan's sister Lydia is married to Daniel Ladd back in Haverhill. (MVRP) John Godfrey is still involved in numerous litigations, notably including a successful suit by his former client, John Todd, for debt and slander. (Ray, p.70-71)

Godfrey is again fined, in 1669, for being drunk and swearing. (Ray, p.119) Two months later, he is convicted for stealing from Captain Pike and "firing Matthias Button's chimney which caused his house to burn and the goods therein, also the death of his wife, and for running away as soon as he had done it." (Ray, p.130-131)

Whitehead tells us that on June 1st, 1669, a charter was granted and "thankfully accepted" which erected the tract "that is for the accommodating of the Towne now called Woodbridge." It is said to contain six miles square, into a township to comprise not less than sixty families, and by a resolution adopted on that day, this number was not to be exceeded unless by special order of the town. The land, based upon the Indian deed and Nicholls grant, was given to Daniel Pierce and his associates as listed above. (Whitehead, v.1, p.48; Whitehead, p.355)

References:

About Ipswich, Massachusetts, Lee Bennett, 2009.
Ancestors and Descendants of Lewis Ross Freeman with related families, Florence ("Patty") B. Myers, 1995.
Colonial History of Killingsworth, Killingsworth Historical Society, 2010.
Contributions to the Early History of Perth Amboy, William A. Whitehead, 1856.
Early Vital Records of Massachusetts, 1600-1850, Massachusetts Vital Records Project, 2005-'10
East Jersey Under the Proprietors, Volume 1, William Adee Whitehead, 1875.
Entertaining Satan: witchcraft and the culture of early New England, John Putnam Demos, 1983.
Genealogical Dictionary of the First Settlers, Volume I, Savage, 1860
Genealogical Dictionary of the First Settlers, Volume II, Savage, 1860
Genealogical guide to the early settlers of America: with a brief history of those of the first generation, Henry Whittemore, 1906, 1967, 2001.
Historic Towns of the Connecticut River Valley, George S. Roberts, .
Municipal History of Essex County in Massachusetts, Benjamin F. Arrington, editor, 1922.
Records and Files of the Quarterly Court of Essex County, Massachusetts, Volumes 1-4, Massachusetts County Court (Essex County), George Francis Dow, Massachusetts. Inferior Court (Essex County), Essex Institute, 1921
Records and Files of the Quarterly Courts of Essex County, Benjamin Ray, The Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 2002
Salem Witchcraft, Volumes I and II, Charles Upham, 1969
The Birth of Yale University, Peggy Adler, 2006-2007.
The Essex Antiquarian Volume 3, Sidney Perley, 1899.
The Ogden Family in America ..., Compiled by William Ogden Wheeler, 1907.
The Probate Records of Essex County, Massachusetts, Volume 1, Massachusetts. Probate Court (Essex County), George Francis Dow, Essex Institute, 1916.
Timeline of Plimouth Colony 1620-1692, Plimouth Plantation, 2008
Town of Killingsworth, The History of Middlesex County 1635-1885, WILLIAM H. BUELL, 1884, as posted by Jane Devlin.
Witch-Hunting in Seventeenth-Century New England: A Documentary History 1638, David D. Hall, 1991.

Close this and open next section Close all sections

1670-1679: Early Woodbridge Years and the Dutch Council of War Episode

1680-1689: Jonathan, the Quaker Preacher, On the Road with Case's Crew

1690-1699: Retirement in Woodbridge

1700s: The Twilight Years and Beyond

©1996-2024   Doug Wilson   All rights reserved.