2. John TOWER
John Tower was baptized on 17 May 1609 in the Parish of Hingham, Norfolk, England. He was the son of Robert A. Tower and Dorothy Damon.
Not much is known about John's youth. It appears that he came from a rather meager background, since he could not read or write. The parish in which he grew up was a hotbed of Puritanism, led by the parish rector Robert Peck, and John was drawn into his congregation. Peck became so decided a Puritan that he called for the dismissal of his superior, Bishop Wren, a move that did not endear him to the church authorities.
Eventually, Peck's positions led him to the alternative of being imprisoned or fleeing the country; he chose the latter. He was joined by several members of his congregation, including John. Several of his neighbors had established themselves in the Plymouth Colony around 1635 at a place they named after their old home: Hingham. John arrived there in 1637 and settled in; in his records for that year, the Hingham town clerk made the entry: "John Tower and Samuel Lincoln came from Old Hingham and both settled in New Hingham."
John had a three acre house lot on Bachelor Street granted to him about one fourth of a mile from the meeting house in that year. The Proprietor's Records show that he had the following lands:
" The several parcels of land and meadow legally given unto John Tower by the town of Hingham. Given unto John Tower by the town for a house-lot, three acres of land lying on Bachelor Street, bounded with the land of William Ludkin, Northwestward, and with the land of Thomas Shaw, Southeastward, butting upon the street Eastward, and upon the common Westward. Given unto John Tower by the town for a great lot, ten acres of land lying upon the great plain in the first furlong to the eastward of the centre, butting upon the highways eastward and westward, bounded with the land of John Tucker Northward, and with the land of Thomas Barnes southward. Given unto John Tower by the town for a planting lot, three acres of land lying in the plain neck, and one acre more at the end of the same for an addition, bounded with the land of William Ludkin southwestward, and with the land of Henry Rust northeastward, butting upon the common northward and southward. Given unto John Tower by the town, one acre and half of Salt Marsh on the north side of Layford Lyking river, next unto Ralph Woodward."
It does not appear that John actually built a house on the lot granted to him by the town for that purpose, since in 1638 he sold "three acres of upland" to Edward Cooper. That same year, he sold his house lot and bought a dwelling house and lot, also on Bachelor Street, from Thomas Shaw who had moved to Barnstable; he also purchased his great lot, planting lot, and marsh. On 13 December 1638, he petitioned to be made a freeman; he was admitted a freeman on 13 March 1638/9.
He married MARGARET-2IBROOK on 13 February 1638/9 in Charlestown, Norfolk County, Massachusetts. She was the daughter of Richard Ibrook and his wife Margaret ------, and was baptized in Southwold, Suffolk County, England, on 3 September 1620. They had ten children:
i John bpt. 13 December 1639 m. Sarah Harding ii Jonathan bpt. 1 August 1641 d. unm. iii Ibrook bpt. 7 February 1643/4 m. Margaret Harding iv Jeremiah bpt. 9 March 1645/6 m. Elizabeth (------) Rowlands v Elizabeth bpt. 9 October 1648 m. William Roberts vi Sarah bpt. 16 July 1650 m. ------ Curtis vii Hannah bpt. 17 July 1652 m. (1) ------ Cowell m. (2) David Whipple viii Benjamin bpt. 5 November 1654 m. Deborah Garnet ix Jemima b. 25 April 1660 m. Thomas Garnet x Samuel bpt. 26 January 1661/2 m. (1) Silence Damon m. (2) Deborah Hayward
On 5 December 1639, he was chosen to "lay out the great lots to the eastward of the river in order with 'convenientsie' as may be, with all expedition." On 4 September 1641, he and several of his neighbors received eight pence per tree -- John producing ten.
On 30 July 1640, John was fined £5 for disturbing the peace. It was not his last brush with the authorities; in 1644, he was deeply involved in a contoversy which envelopped the town and the entire colony. It revolved around the election of a person by the military company of the town and the requirement that he be presented to the colonial authorities for their approval. Until this year the militia company had not had a captain, but was commanded by Lt. Anthony Eames. Required by the colonial authorities to have a captain, they elected Eames to that position. But, before he was confirmed in that appointment a disagreement broke out between Eames and the company and they voided their previous election and instead elected Bozoon Allen to the post.
The partisans of the respective candidates attended the meeting of the next General Court called to settle the question. The Court took the matter under advisement, and the townspeople returned home "under much excitment of feeling." Upon their return, Allen's friends appointed a training day without Eames' knowledge. When they were assembled, he appeared and claimed the authority to exercise them by virtue of his office. The majority of the company, however, refused to obey him and instead recognized Allen as their commander who proceeded to drill them for the next two days.
The dispute soon crept into the church membership. Among those most earnest in their opposition to Eames were Joshua Hobart and Rev. Peter Hobart, a close personal friend of Allen and John's brother-in-law. At a meeting of the congregation, John testified that one of the magistrates at the Court had advised Eames to lay down his authority -- a fact which Eames had denied previously -- thus, in effect, calling Eames a liar. Eames complained to the magistrates in Boston, who then sent warrants for the arrest of John and the three Hobarts. They were apprehended and ordered to give bonds, with sureties, for their appearance before the authorities in Boston.
John refused to pay the bond, since he believed the court had no jurisdiction over the matter. Similarly, Rev. Peter Hobart was so indignant at the arrest of him and his friends for a matter which he considered purely eccleasiastical, and solely within his jurisdiction as Hingham's minister, that he appeared before the magistrates and protested against their actions with so much vehemence that "the magistrates told him that were it not for respect to his ministry they would commit him." John was not so fortunate; he was jailed for his failure to give a bond.
Before the next scheduled court date before the magistrates, Peter Hobart and eighty other citizens presented a petition to the General Court asking them to hear their complaint and also to rule on the jurisdiction of the magistrates. The Court agreed to hear the case, and made Deputy-Governor Winthrop the defendant. Winthrop later gave the following account of the proceedings:
" Two of the magistrates and many of the deputies [the members of the General Court] were of opinion that the magistrates exercised too much power, and that the people's liberty was thereby in danger; and other of the deputies (being about half) and all the rest of the magistrates were of a different judgment, and that authority was overmuch slighted, which, if not timely remedied, would endanger the commonwealth and bring us to mere democracy. By occasion of this difference there was not so orderly carriage at the hearing as was meet, each side striving unseasonably to enforce the evidence, and declaring their judgments thereupon . . . . So the beast part of two days was spent in this public agitation and examination of witnesses, etc."
The magistrates and deputies met separately for several days debating the issues. The magistrates were for censuring the petitioners and imposing heavy fines on "those who were bound over and others that were parties to the disturbances at Hingham," but the deputies would not give their consent. Finally, a compromise was reached -- owing mostly to the fact that the legislators had been meeting for more than a month and were "growing weary of the court." To the magistrates' findings in relation to John, the deputies returned as follows:
" We find that the public charge and accusation of John Folsom and John Tower against the deputy-governor, the premises considered, are causeless and unjust, and that some things in the petition and explanation of it are false and scandalous, for which all the petitioners ought to receive their due censure. To the charge by John Folsom of the deputy-governor, 14 deputies assent that it is unjust, and 13 deputies dissent; 6 stand neuter. To the charge by John Tower of the deputy-governor 17 deputies vote the negative that his charge is not unjust, and 14 affirm, and 2 stand neuter."
On 28 June 1645, the magistrates voted to fine several of the Hingham "ringleaders" amounts varying between £2 and £20; John was fined £5. They also imposed fines of twenty shillings on each of those who signed the petition -- except for John, John Folsom, and Peter Hobart -- totalling £155.10.00. Once again, the deputies did not agree with the magistrates, and a series of compromise negotiations took place. As a result, it was decided that John had been punished enough and that his "censure for his delinquency [was], that he should bear his imprisonment, provided he bear no other censure, either as petitioner or otherwise." The fine on the rest of the petitioners was reduced to an aggregate £53.10.00.
These proceedings apparently did not reduce the esteem in which his fellow citizens held him. In that year, he was one of seven men chosen to order the prudential affairs of the town.
In 1647, John lost the grant of salt marsh he had received in 1637 because of a jurisdictional dispute between the towns of Hull and Hingham. To make up for the loss, he received the following grants in 1647 and 1649:
" Given unto John Tower by the town, one acre and half of Salt Marsh ay Conyhassett: it is the 29 lot in the first division, bounded with the meadow of James Buck northward, and with the meadow of Daniel Cushing westward, and with the cove, Eastward and Southward -- which meadow was given for satisfaction for meadow given him at Nantascutt. Given unto him one acre of Salt Marsh at Conyhassett. It is the 30th lot in the third division, bounded with the meadow of Mr. Bozoon Allen northward, and with the meadow of Matthew Hawke southward; with the river eastward, and with the town's land westawrd; and he is to have all the abovesaid parcels of land and meadow to him and his heirs forever, be they more or less, as they were measured."
He received another grant in 1649: "Given unto John Tower by the town, a small parcel of upland lying between Bachelor Street and the Salt Marsh of Thomas Loring" On 1 January 1650/1, he purchased a homelot that had originally belonged to Thomas Gill.
By the early 1650's, the coastal towns of the Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay Colonies were becoming relatively crowded, and many of the colonists began looking to the uninhabited inland to set down new roots. One of the new towns that was founded as a result was Lancaster, which was incorporated in 1653. In 1654, John's name is found on the list of residents. He probably never established himself there, though; the following agreement bearing the date 18 April 1654, is found in Lancaster records and was signed by John:
" That such of them as were not inhabitants and who were not yet come up to build, improve, and inhabit, would by the will of God come up to build, plant, and inhabit within a year, otherwise to forfeit also their land, and pay five pounds for the use of the plantation."
That he remained in Hingham is evidenced by the fact that on 27 September 1657, he purchased from his brother-in-law, William Cockram, some land and marsh at "Great Lots" there. That same year he was elected one of the Way Wardens, and he was Constable in 1659. On 18 April 1661, he bought of Edward Wilder a dwelling house and orchard with five acres of land, as well as another lot of three acres and one of four acres which Edward had previously purchased from Samuel Ward. In addition, he bought three acres of salt marsh in the Conahasset marshes next to Henry Chamberlain; the deed was recorded on 13 May 1673.
Having lost interest in moving to Lancaster, John turned his sights south to an area in present-day Rhode Island where in 1661 he made a sizeable purchase from the Indians:
" Know all men to Whom Theis p'sents shall come That we Petnowatuk, Mattarnnahamen, Woumpapagun, Sepatanchihimit, living upon and belonging to a certain tract of Land, caled by the name of Toushkenuck, have for a good and valuable consideration by us In hand Reaceved and pay'd by John Twoer of Hingham in the Matathussetts, Wherewith we doe acknowledge ourselves to be fully Contented and satisfyed, have given, granted, Bargained, sould, Infef, and confirm Unto the above-mentioned John Tower, Senior, the aforesayd tract of Land as before specifyed Lying bounded as it doth further appear as by a Draught which the aforesayd Indians made and confirmed under their hands, Containing two miles Broade, bounded by Pautuxsitt River, and to begin at a place called Mossonakisett, and so to run two miles by Pautuxsitt River, and to run three miles in Length, the bound & Runing withe Midest of the River called Mokshontatak River, unto the aforesayd John Tower, Senior, and to his heairs forever. And we the aforesayed Petnowatuk, Mattarnnahamen, Woumpapagun, Sepatanchihimit, at doe covenant by these p'sents That we, the aforesayd Indians, are the true and proper owners of the aforesayd Barganed premises at the Tyme of the Bargan and Salle thereof, and that the aforesayd premises, with all the appurtenances, are free and Cleare and frely and clearlye aquitted, exonarited and discharged for and from all former bargans, sales, gifts, grants, titels, Morgages, and Ingagm'ts, and fairly aquitted of and for all manner of Salles, Actions, Atachmts, Judgmts, executions, and Incombrances whatsoever that may Arise conserning the same. And we the aforsayd Petnowatuk, Mattarnnahamen, Woumpapagun, Sepatanchihimit doe covenant and grant by these p'sents for us and our heires all the aforesayd premises, with thir apurtenances, to warrant, aquitt, and defend against all persons whatsoever that may lay clame and Challeng any Way to the Mollestation of the aforesayd John Tower & fre possession of the same, according to Those premises and p'sent. And that it is and shall be lawful for the Sayd John Tower or his heairs or assignes to Inrole and Record or cause to be Inroled and Recorded The tittell an tenor of theis p'sents according to the true intent and meaning thereof. And according to Usual Manner [?] [?] and Recording deeds and Covenants made and proved; in Witness we the sayd Petnowatuk, Mattarnnahamen, Woumpapagun, Sepatanchihimit, have hereunto set our hands and Seales This seavententh day of June one thousand six hundred and sixty one."
Apparently, though, these lands had previous claimants. Roger Williams and two associates had a deed from two chiefs named Canonicus and Miantonomi which conveyed to them "all that land from those rivers reaching to Pawtuxet river, as also the grass and meadows upon the said Pawtuxent river." A related deed dated 1659 from the brother of the recently-deceased Miantonomi confirmed that cession, naming "[a]ll the lands between Pawtucket river and Pawtuxet river up the streams without limit."
As a result of the conflicting claims, in June 1677 one of Rogers' associates -- William Harris -- petitioned the King to appoint a commission to hear the claims and make an award:
" In his petition he gives a summary of the difficulties and dangers that surrounded the Pawtuxet purchase. He states that he and his twelve partners had purchased the land about forty years before; that their purchase or parts of it were claimed by the town of Providence, the town of Warwick, the colony of New Plymouth, and two parties of the province of Massachusetts Bay . . . . All these various claims depended upon the extent of the original purchase of Providence.
* * * The prayer of this petition was granted, and the governors of the four New England colonies were directed to appoint commissioners to hear the matter in dispute. The gentlemen appointed upon this commission were Thomas Hinckley and James Cudworth of Plymouth; Simon Lynde and Daniel Henchman, of Massachusetts; George Dennison and Daniel Wetherel, of Connecticut; and John Coggeshall and Peleg Sanford, of Rhode Island. They met in Boston on the third of October, 1677, and empannelled a jury -- four of whom belonged to Massachusetts, two to Plymouth, three to Connecticut, and three to Rhode Island. They then adjourned to Providence, where they met on the 17th of November. Five cases were there entered and tried before the jury. William Harris, Thomas Field, and Nathaniel Waterman were the plaintiffs. The defendants were John Tours of Hingham; the town of Warwick; John Harrod and partners; Edmund Caverly, Gregory Dexter, Arthur Fenner, and the town of Providence. "
Judgment was entered for the plaintiff in all cases, and the defendants were ordered to give up the lands and pay costs. John appears to have been slow in getting around to paying up; many years later an entry in the inventory of the estate of William Harris there appears a debt of £18 owing from John. He no doubt wished the entire matter would go away, since the award of the lands to the other party meant that he was out the original purchase price. Apparently the only thing he got out of the entire deal was "a large acquaintence and much influence with the Indians."
While this entire mess was pending, John continued to acquire lands in Hingham. On 16 May 1664, he purchased a considerable tract there from Edward Wilder. It stretched from what later became Main Street, at Cole's Corner, to the brook at Tower's Bridge, and seems to have contained about thirty acres. He built a house at the southern end of this purchase, where he lived for the remainder of his life; three of his sons eventually built houses on the same land.
Another land transaction appears to have been the source of some friction between John and a neighbor. John and John Magoon were fined twenty shillings each, "for the use of the town, for quarrelling and striking one another in a public town meeting." Although the reason for the fracas does not appear in the record, it can be inferred from the following:
" Edmund Pitts . . . and John Tucker . . . testifieth, and saieth that they being present when Simon Peck bought of John Tower the house and land, whereupon John Magoon now dwelleth, these deponents did then hear the said John Tower and said Simon Peck agree and conclude that he, the said John Tower, should have a way through the said land unto the said John Tower's salt-marsh meadow, both to cart and carry hay, to drive and fetch cattle for egress and regress, he the said Tower and his heirs and assigns forever, without molestation or denial; and this we are ready to testify upon oath when legally called thereunto."
The affidavit was dated 20 June 1665, and was testified to as being true on 19 May 1684. John and Magoon were probably involved in a dispute over this right-of-way.
That same year -- 1684 -- he was involved in a land dispute with the town. at a town meeting, John complained that the town has appropriated a small parcel of upland from the western end of his great lot for enlarging the country road. The rest of the record follows:
" [A]lso he desired satisfaction for salt-marsh, that, he said, was granted by the said town at Nantascut to William Cockerill; and he then said that the said William Cockerill had given or sold his said marsh to him, and the town left that matter to the selectmen to be issued with the said John Tower; and on the 18th day of March, 1666, the selectmen of the town and the said John Tower viewed some brushy meadow lying in the woods in Hingham, near to Ridge Hills, but did not lay out any while they were there, but as they were coming home proposed to the said Tower what they thought to allow of said brushy meadow in satisfaction for said upland and marsh, and he seemed to be content therewith; but some of the selectmen went after to lay out what the selectmen agreed with him, and then the said John Tower denied their agreement, and claimed more than was agreed upon; and the persons that went to lay it out returned and did nothing, but concludedthat what had been formerly done was nothing in reference to that matter. And at a town meeting in said Hingham on the 24th day of January, 1670, the said John Tower renewed his motion to the town for satisfaction for said upland and marsh-land, and the town hearing how said selectmen had acted about it, the town then chose Lieut. John Smith, John Jacob, John Leavitt, Thomas Lincoln, husbandman, and Daniel Cushing, to measure or set out to John Tower, Sen., a parcel of brushy meadow at a place called "Ridge Hills," according to their agreement with the said Tower on the town's behalf, on the aforesaid eighteenth of March, they at that time being selectment of the town. The said five men above named, or the major part of them, have, since they were chosen, laid out a piece of brushy meadow which contained by estimation about six acres of land or thereabout, and it is bounded with the Ridge Hill and with the meadow of John Prince, towrd the northeast, and with the main brook toward the northwest, and with the town's land toward the southeast and also toward the southwest, which said piece of brushy meadow is laid out in full satisfaction for the said John Tower's upland, and also for the said marsh-land that the said John Tower said was granted to the said William Cockerill."
In addition to this issue, John appears to have had other disagreements with the town. On 16 October 1668, the following appeared in the town records:
" By a joint consent of the town, John Tower, Sen., is released from the four actions that are now depending in the Commissioners' Courts, provided that he pay all the charges that the town hath been out about them which he did promise to pay."
Nor did the disagreements end there. For some time, there had been some discussion in the town about dividing up among the inhabitants the lands within the town limits which had not yet been granted. It was eventually decided to divide the land up into four divisions, which were further divided into a total of 700 shares to be distributed among the proprietors in groups of between two to thirty-five shares. John received eight shares.
At a town meeting on 24 January 1669/70, the town voted to prohibit the sale or similar alienation of the divided land. The resolution provided that no holder of a share could sell the land to anyone living outside of the town, unless he sold his entire estate in the town. There were only three dissenters to the otherwise unanimous vote -- John was one of them.
On 6 December 1670, the proprietors drew lots to determine which exact shares they would get. John drew the sixty-ninth lot in the first division containing fifteen acres, two roods, thirty-two rods. That same day the lots in the second division were drawn; John drew the forty-second lot containing twenty-three acres and sixteen rods. On 10 March 1670/1, the lots in the last two divisions were drawn; John drew the seventieth lot containing seventeen acres and two roods in the third division, and sixteen acres, one rood, and twenty-eight rods in the last. The lots were from three to five miles from his residence, and the total land area he received was seventy-two acres, two roods, and thirty-six rods.
It seems though that, like many of the proprietors, he was dissatisfied with the division. On 9 May 1673, he lodged the following petition with the General Court:
" Humbly Sheweth -- That whereas your petitioner has been an inhabitant and freeman of the town of Hingham about 35 years, and in and about the years 68 amd 69 the said town had several meetings, and the major part of the said town's people did amply agree of and settle a division of the common that belonged to the said town, excepting some part of the said common that was to lie common property for the use of the proprietors, and some exceptions made about the wood, and timber was to be divided according to the house lots, heads, and estates of the proprietors or inhabitants aforesaid; And at another town meting after it was agreed how they should be valued or rated as by the town's book or records thereof may appear, and yet notwithstanding all what before said to be legally and amply done by the town in the premises, your petitioner has nor cannot receive any benefit or allowance according to the aforesaid town acts as to heads and estates, and on nothing was his just proportion as to house-lots. Although your petitioner has used all fair means and profert as far as he was capable for the obtaining the same, it is positively denied him. And further, your petitioner is denied by the clerk any copy authenticated of the town's book records, the said clerk being prohibited to give me any that is authentic, so that I cannot sue at common law, nor any other way proceed for want of the copies of the town records as before said, and am wholly left destitute of being able to do anything for myself excepting what this Honorable General Court shall please to grant me, to whom I make this humble supplication for that favor to be granted me, that I may but have a hearing of my just complaint wherein I am so great a sufferer. And if the Honored Court shall appoint any other persons to examine the premises, I humbly crave that there may be the respect had that the matter be committed or left unto unconcerned persons no ways interested as to persons or case; in which I shall be happy and ever bound to pray for the prosperity of this Honored General Court, and subscribe myself your poor petitioner for my redress.
In answer to the petition, the magistrates simply "refer[red] the petitioner to a due course of law against the town or clerk, their brethren;" there is no record of John pursuing the matter further."
In 1675, a war broke out among the colonists and a group of their Indian neighbors -- King Philip's War. Hingham, from its position on the seacoast, was not heavily effected by the depredations. However, the town did take precautions against raids. John's house was located in an exposed location on the outskirts of Hingham, and the town fathers apparently considered it to be vulnerable since they ordered John to remove his family into one of the garrison houses near the center of town. He was not inclined, though, to comply, and submitted the following petition:
" 10 March 1675/6. John Tower, Sen., of Hingham, is bold to inform your Honors that he hath at his own proper charge fortified his house, and to beg your favor that his four sons and one or two persons more, that he may hire at his own cost, may be allowed him for the garrisoning his house, and may not be called off by the committee of the town for to come into any other garrison, my sons having deserted their own dwellings and brought their goods into my fortification. I shall then acknowledge your Honors' favor herein, and be thereby further obliged to pray for a blessing on your councils."
He was apparently allowed to remain. The decision to stay must have made for very cramped quarters: John and his wife; his seven children including John Jr. and his wife Sarah and baby Benjamin, son Ibrook with his wife and children, son Jeremiah with his wife and children, and daughter Hannah with her husband -- a total of twenty people. The earlier friendship he had established with the Indians now came into play. Whenever occasion called for someone to leave the garrsion house, the duty was usually assigned to "old John Tower." The others would say: "You go, old John Tower, the Indians know you, and they won't hurt you."
In 1677, another division of the common lands was made. Called the fourth division, it consisted of lands next to the Weymouth line. John was awarded twelve acres in this division, the last before his death. When added to the rest of his estate, he owned lands that were taxed at £2.17.06 on 9 October 1980. Part of the tax money was used to complete the meeting house. A record of the seating on the day it was first occupied for services -- 8 January 1682 -- shows that John's seat was directly under the pulpit. Some respect for his age seems to have played a hand in the preferred seating; four other elderly men shared his pew.
Now, having passed the age of seventy years, he bacame less active in the community. That does not mean, however, that he became completely inactive. In 1684, he was reappointed to a commission to lay out highways to which he was first elected in 1665.
He had, though, begun to ponder his mortality, and began deeding his lands over to his children for no other price but "in consideration of the[ir] natural love and affection." [continued in Part II] Part II: Bio of JOHN-1 TOWER Posted by: Rich Houghton Date: November 06, 2000 at 13:49:27 In Reply to: Bio of JOHN-1 TOWER (d 1702) ENG>MA by Rich Houghton of 364