Home Page

Ancestor
Publisher's
Store

Where to begin

AncestorSpy's
How To Manual

Back to Massachusetts state page.

1

THE OLD FAMILIES

OF

SALISBURY AND AMESBURY,

MASSACHUSETTS,

With some Related Families of Newbury, Haverhill, Ipswich, and Hampton.

________________

BY DAVID W. HOYT,

Author of "A Genealogical History of the Hoyt, Haight,
and Hight Families"

________________

PROVIDENCE, R. I.

1897

SNOW & FARNHAM, PRINTERS.

OLD FAMILIES OF SALISBURY AND AMESBURY.

INTRODUCTION.

     IN gathering material for his "Genealogical History of the Hoyt, Haight, and Hight Families," and in tracing his own ancestry in other lines, the compiler of these records collected a mass of materials which it seemed desirable to preserve in some form more durable than manuscript notes. In order to give some degree of completeness to the work, he has attempted to include all Salisbury and Amesbury names that could be obtained from any accessible source, down to about the year 1700, - the first three or four generations of the early settlers.

     It would be a comparatively easy task to copy and print the early town records of births, marriages, and deaths, down to 1700; but, while all these have been included, much more has been attempted, as will be seen in the records printed in this volume. After the town records, probate records and deeds are the main reliance, though other court records, church records, old journals and letters, are often of great importance in completing the account of some family.

     The early families of Salisbury and Amesbury were so related to those of surrounding towns that it was found impossible to give anything like a full and connected outline of the former without including many early families of Newbury, Haverhill, Ipswich, and Hampton. The latter will therefore appear with the former, in alphabetic order.

     One who has never attempted the task of preparing a genealogy has no idea of the amount of time and labor often required to prove the truth of a statement that may occupy but a single line. The genealogist must often ponder a problem for months, and even years, before the true solution is found; sometimes the missing

Top

OLD FAMILIES OF SALISBURY AND AMESBURY.

fact turns up in the most unexpected way; sometimes it is never found, as the required records are wanting. It was at first intended to call attention to all errors found in printed genealogies of the families here given; but that plan was soon abandoned as impracticable in the space available. Only the most important have been noted. One source of errors in dates is the fact that persons unused to such researches often call the "1st month" of the old records January, instead of March, as it should be given.  The fact that the year usually began March 25 instead of January 1, is another source of confusion. In every case of doubt, it has been the endeavor to consult and follow the original record, if possible. When therefore, the records here given do not agree with those heretofore published, they should not be considered incorrect without consulting the originals. In many cases, errors have been found in official copies, some of them quite ancient. No one who has had experience in such matters would venture to say that there are not errors in this volume; but it is hoped that they will not be found numerous.

     This work is not intended to be a complete history, even of the early generations of the families included. It proposes to give only the bare outline of essential facts. Other persons can build upon this foundation, and fill in the details of each family history, in separate volumes, where it has not already been done. One is strongly tempted to dwell upon the life of a first settler like Bailey; the forests; the first paths and roads; the fish weirs; the ship-building; the early churches and their pastors; the Indian conflicts and those persons who figured therein; the early mills of Osgood, Morrill, Currier, and others, prophetic of the later development along the Powow river; the witchcraft delusion with which the Martins, Bradburys, Morses, and Pike were concerned; the persecutions of Quakers, Baptists, and others that did not conform to the strict rules of the standing order, like Macy, Peasley, Goodale, and Pike; the places and persons immortalized by Whittier's

Top

OLD FAMILIES OF SALISBURY AND AMESBURY.

pen; - but both space and plan forbid. We can only remark that there lived in this region men of strong character and liberal sentiments, in advance of their time, as the records prove.

     One who would write a correct and complete genealogy of the early Puritan families must endeavor to live among them, to learn their mode of thinking and acting, what removals they would be likely to make, or alliances by marriage, often so closely related to removals. The same impulse which caused them to leave their homes in Old England seems to have led many of them to change their residence in New England, and share in the founding of different settlements, like their descendants of this century in the West. This is illustrated in the history of William Sargent, and many others. The movement of the first generations was along the sea coast and up the Merrimac valley. Some of the next generations moved further along these lines into New Hampshire and Maine. There was, however, some movement towards the south and west. Salisbury was evidently the headquarters for the settlement of Nantucket; and some families from this region removed to Block Island, Hartford and other Connecticut towns, western Massachusetts, and New Jersey.

     Often the introduction of a new surname into Amesbury or Salisbury was caused by the marriage of a young man from some other town to the daughter or granddaughter of one of the original settlers.

     One is often surprised to find how constant and frequent was the intercourse between different towns of New England in those early days; and visits to Old England were not infrequent with the first generation, as in the case of John Wheelwright, William Hooke, Robert Pike, John Eaton, Robert Ring, and others. It is also a matter of surprise that so many of the first settlers, - Francis Dow, Thomas Dummer, Samuel Groom, John Hall, Samuel Hall, John Hodges, John Sanders, and others, - returned to England and spent the remainder of their days there.

Top

OLD FAMILIES OF SALISBURY AND AMESBURY.

     The desire of different towns to secure the services of skilled artizans often led to removals. Towns sometimes made offers of grants of land and other privileges which were not accepted by the grantees, and therefore do not prove a residence in those towns. Thus John Hoyt, brickmaker, received conditional offers of clay pits, etc., from Haverhill and Ipswich; but we have no proof that John Hoyt of Salisbury and Amesbury ever lived in those towns. Job Clement, tanner, of Haverhill, was offered a freehold in Newbury, but did not comply with the conditions, and soon afterwards removed to Dover. William Osgood, millwright, after working in other towns, received special privileges in both Salisbury and Amesbury, because his services were so much in demand.

     Records of births, marriages and deaths are often wanting; the registry of deeds and the probate records do not contain the names of all residents; hence it is important to supplement these with information from other sources. Before commencing the genealogy proper, we shall therefore print all the important early lists of names and other original documents that we have been able to obtain, and upon which the subsequent work will, to some extent, be based.

     PROVIDNECE, R. I. AUGUST 1897.

Top

OLD FAMILIES OF SALISBURY AND AMESBURY.

Reproduction of 1639 map

of town of Salisbury with

original landowners

Note: This page and the next two pages are not numbered. The next two pages are a map, which I hope to be able to add at some future date. Donna K. Clark

Top

OLD FAMILIES OF SALISBURY AND AMESBURY.

SETTLEMENT OF SALISBURY.

     From the "Records of Massachusetts," we find that, on petition of "Mr. Bradstreete, Mr. Dudley Jr., Capt. Dennison, Mr. Clarke of Newbury, Mr. Woodbridge, Mr. Battye [Batt], Mr. Batter, Mr. Winsley, Hen: Bilye, Giles Firman, Richard Kent, and John Sanders,"* permission "to begin a plantation in Merrimack" was granted them, Sept. 6, 1638, with power to add to their number. The plantation was named "Colchester," Sept. 4, 1639; name changed to "Salsbury," Oct. 7, 1640.

     On the Salisbury records is found the following entry:

"1639, the third month.

     "At a meeting at merrimack of M^r Simone Bradstreet, M^r Samuell Dudly, M^r Danniell Dennisonn, Christopher Batt, Samuell Winsley, John Sanders:
"It was ordered that there shall be 2 divisions of Meadow, the one nerrer, the other farther, the nerrest shall haue fower Acres to Each 100h[£]. the other left to farther Consideration.
"It was further ordered that vpland for planting lotts shall be divided so as he that hath vnder 50h shall haue 4 Acres, and he that hath above 50h to 150h shall haue 6 Acres, and all aboue shall haue 4 Acres to Euerie 100h.
"Allso, it was ordered that all lotts granted to singlemen are on Condition that they shall inhabit here before the 6 of may next, and such as haue families that they shall inhabitt here before the last of october next."

     The last clause strictly means October, 1639, through October of the next year may have been intended. The date of the "first division" of land is not given; but there are grants to four persons dated 1639, and many are dated 1640. The "first division"
__________

     * It will be seen that, of the twelve original petitioners and grantees, only five (Dudley, Batt, Winsley, Biley, and Sanders) received land and settled in Salisbury. Four of the twelve, Simon Bradstreet, Rev. Samuel Dudley, Daniel Denison, and Rev. John Woodbridge, belonged to the family of Gov. Thomas Dudley. Three of the others, Christopher Batt, Edmund Batter, and Henry Biley, were closely related, and all three came from Salisbury, Eng. Batter lived in Salem, Mass. Rev. Samuel Dudley afterwards married a sister of Henry Biley. Dr. John Clark, Rev. John Woodbidge, and Richard Kent lived in Newbury, at that time. Giles Firman was of Boston, Ipswich, and Haverhill, returned to England about 1644, a physician and clergyman. Five or more of the twelve were from Wiltshire, Eng. - [N. E. Hist. Gen. Reg., 1866 and 12871.]

Top

OLD FAMILIES OF SALISBURY AND AMESBURY.

was, therefore, in 1639, though some subsequent ones may have been recorded among the "first." The time of recording the grants, in their present from, is indicated by the vote, April 14, 1643, that all grants of land given by the "Town of Salsbery" shall be recorded in the new book by the last of June next, allowing the clerk a penny for every grant so recorded, and 6^d for the copy of every man's particular grants, together.

     The following is a copy of a paper found in the Massachusetts archives, Boston, without date, but indexed under 1639. The use of the name "Colchester" places the date of the original record between September, 1639, and October, 1640, unless the new settlement used the name before it was authorized by the General Court. The Salisbury records have the name "Merrimack" in May, 1639. The Boston copy must have been made after October, 1640, as it uses the name "Salisbury":

     "The names of those yt have lotts & proportions granted pr the Toune of Colchester in the first division 

     "This is A true copie of the originall list taken out of the old book of Reccords for Salisbury as Attests.* 

     It is difficult to reconcile the above list with the following [p. 10], taken from the Salisbury records. On the Salisbury
__________

     * It is worthy of note that nearly one-third of the above received the title M^r. A letter or symbol of some kind is prefixed to "Jn^o Fullar."

Top

OLD FAMILIES OF SALISBURY AND AMESBURY.

records, Carr, Morrill, Macy, Fitts, wid. Christian Brown, and perhaps Rowell, are not mentioned as participating in the "first division,"* though they all received land in 1640, and Macy in 1639. On the other hand, Allen, John Bayly, Jr., Barnard, Barnes, Buswell, Carter, Clough, Dickison, French, Goodale, Greenleaf, S. Hall, Hoyt, Ilsley, Ladd, Moyce, North, Parker, Partridge, and Wells are all given on the Salisbury records as receiving land in the "first division." John Clifford appears on the earlier list of thirty-seven, but not on the later list of sixty-nine. Lewis Hulett does not appear on either list, though Merrill assigns him a house lot in 1639, and his name appears later.

     There is, perhaps, a geographical significance in the Boston list of thirty-seven. By referring to Merrill's map, History of Amesbury, it will be seen that all these lots were located on the "circular road," except those of Fuller, Macy, Rowell, and Brown. The list looks as if Fitts, Rowell, and Brown were added later, and wid. Brown may have first had the lot of her son Henry Brown on the "circular road." Macy's lot is given on the "road to the neck." This leaves only Fuller's lot on the straight piece of "beach road," and that lot is represented as lying some distance to the north of the road. It seems probable that the first lots laid out were all on the "circular road," except, perhaps, those of Fuller and Macy, and they either located away from others, or afterwards exchanged lots for those represented on the map. Later, in the same year, perhaps, the straight "beach road" connecting the two branches of the "circular road" was laid out, and most of the new comers were located on that road. The exceptions were John Bayly, Jr., who located next to his father, I. Buswell (probably not W. Buswell, as Merrill gives it,), and Ladd on the "circular road;" French, Partridge and Wells on the "road to the neck," with Macy. All the above, over fifty persons, who probably received lots within a few weeks or months of each other, were placed on the new Salisbury book in 1643 as having part in the "first division."
_________

     * They all, doubtless, received land in the "first division," but may have failed to pay for recording their grants in the "new book."

Top

OLD FAMILIES OF SALISBURY AND AMESBURY.

FIRST SETTLERS OF SALISBURY.

     The following is an exact copy of the original entries on the first leaf of one of the town's books of ancient records. It is evidently designed for an index to the records of land grants, the numbers referring to the pages where such grants are recorded, one page being originally assigned to each person. The marks of reference and note are added by us.

_________

     * Written Bylie and Cobham on the pages referred to.

Top

OLD FAMILIES OF SALISBURY AND AMESBURY.

Salisbury Commoners, 1650.      The following extract is also copied from the Salisbury records: 

Salisbury Rate, 1650.

_________

     * In the Hist. Gen. Register, Jan., 1849, p. 56, these three were marked as "disallowed for being townsmen and Comoners." The Rates" for 1650 and 1652 are from that number of the Hist. Gen. Register.
          † This name is added with different ink.    

Top

OLD FAMILIES OF SALISBURY AND AMESBURY.

Salisbury Rate, 1652.

Top

OLD FAMILIES OF SALISBURY AND AMESBURY.

First Settlers of Amesbury.

     On the Amesbury records we find, dated March 19, 1654-5, the following list of the "present inhabitanc and comenors heare in the new towne."

     After the above date, but previous to 1663, the following individuals also received grants of land: Joseph Peasly, James George, Nathan Gold, Samuel Foot, Walter Tayler, Robert Quinby, Edmund Elliot, Samuel Colby, William Osgood, and John Hoyt, Jr.

     On a petition of the inhabitants of Salisbury new town, May 19, 1658, [Court files, Boston], we find seventeen names, the same that were given in 1654-5, except that John Bayly and Orlando Bagly are omitted, and Nathan Gould is added.

Signatures to Articles of Agreement

_________

     * The name of Orlando Bagly is on the original "Macy book," but not on the official records, nor on any list of land grants.
          ‡ The date, March 14, 1654, is also given.
         † Those thus designated made their marks, or initial letters. The others are apparently signatures on the original document, in the Massachusetts archives, Boston. The names are there appended without any attempt at

Top

OLD FAMILIES OF SALISBURY AND AMESBURY.

Division of Land, Salisbury, 1654.

     Sixty names, the same as the above, omitting Abraham Fitts and John French, are found when the town divided the mowing of beach lots, March, 1653-4. The above spelling is mainly that of the beach lot list.
_________

definite arrangement. The name of Tho. Bradbury stands first. We have arranged the names alphabetically. We fail to find among the signatures the names of the following: George Carr, John Clough, Josiah Cobham, John Cole, John Dickison, Edmund Elliot, John Gill, Andrew Greely, John Ilsley, Abraham Morrill, Robert Pike, Thomas Rowlandson, Dea. Richard Wells, Rev. William Worcester, and some younger men, all of whom we suppose to have been residents of Salisbury at that time, though three or four of them may possibly have been residing elsewhere in 1654. Samual Hall was probably in England at the time. The Amesbury commoners all signed, except Orlando Bagly and John Colby, the latter a young man, whose father signed.

Top

Additional Names, Salisbury, 1659.

     Seventy-six names appear on the "County Rate" in 1659, including, besides most of the previously given, the following:

     On lists of lots in Salisbury in 1661 are the following names of persons who were then probably dead or non-resident: Henry Ambros, John Ayer Sen., Chirstopher Batt, Josiah Cobham, Francis Doue, Mr. Dumer, Enoch Greenleaf, Goodman Harrison, John Hodges, Lewis Hulet, Joseph Parker, Daniel Peirce, and perhaps others. The case of Robert Ring against the town of Salisbury, involving the rights of non-resident commoners, was then pending in the courts. Salisbury Petitions of 1658.     In the Massachusetts archives are found two petitions about church matters, both dated May 19, 1658, on which appear the following names of inhabitants of Salisbury:

_________

     * Names on both petitions.

Top

OLD FAMILIES OF SALISBURY AND AMESBURY.

Purchase of Mr. Hall's Farm.

     Samuel Hall sold to the town of Salisbury, in 1657, his farm of 100 acres, "lying towards Hampton," which he bought of Samuel Dudley. On the Salisbury records, under date of 1665-6, and on the files of the Supreme Court, Boston, under date of 1674, we find lists of

"Names of those that paid ye purchase of Mr. Hall's farm, with
each man's proportion," and "The no. of the lots in
Mr. Hall's farm belonging to each person."

     * Tho. Bradbury Jun. and Jno. Stevens Jr. are connected by a brace, with a joint tax of 0=08=10. As Mr. Bradbury immediately precedes them, perhaps the brace should connect the two Bradburys, with a joint tax of 3=01=6.

Top

OLD FAMILIES OF SALISBURY AND AMESBURY.

     There are two lists, the first containing 53 names, with the tax of each person; the second, 48 names, with the number of each person's lot. The order of names in the two is entirely different, except that Mr. Worcester heads both lists. The two are here combined, and the arrangement made alphabetic. Where the spelling of the two differs, the first, or tax list is followed. On the second, or lot list, are "John Coles," "old Moys," "Capt. Pike," "Mr. Stanian," and Sam^ll: Winsley." The names Capt. Pike and "Widow Morrill" imply that the second list was written at a later date that the first. Abraham Morrill died in 1662, and his widow married Thomas Mudgett in 1665.

Separation of Amesbury from Salisbury.

     According to the agreement of 1654, the new town was to be formally separated from the old when it could secure and maintain a minister. Unsuccessful efforts were made in 1660 to obtain Mr. Shubael Dummer, and in 1665 to obtain Mr. Showell, Mr. Woodbridge, and Capt. Robert Pike, to serve the new town as minister. In 1666 the new town was incorporated by the General Court. The town voted to adopt the name Amesbury in 1667, and the name was confirmed by the General Court in 1668. Mr. Benjamin Woodbridge served as minister for two or three years, 1666-69. Mr. Hubberd,* or Hoberd, of Kittery, was minister, 1669-72. Rev. Thomas Wells, the first settled pastor, began his pastorate of sixty-two years in 1672 or '3.

     Between 1654 and the formal separation, the two towns were distinct in matters pertaining to land, and some other town affairs; but the inhabitants of Amesbury were expected to attend divine service in the old town, and support its minister. This they often declined to do, and held meetings of their own, under
_________

     * Perhaps Rev. Jeremiah Hobart, or Hubbard, b. ab. 1630 or '32, who grad. H. C. 1650, was called from Lynn to Wells in 1667, but remained there only a few months. He was the son of Rev. Peter Hobart of Hingham, and brother of Rev. Joshua Hobart. Rev. Jer. Hobart was ordained and settled in Topsfield, Mass., Oct., 1672; settled in Hempstead, L. I., in 1683, and in Haddam Ct., in 1691. He d. in 1715.

Top

OLD FAMILIES OF SALISBURY AND AMESBURY.

the lead of Peasley, Macy, and others, for which they were fined.*

Amesbury Commoners in 1667-8.†

     Feb. 18, 1667-8, four sets of lots, 25 in each set, were drawn by the following persons:

     Salisbury seems to have had about twice as many inhabitants as Amesbury, soon after the formal separation, say in 1670.
_________

     * As early as 1642, the town of Salisbury ordered that thirty families should remove to the west side of the Powow river [Amesbury] before May, 1645. In 1649, the inhabitants of the new town were unsuccessful in their petition to the General Court for "exemption from rates to the ministry of the old town," that they might sustain the ministry among themselves; and in 1658 they were again refused when they petitioned that they might be a distinct town.
         † Supreme Court files, Boston, and Amesbury records. There were a few other owners of land in Amesbury at that time, as well appear from the preceding and following paragraphs. John Bailey, Samuel Colby, Thomas Haynes, Thomas Macy, Joseph Peasley, and Water Taylor had owned land in Amesbury, and some of them probably still retained ownership, even if non-resident. Thomas Currier, John Nash [Ash], William Hackett, and most of the young men named on the list of meeting-house seats, either owned land and town rights in 1667, or acquired them soon after that date.
         Persons might own land, obtained by purchase, without being "commoners." The "commoners" were the owners of all common or undivided land, and entitled to shares in any new division of that land. This point seems to have been involved in the suit of Robert Ring against the town of Salisbury. The term "townsman" seems to have meant a legally recognized inhabitant, entitled to participate in town affairs. He was generally a "commoner," also. "Township" was sometimes u