Starting Sept. 30, 2014, Genealogy.com will be making a big change. GenForum message boards, Family Tree Maker homepages, and the most popular articles will be preserved in a read-only format, while several other features will no longer be available, including member subscriptions and the Shop.
 
Learn more


[ Home Page | First Page | Previous Page | Next Page | Last Page ]

Ancestors of Arthur Scott Freeman

Generation No. 11


      1536. Pierre Morin-Boucher, born 1662 in Port Royal, Richmond, Acadie, Nova Scotia; died April 1741 in St. Thomas, Motnmagny, Quebec, Canada. He was the son of 3072. Pierre Morin Boucher and 3073. Marie Martin. He married 1537. Franpcoise Chiasson November 08, 1682 in Beaubassin, Yarn, Nova Scotia.

      1537. Franpcoise Chiasson, born 1668 in Cumberland, Beaubassin, Acadie, Nova Scotia. She was the daughter of 3074. Guyon Dion Denis Chiasson and 3075. Jeanne De St Bernard.
     
Child of Pierre Morin-Boucher and Franpcoise Chiasson is:
  768 i.   Pierre Morin, born December 23, 1683 in Beaubassin, Acadia, Quebec; died April 15, 1741 in St. Thomas-De-La-Pointe-aa-La-Calle, Montmagny, Quebec; married Marie Franpcoise Boule (Boulay).


      1538. Jacques Boule (Boulay), born February 06, 1664 in Chcateau-Richer, Montmorency, Quebec; died May 1738 in St Thomas, Montmagny, Quebec. He was the son of 3076. Robert Boule (Boulay) and 3077. Franpcoise Grenier (Garnier). He married 1539. Franpcoise Fournier April 21, 1686 in Montmagny, Quebec.

      1539. Franpcoise Fournier, born April 30, 1671 in St Thomas, Montmagny, Quebec; died July 16, 1734 in St Thomas, Montmagny, Quebec. She was the daughter of 3078. Guillaume Fournier and 3079. Franpcoise Herbert.
     
Child of Jacques (Boulay) and Franpcoise Fournier is:
  769 i.   Marie Franpcoise Boule (Boulay), born Abt. 1687 in St. Thomas, Motnmagny, Quebec, Canada; married Pierre Morin.


      1920. Robert Huckins, born August 16, 1620 in Devonshire, Eng; died July 24, 1696 in Oyster River, Durham, New Hampshire. He married 1921. Elizabeth Beard July 02, 1630 in London, England.

      1921. Elizabeth Beard

Notes for Robert Huckins:
Robert ws a signer of the Dover Combination:

From The Gazetteer of the State of New Hampshire (in three parts),
compiled from the best authorities, by Eliphalet Merrill and the Late
Phinehas Merrill, Esq.,
Printed by C. Norris & Co. , Exeter, NH, ©1817, pg 53

Part I - General View- History

1640 - During this year the troubles at Dover increased. One Larkeham, a native of Lime
in England, and formerly minister at Barnstead, came over; possessing good talents as a
preacher, he eclipsed Knolleys and was chosen in his place. On this occasion a council
was called, composed of Simon Broadstreet, Esq. of Boston, the celebrated Hugh Peters
minister of Salem, and Timothy Dalton, minister of Hampton. They travelled on foot to
Dover but did not succeed in effecting a permanent arrangement. Underhill, Knolleys, and
Larkeham removed out of the colony.
      During all this period the people of Portsmouth, Dover, etc. had no right of self
government delegated from the British crown, but finding the necessity of some more
determinate form than they had as yet enjoyed, they combined themselves in separate
bodies politic, after the example of their neighbours at Exeter. The inhabitants of Dover,
by a written instrument, subscribed by forty person, agreed to submit to the laws of
England and to such other regulations as should be formed by a majority of their number,
until the pleasure of the king should be known. The date of a similar association at
Portsmouth is not known.
      Mr. Hutchinson supposed the whole number of neat cattle in the colony of
Massachusetts in 1640, to be 12,000, and the sheep about 4,000, and he says, that “a cow,
sold two years ago for 30 l. may now be purchased for 5 or 6 l.” It is probable that there
were in New Hampshire at this time, about 1,200 neat cattle and 300 sheep.

Submitted by T.C. Parziale 5/30/00




In 1639, they sent another committee "to find out the northmost part of Merrimack river."6 At this time the north line was established at a great pine, three miles north of the forks of Merrimack, in Franklin. They were induced to take this step doubtless from the fact that the people of Dover, in spite of their remonstrances, continued to receive the exiles "cast out" by Massachusetts, and had elected one of the most obnoxious of them, Capt. John Underhill, as their Governor.

The people of Massachusetts thought this against good neighborhood, and determined to make good their claim to the lands at Piscataqua, at the first fitting opportunity. Meantime they exercised jurisdiction over the people at Hampton, but left those on the Piscataqua to govern themselves. But policy prevented their pressing their claim any farther north, at this time, as a line extended east and west through the forest, three miles north of the forks of the Merrimack, not only included the most of New Hampshire but a large portion of Maine and although they might have been successful in claiming New Hampshire, as it were deserted by the heirs of the deceased proprietor; yet in asserting their full claim to that, they must also have claimed the south part of Maine, and that was a position they did not wish to assume at that time. The grant to Gorges had lately been confirmed to him by the King, and the Lord Proprietor, as well as the proprietors of Lygonia, were altogether too powerful men, and of too much influence at Court, to be bearded with impunity.

Under these circumstances they very prudently refrained from pressing their claim, and entered upon a system of finesse and negotiation, to get the government and the patents at Piscataqua into their own hands.

Meantime the policy of Massachusetts in encouraging their friends, Say, Brook, and others, to purchase the Hilton patent began to develop itself, for certain individuals at Dover, comprising those sent over by them, and who were friendly to the interests of Massachusetts, made a proposition to come under the jurisdiction of that government, and in September, 1639, sent a committee of three to Boston, to agree upon terms of union. After some negotiation, terms were agreed upon, and a "treaty was brought to a conclusion," stipulating that Piscataqua "should be as Ipswich and Salem, and have Courts there;" but it was understood that this treaty was not to take effect unless the people of Piscataqua agreed to it.7 Upon the return of the committee the people rejected their agreement. Most of the people went against the union, for the reason that the proprietors mostly lived in England, and they wished to consult them upon a matter of such moment to them. Others consulted their own imerests in their opposition; among them Capt. Underhill, who had been chosen Governor in place of Burdet, and did not care to lose his place any more than to come under the government of Massachusetts, where he had been guilty of many misdemeanors, for which he had been banished. He, however, true to his character, wrote the Governor of Massachusetts, laying the blame of the rejection upon others at Dover, but his duplicity in the matter was fully exposed.8

After the expulsion of Burdet from Dover, and the election of Underhill as Governor of the plantation, he procured the services of Hanserd Knolles to preach at Dover, who was his friend and supporter, and had been prohibited from preaching, by Massachusetts, and at Dover by Burdet.

In the fall of 1640, a Mr. Larkham came to Dover from Massachusetts, where he had arrived during the previous summer, from England. He soon eclipsed Knolles, and raised so much of a party as to displace him. Many of the people became disgusted with Larkham's arbitrary assumption of power, restored Knolles to his office, who excommunicated Larkham. Underhill, of course, supported Knolles' party, and through him sought to ingratiate himself with the government of Massachusetts. In fact, as early as December, 1639, Underhill it seems, made the attempt to gain once more the good graces of the people of Massachusetts, and having obtained a safe conduct, repaired to Boston, where be made a public confession of his faults, but with such apparent insincerity that the "Church presently cast him out." To this he seemed to submit, and while he remained in Boston "he was very much dejected." But upon his return to Dover "he gave not that proof of a broken heart, as he gave hope of at Boston."9 Again soon afterwards he repaired to Boston "to tender satisfaction to the Church," "but the Church would not admit him to public speech. So after one week he returned home."10

But persevering in his plan, in September, 1640, having obtained another safe conduct, "by means of the elders and others of the Church of Boston," he repaired to Boston during "the time of the Court of Assistants," and upon a lecture day, by leave of the ministers, again made a public confession, and at its close, asking "the Church to have compassion on him, and to deliver him out of the hands of Satan, was received into the Church again." Soon after, he went into the General Court and there confessed his misconduct, asking pardon, and was released from his banishment.11

How Underhill should have obtained a safe conduct to Boston, "by means of the elders and others of the Church of Boston," when they would not permit him to speak in their meeting a few months previous, and how he was so readily received again into the Church, and relieved from his banishment, upon his confession, would be a mystery, were not the fact known, that upon going home, Underhill became a strong advocate for a union of the plantations at Piscataqua with that of Massachusetts!!

His proceedings forthwith produced the utmost confusion in the colony, and for their better government, a majority of the people on the 23d of October, 1640, entered into a combination, or "body politic" for the purpose of enjoying "the benefit of his Majesty's laws," and all such laws as should be "concluded by a majority of the free men."12 Underhill attempted to "rend this combination," and "contrary to his oath and fidelity," went from house to house, and for his own ends, by flattering and threatening, got some hands to a note of their willingness to submit themselves under" the government of Massachusetts.13 Some of the magistrates of Larkham's party cited Underhill to appear before them, and answer for his conduct in "secretly endeavoring to persuade the inhabitants to offer themselves to the government of Massachusetts, whose favor he was desirous to purchase by these means, as he knew that their view was to extend their jurisdiction as far as they imagined their limit reached, whenever they should find a favorable opportunity."14 Underhill collected together his forces to attack Larkham's party; but they being in the minority, declined a contest. Meantime they had sent to the mouth of the river for assistance, and Williams, the Governor at Portsmouth, came up to Dover with a party, a Court was formed of which Williams was judge, and Underhill and his party were found guilty of riot, and were fined and banished the colony. Underhill had also sent for assistance, and what was not a little singular, he had sent to Massachusetts for that assistance; which goes to show that he thought he had been engaged in a work pleasing to them, if not with their knowledge and understanding. This was in February, 1640. March 4th following, the leading inhabitants of Dover, sent the following letter to the Governor of Massachusetts, explanatory of Underhill's conduct, and of their objection to coming under the Government of Massachusetts:

"NORTHAM, 4 i month. (1.40.)



HONOURED SIR: -- We, the Inhabitants of Northam, make bould to trouble you wth these few lynes, Certifyinge you that whereas wee suppose Captaine Underhill bath informed you and the rest of your brethren of the Matechusheth baye, that wee are all willinge, voluntarily to submit our Selves to your Gov-ernment upon fformer Articles propounded; truth it is wee doe very well aprove of your judicious wayes, and shall be very joyful, yu please God to enlarge us, that wee may be free from other ingagements and prmises wch some of us are obliged in to the owners or patentees, from whom under his Mat's Letter Patents we enjoy our free liberty, wch causeth us not for present to submit to any other government than that wch wee have already entered into combination to observe according to the King's Mat's lawes, until such time as the owners come over to us, wch wee suppose will be about three months hence, and then our prpositions Considered as the Lord shall direct us, wee will labour more to satisfy you. But for the prceedings of Captain Underhill seeking to undermyne us, and contrary to his oath and fidellyty as we suppose intrusted to him, hath went from house to house, and for his own ends, by flattery and threatening, gotten some hands to a note of their willingness to submitt themselves under your government, and some that have no habitation, to bring his purposes to pass; we doubt not but you are to well acquainted with his stratagems in plotting his owne designs, wch wee refer to your grave judgments. Some of those that subscribed to his note have this day utterly prtested against their owne act, for he hath raysed such a mutinie amongst us wch if we take not Course for the stoping thereof it may Cause the effusion of blood, by reason he hath by his designes privately rent the combination as much as in him lyeth, Contrary to his Act, that is that wee should continue in the same govmnt except an agreement or cause shewed to the Contrary in open Court, agreed on by the maior p'te. thus Much we thought good to acquaynt your wor'p, wthall beseeching your favourable construction, hoping you will weigh our Case in Equity and Conscience, and not any way to enforce us to any act whereby wee should break pr'mise or Covevant wth the patentees or amongst ourselves whchin soe doinge we should sinne greatly. wee heartyly desire your prayers for us, and comit you to the prtection of the Almightye at yor -----to be comanded.
Thom Larkham, William Waldern, Richard Waldern,
William Jones, John [†] Tuttle, Edward Colcorde,
John ffollett, henry beck, Robert [R] huckins
Robert Varney, Thos. [T] Layton, Richard Pinkcom,
Thomas Durston, Edward Starbuck, Thomas Tricky,
Thomas Roberts, William Pomfrett,

Samuel haines, William furbur,

Bartholomew Smith, William Storer,

John Dam, John [H] Hall,

Barthol'ew [†] Hunt, Phillip Swaddon.



From this letter it would seem that the leading men of Dover supposed Underhill was in correspondence with the government of Massachusetts, and was doing their work while he "raysed such a mutinie," and was rending the "combination as much as in him lyeth!" Also that the proprietors of the Hilton Patent were expected from England in about three months.

To make sure of a claim of jurisdiction over the patents at Piscataqua, the government of Massachusetts had already entered into a negotiation with the gentlemen in England who owned those patents, for a surrender of the jurisdiction of their patents. This negotiation was nearly completed; but still it was the policy of the Massachusetts government to bring about a voluntary submission on the part of the inhabitants of those patents, to their government. Hence the correspondence with Underhill.

Hence too, upon the application of Underhill for assistance they sent down a committee of three persons, the noted Rev., Hugh Peters, of Salem, the Rev. Samuel Dalton, and another, to examine into the state of affairs in the words of Winthrop, "to understand the minds of the people, to reconcile some dif ferences between them, and to prepare them.15 Prepare them for what? Why, for the event that Governor Winthrop and the magistrates of Massachusetts had long labored to bring about, the surrender of the jurisdiction of the patents upon the Piscataqua to that government, and which they knew would transpire as soon as the proprietors should arrive from England, whose ar-rival was expected in a few weeks.

The government of Massachusetts managed this affair with much adroitness. Underhill had been playing the part of the blustering emissary, till he had thrown the colony into the greatest confusion, and now milder measures and wiser heads were to be used. Accordingly a committee of ability and standing were sent down to Dover, who had the address, to settle the differences among the people, "and to prepare them." The immediate result of their mission was this, "that the one party revoked the excommunication, and the other the fines and banishment."16

The prospective result of it was, that the people of Dover were quite willing to agree to the surrender of their jurisdiction to Massachusetts, as soon as the proprietors had arrived in this country, and had made the necessary disposition to carry that long agitated project into effect.


     
Children of Robert Huckins and Elizabeth Beard are:
  960 i.   James Huckins, born 1644 in Oyster River, Durham, New Hampshire; died August 28, 1689 in Huckins Garrison, Oyster River, Durham, New Hampshire; married Sarah Burnham Abt. 1673 in Oyster River, Durham, New Hampshire.
  ii.   Sarah Huckins, born 1654 in Oyster River, Dover, Strafford, New Hampshire.


[ Home Page | First Page | Previous Page | Next Page | Last Page ]

Search for Family - Learn About Genealogy - Helpful Web Sites - Message Boards - Guest Book - Home
© Copyright 1996-99, The Learning Company, Inc., and its subsidiaries. All rights reserved.
© Copyright 1995-97 by Matthew L. Helm. All Rights Reserved.