My Eighth Great-Grandmother's Trial for Witchcraft
Arthur, Susanna, Mercy, Thomas
|
My Holbridge--Disbrow Family Origins
& Mercy’s Trial for Witchcraft
|
Margie
Bernard
|
8/4/2013
|
Arthur, Susanna,
Mercy and Thomas
Circa: 1613 to 1718
Mercy
Disborough, you have been found guilty of the felonies and witchcrafts whereof
you stand indicted. The court now passes sentence of death upon you as the law
directs. You shall be carried from this place to the gaol from whence you came,
and from thence to the place of execution, and there hung till you be dead. May
the Lord have mercy on your soul.
Verdict of the Special Court delivered by Governor Treat: Fairfield, Connecticut, October 28, 1692.
Verdict of the Special Court delivered by Governor Treat: Fairfield, Connecticut, October 28, 1692.
I have been unable to find what ship Mercy’s father, my
eighth great-grandfather, Arthur Holbridge[1], sailed
on from England to reach the Massachusetts Bay Colony; however, there is proof
he was living in Boston August 4, 1635. On that day, Arthur was in court
charged by William Hutchinson with overbilling 6 pence a day above the amount
established as a fair wage for carpenters, joiners, bricklayers, sawyers or
thatchers.[2]
The Court
held in favor of Hutchinson and fined
Arthur 5 shillings for each of the 30 days he overcharged: a total fine of £7.5.0
(£988 in 2011 relative price index—rpi).[3] It appears Arthur objected to this for court
records then state he was to be 'imprisoned for contempt until he could provide
surety that he would maintain good behavior'.[4] Finally, on September 1, 1635, the Court
ended the matter when it held Arthur was to pay 3 shillings weekly (£20.40 in
2011 rpi) to the Marshall of the Court until his fine was satisfied—this would
have taken him nearly a year to achieve.[5]
Most
people conducting family history research look for ancestors who were historic,
prominent, or titled. Arthur was none of these. This forefather of mine, on my
mother’s paternal side, was simply a salt-of-the-earth laborer; one of nearly 20,000 people who left the old world
for the new during The Great Migration 1625 to 1649.[6]
Sometime between 1637-8, Arthur
married Susanna who gave birth to their first child Mercy[7]. It is around this time they left the
Boston area with the John Davenport and Thomas Eaton plantation company to
become founding members of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven. On June 4,
1639, Arthur was one of sixty-eight men who met as:
“...free planters assembled together in
a general meeting to consult about settling civil Government according to God,
and about the nomination of persons that might be found by consent of all fittest
in all respects for the foundation work of a church which was intended to be
gathered in Quinipieck.”[8]
The
oath these men took declared only members of the church they intended to
establish ‘or those of other approved churches’ would be considered
citizens of the New Haven Colony[9]. On August 22, 1639, the First Church of
Christ held its initial gathering in Quinipieck with John Davenport as its
pastor.
Davenport had been vicar
of the Anglican St. Stephen’s Church, Coleman Street, London but resigned in
1633 after he was converted to Puritanism by John Cotton just before Cotton
emigrated to the Massachusetts Bay Colony.
In their correspondence Cotton related how good life was in his new
homeplace so Davenport convinced Theophilus Eaton, a long-time friend and
wealthy member of his former congregation, to form a plantation company to
establish a new colony in the Massachusetts Bay area. Eaton complied and they along with their
families left London on the Hector and
another ship, which reached Boston on June 26, 1637.[10]
The
Davenport-Eaton contingent arrived at Boston amidst a major turmoil over what
form of government should be established in the colony. Four years earlier
Roger Williams had been banished from the colony for “disorganizing conduct
in both in church and state”. An
English Protestant theologian Williams was an early proponent of religious
freedom and separation of church and state—a belief also shared by Anne
Hutchinson the well educated daughter of a silenced clergyman in England. A mother of fifteen, she and husband,
William, a wealthy English clothing merchant, migrated with their family to
Boston in 1634.[11]
The
Hutchinsons became members of the First Church of Boston and soon thereafter
Anne began holding conventiclers in her home with other women to discuss recent
sermons.[12] During these meetings, she
voiced theological views similar to those of Roger Williams and encouraged
others to express their thoughts on the matter. Word of these discussions began
to attract men who were prominent merchants, magistrates and ministers—two of
whom was her brother-in-law Rev. John Wheelwright.[13]
Because
of increased attendance at these meetings, John Winthrop, Sr., Governor of the
Massachusetts Bay Colony, convened a synod to try Anne for her beliefs charging
she had ‘troubled the peace of the
commonwealth and churches [and] maintained
a meeting in your house that hath been condemned by the general assembly as a
thing not tolerable nor comely in the sight of God nor fitting for your sex . .
.[14]
At trial's end Anne was named a
heretic and banished from the Massachusetts Bay Colony; she and her family and
supporters left Boston to join Williams in his Providence Plantation.[15] Although Arthur knew
William Hutchinson and perhaps Anne as well, we can only speculate as to how he
related to this whirlwind theological debate that led to Anne's banishment.
Both Rev. John Davenport and Rev. John Cotton attempted to dissuade Anne of her
beliefs but in the end they both agreed to the banishment.[16] At this point Davenport had
rejected Presbyterianism and set forth the tenets of Congregationalism.[17]
Since establishing the Massachusetts
Bay Colony in 1630, Gov. Winthrop and others slowly transformed what was
originally a chartered mercantile colony into that of a commonwealth. This
provoked Charles I who threatened to revoke their charter. Not wanting to
engage in this dispute, Davenport and Eaton decided to move with their
contingent to land that Eaton had purchased from Momauguin, sachem of the
Quinipieck Native American tribe, which was nearly extinct after years of
battles with the Pequots and Mohawks who were encroaching upon their tribal
lands[18]. In the treaty between
the New Haven colonists and the Quinipieck it was agreed that the Quinipieck
would continue to live on the territory and freely farm, fish, and hunt as
before while enjoying the protection from their enemies by the new settlers.[19]
In 1639 Arthur decided to leave
Boston with the Davenport-Eaton plantation contingent in their quest to establish
the New Haven Plantation Colony. According to Isabel Calder, the New Haven
Colony was the smallest Puritan settlement founded by:
[. . .] ultra-conservative
Puritans, unrestricted by royal charter, far removed from the ecclesiastical
organization of England. [Thus, this] colony
on Long Island Sound served as a laboratory in which Puritan theories of
ecclesiastical and civil organization might be tested.” [20]
In the case of Davenport, these
Puritan theories called for church and state to be one entity. However, I
strongly suspect Arthur’s reason for moving to New Haven was more economic than
religious. The Davenport-Eaton plantation seekers were one of the wealthiest to
have made the move to the new world; establishing their colony in new territory
would require skills of men like Arthur to construct dwellings to house them.
In the case of Eaton, his house was a two-story structure in the shape of an E
containing twenty-one fireplaces. Davenport’s was built like a cross with a
chimney in the center. Arthur and Susanna would have lived in one of the common
houses—small, one-story structures with sharp roofs, a stone chimney, and tiny
diamond windows.[21]
On
October 25-26, 1639, Arthur would have voted with the other freemen to elect the
twelve men as the governing body or General Court of the New Haven Colony to
deliberate on matters of civil government.[22] And because it was
believed that the word of God took precedent over English Common Law, jury
trials were abolished.[23] Instead
a magistrate and four deputies were appointed to hold hearings, take evidence,
render a verdict and, when necessary, carry out punishment.
Tracking Arthur via New Haven
Court Records
·
April 14, 1640: it was ordered that Arthur ‘shall pay 40 shilling fine for falling trees
and selling clapboard, contrary to the orders in that case’ [24] This evidently refers to a
General Court decision on November 25, 1639 stating: It is ordered that after this day no man shall cut any timber down but
where he shall be assigned by the magistrate, except on his own land.[25]
·
September 9, 1640: it was alleged Arthur had delivered
a batch of lime to the mill which was not the full measure agreed upon:
Edward
Adams testified upon oath that the note of information which he had formerly
delivered into the court (concerning the lime which Arther Halbidge, hath
delivered to the mill) is true, which when he had done, Arther Halbidge excepted
against it, thinking to prove the said Edward Adams a perjured person. But
Goodman Pigge, Richard Beach and John Wakefield affirmed the truth of what
Edward Adams had testified (though the said Artur Holbidge did conceive they
would have contradicted Edward Adams his testimony). It was therefore ordered
that the said Arther should pay two fold for all the want of measure that is
charged upon him and from hence
forth take no work by the great,
nor burn any lime to sell. [26]
In 1641, a free school was
established in the town of New Haven to provide common education as well a
colony-wide grammar school to prepare students for college.[28]
When taking an inventory of
all residents of New Haven in 1643, Arthur:
Appeared
with a household of four, an estate of £20, eleven acres of land in the first division, two acres and thirty-two
rods in the neck, three acres of meadow, twelve acres in the second division and, an annual rate paid for
land of 7 shillings, 4 pence.[29]
His
inventory also included ownership of one musket, a sword, a belt, a flask and
horn valued at £2.18.2 (these were provided by the colony in their quest to
maintain security of the town). And because Arthur's inventory state he owned
two Bibles and other books valued at £2.0.4 it can be safely presumed that
either he or Susanna, or both, were literate.”
On May 16, 1643, the Colonies of
Massachusetts Bay, Plymouth, Connecticut and New Haven formed a confederation
of mutual protection henceforth to be called New England. In case of war each colony was to furnish
troops—Massachusetts one-hundred men with Plymouth, Connecticut and New Haven,
forty-five each.[30]
Tracking Arthur via New Haven
Court Records
·
February 5, 1644: Arthur Holbridge, having been
formerly charged by Mr. Browning for stealing from him a bushel of corn to the
value of 4 shillings, and a shirt or frock to the value of 1 shilling, which he
at first denied with cursing himself but not confessed the fact, and was
sentenced to be whipped and to make two fold restitution to Mr. Browning, and
to bare all the charges which have been caused by him.[31]
Perhaps
Arthur stole the corn so he could comply with the tithe imposed on each person
in the New Haven Colony to give a peck of corn or wheat annually to help
finance Cambridge College (later Yale University).[32]
·
October 6, 1645: 'Arthur Holbridge hath sold to Mr
Malbon all his land in the neck containing two acres and thirty-two rods'.[33] It
is safe to assume he did this to pay what he owed Browning and, one would hope,
have a little extra to meet his own family expenses.
·
June 2, 1646: Mrs. Brewster, Mrs. Moore, & Mrs.
Leach were in Court concerning ‘several
miscarriages of a public nature they
had engaged in'. These alleged wrongdoings had been reported by
Elizabeth Smith and Job Hall, servants of Mr. and Mrs. Leach. Arthur was called upon as a character witness
for Hall stating ‘he had heard Mr. Leech speak well of Job, as [being] satisfied with his service &
carryadge [character?]’.[34]
·
March 10, 1646: Attendance records indicate Arthur was
seated on the 9th seat of the hall along with Edward Banister, John
Herryman, Benjamin Wilmott and Jarvis Boykin.[35]
·
March 24, 1646: A footnote to Court record noted Arthur
Halbridge owed William Illes £1.1.6 for work done at the mill.[36]
·
February 1, 1647: John Lawreneson and wife were
charged with selling 'strong waters by small quantities, contrary to a court
order'. During discussion of this
matter, Arthur testified, “he had gone to the house where Goodwife
Lawreneson was, and saw persons sit drinking of small quantities of strong
water two or 3 times, and that her husband told him she had gained 30 shillings
in a week or a fortnights time by the way of selling out strong waters.”[37]
·
March 7, 1647: It was noted Arthur had turned over to
John Beech his house and home lot with all his accommodations. He did this to
satisfy a debt of £1.1.0 he owed William Iles for work done at the mill.[38] Iles was
the cousin of Beech, who after Iles died without a will, made claim to Iles’
estate. Because Iles had a surviving brother, the court made Beech put up
security to cover the value of Iles inventory; Beech complied then went after
the monies owed Iles by Arthur and the other debtors.[39]
Arthur
died sometime in January 1648/49[40], and
Susanna ‘delivered into the court an inventory of the estate left by
her husband, Arthur Holbridge, deceased, amounting to £43.14.10 [$4,600 in 2011 in rpi] appraised by
Roger Allen and Samuel Whithead upon oath, the 31st of January 1648.’[41]
As I
leave this portion of my family history I will offer a few words on behalf of
my eighth great grandfather: Perhaps Arthur was not always honest in his
business dealings and once committed petty theft; however, he was never charged
with any of the numerous anti-social acts committed by some of his fellow New
Haven citizens. He never neglected to perform guard duty; he was never accused
of brawling, bearing false witness, filthy dalliance, being unkempt; nor was he
charged with drunkenness, gambling, laziness, licentious behavior, not paying taxes, murder, or mistreating his
wife or children. He was just a simple working man, who did his best to provide
for his family; brave enough to undertake the arduous voyage across an
unforgiving ocean to improve his lot in life: for this act alone I proudly
claim him as one of my forbearers.
As obscure as is Arthur’s
early history, that of his wife Susanna is even more so.[42] Not
only is there no inkling as to her birthplace or date of birth, neither do we
know her maiden name. We don’t know the exact date she and Arthur married but
we do know she gave birth to Mercy in about 1638 and John about 1640 and that
they both were baptised by Rev. John Davenport on June 30, 1650, at the First
Church of Christ in New Haven two years after Arthur’s death.
As
Susanna had been one of the initial settlers in the New Haven Colony, it
appears her welfare was a concern of Governor Eaton who five months after
Arthur’s death stated he had become aware that Widow Holbridge was in need of
relief and ordered Mr. Gilbert and Mr. Wakeman to meet with the treasurer to
determine the state of her finances and see to it she and her children weren’t
left destitute.[43] Mercy would
have been about 11 and John 8.
We
know Susanna was living in New Haven on February 11, 1655/56 as Court records
state: “Goodwife Holbridge was one of three women seated before Deacon Miles’
seat”[44]. She
was living there still in May 16, 1659 as meeting records noted:
Widow
Holbridge having been oft put upon removes, a motion was made on her behalf for
a small piece of ground to set a house on, which the town was willing to [do]; it was
therefore left with the townsmen to set her out some small piece of land, if
any can be found convenient for that purpose, or to purchase [one] to 20
shillings value[45].
However,
sometime after this date Susanna moved to Fairfield where she married Rev. John
Jones—a second marriage for both. Mercy would have been around twenty-one, her
brother John about nineteen.[46]
Rev.
Jones, along with his first wife Susan and their five children, had arrived in
Boston aboard the Defense in October 1635 and were welcomed at a dinner
held at the home of Governor John Winthrop, Sr.
The Jones’ were preceded in their journey by Rev. Peter Bulkeley and his
family who had arrived in Boston aboard the Susan
and Ellen a few months earlier. Both men were Puritans who had left Odell,
Bedfordshire, England because they refused to comply with the rigid rituals of
the Anglican Church.[47] They were joined in this venture by twelve
other Odell families.
After
a brief stay in Boston, the fourteen Odell families left to settle Musquetaquid
which later became Concord, Massachusetts. At the April 1637/38 founding meeting
of the Concord Congregational Calvinist Church, Jones was made Pastor with
Bulkeley serving as Teacher. Later, because Concord was too small to support
two ministers Jones, along with one-hundred families left Concord for
Fairfield, Connecticut; one family was that of Thomas Bulkeley, a son of Peter
Bulkeley who had married Jones’ daughter Sarah.
When
Mercy was about twenty-four she, along with one Joseph Jeams, appeared at a
session of the General Court of Hartford, Connecticut on August 28, 1661 which
record stated:
This
court doth order and appoint Mr. Gould, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Knowles, Mr. Campfield
or any three of them, providing Mr. Gould to be one, to examine and issue ye
business respecting Joseph Jeams and Marcy (sic) Holbridge and to inflict such punishment as they judge meet
according to law.[48]
I have
not been able to find any record of what they were charged with or what was
their sentence; however, in a letter he wrote June 3, 1696, Rev. Gershom
Bulkeley (son of Peter) stated that during 1661-66 while he was pastor of the
Congregational Church in New London, Connecticut, Mercy Holbridge lived at the
parsonage with his family.[49]
Based on the coincidence of dates in this matter, I feel safe in presuming that
Mercy was sent by the court to live under the care and supervision of Rev.
Bulkeley. I want to strongly note that Mercy lived ‘with the family’ of
Bulkeley not ‘lived with Bulkeley’ as some records state—in moral terms there
is a vast difference.
When Jones retired from his ministry he was
evidently without funds so his community came to his aid as noted in records of
the May 1658 Connecticut General Court of Elections:
This Court approving the pious care of the
Towne of Fairfield, in procuring help for Mr Jones by his own consent
thereunto, as far as appears by a paper presented by their Deputies to the
Court, doe order, that according to their desires the foresaid paper be kept
amongst the Court papers and desire the Towne not in any way thereupon to
deprive their Reverend ancient Pastor, Mr Jones, in sickness or health, of his
comfortable maintenance.[50]
I can’t help but feel the marriage between
Jones and Susanna was one of convenience—hinted at by the stipulation in his will awarding
Susanna £50 ‘which he had promised her’.[51] He
needed to be cared for—she needed a place to live. Decorum of the day wouldn’t permit
her moving in with him, even as a housekeeper, so, like many women before and
after her, Susanna did what was necessary to survive: she married Jones.
In
1664, John Winthrop, Jr. recorded in his medical journal he treated the
step-daughter of Rev. Jones; daughter of his second wife Susanna[52]. At that time Mercy would have been around 26.
There is no indication what he treated her for which, if one looks at his
medical journal, he seldom stated for his patients. A noted physician, Winthrop was the eldest son
of John Winthrop, Sr., first governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony and
himself the first governor of the Colony of Connecticut.
Sometime
around 1670[53],
Mercy married John Nichols, Jr. strongly believed to be the grandson of Sgt.
Francis Nichols one of the founders of Stratford, Connecticut in 1639[54].
Little is known of their life other than Mercy gave birth to their two sons,
John and Nathan. Records indicate John Nichols, Jr. died during the King Philip
War in 1676.[55]
No probate records were found naming a benefactor, however, his brother Isaac (also
the grandson of Francis whose son John was Isaac and John Jr’s father) presented
John’s inventory to the court on May 2, 1676 stating he: “Had interest in cattle in New London; also his wages due him from the Country”.[56]
However, it is not clear whether Mercy benefited from this inventory. What is
clear is that she was granted a divorce from John on grounds of desertion by
the Connecticut General Court in May 1677; at the time she and their two sons
were living in New London, Connecticut:[57]
Mercy would have been about 40.
Three
years later, Mercy married Thomas Disbrow; her second marriage, his first.[58].
They lived in Compo, Fairfield County, Connecticut and their only child,
Thomas, Jr., was born sometime between1680-85;[59]
Mercy would have been between 43-48 years of age.
Again,
there is a mystery as to how or when Thomas came to live in Compo. In this
regard, an excellent Disbrow family history has been compiled by Michael S.
Disborow who is of the strong belief that Thomas may have initially been transported
to Maryland under the ‘head rights’ system:
“Starting about 1620, this
system became the standard technique of immigration into seventeenth-century
Virginia and Maryland. The established planters of these colonies, in order to
fulfill the need for additional land and the labor to work it, were granted
fifty acres for each person whose passage they paid for. To quote from
"The Atlantic Migration", by Marcus L. Hansen: "Enterprising
captains filled their ships with penniless passengers, carried them to the
Virginia rivers, and there sold them to planters for the cost of
transportation. The planters then filed claim for additional tracts of fifty
acres and set about growing still more tobacco."[60]
Michael S.
further speculates:
“Is it unreasonable to suppose
that Thomas Disbrow, finding himself in a position to come to America, might
not have cared what his initial point of contact would be? And, once here, that
he would find a way to escape his servitude (some got out of it by claiming to
have been forcibly carried off) and – possibly – to make his way northward to
where he knew he had friends or relatives (and where Puritanism was long
established)? I will leave it up to each one who reads this to draw his or her
own conclusion.”[61]
As for myself, I
will continue the search for additional information about these family members
but now it is time to return to Mercy’s history.
In
September 1692, as the Salem, Massachusetts witchcraft trials were coming to an
end, they were just beginning in Fairfield County, Connecticut.
In April of that year, Katherine
Branch, a seventeen year old servant of the prominent Stamford family, Daniel
and Abigail Westcot, began acting strangely. For no apparent reason she would
begin sobbing, contorting her body into rigid shapes, whimpering, lying
immobile and silent on her bed, then go into fits of uncontrollable laughing.
She told of strange visions in which cats spoke to her, assumed human form, and
threatened to kill her. The local midwife examined Katharine but found no
evidence of illness.
The
Westcots asked two pastors to counsel their servant. After conversing with her,
they felt she might indeed be bewitched, and vowed to observe a day of prayer
and fasting as a means of freeing her of her demons.
Over
the summer this young girl accused several women in the area of being witches.
One of these was Mercy, who in fact Katherine had never met.[62] Katherine
described to Abigail Westcot and Joseph Bishop, a vision she had in which cat
turned into a tall woman with big lips wearing the best quality woollen homespun
cloth. To which Abigail remarked to Joseph: I
know a woman at Fairfield who was suspected formerly [of witchcraft]; she has thick lips. I suppose you know
whom I mean: Mercy Holbridge. It was
shortly thereafter Katherine provided Mercy’s name as one of her tormenters[63]
On
May 27, 1692, four magistrates held a preliminary court of inquiry. During their
questioning of Katherine she named Mercy and Elizabeth Clawson as her
tormenters.
Summoned
to attend court the next day, Mercy Elizabeth were told of accusations against
them; when Katherine was brought into court to confront them, she promptly went
into a fit and when revived looked at Mercy saying, “It’s her! I’m sure it’s her!”[64]
At the end of this inquiry, the magistrates ordered both Elizabeth and Mercy
placed under restraint pending trial: Mercy was sent to the jail in Fairfield; Elizabeth
was given house arrest;
Over the summer a Court of Oyer and Terminer
(to “hear and determine”) took two hundred dispositions from Mercy’s and Elizabeth’s
neighbors alleging the two practiced witchcraft. In Mercy’s case, claims were
made she had bewitched animals and children; had
caused the death of calves, cows, lambs, and sheep. Witnesses told of optical illusions she
created—a pig that looked well on the table but could not be eaten; of causing
a canoe to go upstream by itself; of making a high tide go low. One witness said
Mercy could not read one word in a page of the Bible although she could read
other books without difficulty.
Based
on these and other allegations, a grand jury was constituted and began deliberations
on September 14, 1692. This was the week before the last eight of the
one-hundred-fifty charged with witchcraft in Salem were brought to
trial—nineteen of whom had been hung. Lacking sufficient evidence, the cases
against Staples and the Harvey women were swiftly adjudicated and they were
freed.
On
September 15, 1692, at Mercy’s request she was given the water test; hands tied
behind her back she was thrown into a pond—she bobbed to the surface—taken as a
sure sign of guilt.[65] The
naked bodies of both women were also examined by other women looking for
markings and/or hidden ‘witches teats’ whereby they could give suck to their
familiar spirits. In Mercy’s case they found ‘a teat or something like one in her privy parts, at least an inch
long, which is not common in other women, and for which they could give no
natural reason’. A second and then a third examination by different groups of
women found:
“[. . .] concerning Goody Clawson, we find in her private parts more than is
common to women, we can’t say teats, but something extraordinary, and Goody
Disborough’s is something like it, but a great deal smaller. Goody Clawson’s is
a dark red and Disborough’s of a pale color.” [66]
After hearing all the evidence the
jurors deliberated but failed to reach a unanimous verdict and adjourned until
October 28, 1692.
At
the October meeting, the jury found Mercy guilty; however, her death sentence
was delayed while her case was reviewed by the General Court in Hartford. Elizabeth
Clawson was declared innocent.
The
General Court appointed three magistrates, Samuel Wyllys, William Pitkin and
Nathaniel Stanley, to look into a petition filed by friends of Mercy claiming her
death sentence was illegal because one of the original jurors, who failed to
attend the October session, had been replaced by another person. This gave the
magistrates the hook they needed to declare the jury change rendered the trial
illegal:
“It is so
inviolable a practice in law that the individual jurors charged with the
deliverance of a prisoner in a capital case and on whom the prisoner puts him
or herself to be tried must try the case, and they only. . . One man altered,
the jury altered.”[67]
The magistrates
also declared that evidence presented against Mercy failed to satisfy the
criteria established to prove acts of witchcraft which were held to be either
by a confession from the accused or by testimony from two good witnesses proving some acts or acts done by the person which
could not be but by the help of the Devil: There was none of this.”[68]
The magistrates then referred the case to the Connecticut General Assembly with
the caveat “how far these proceedings do put a difficulty on any further trial
of this woman.”[69]
Finally,
wiser heads prevailed and the Connecticut General Assembly, instead of ordering
a new trial, acquitted Mercy and released her from her year-long imprisonment
in May 1693.
I
can only imagine the gut-wrenching anguish and terror Mercy and her family underwent
during her incarceration and trial, the cost of which, adding financial injury
to false imprecations, was billed to her husband Thomas. Furthermore, as the
letter written in 1696 by Gershom Bulkeley to his cousin attests, some people continued
to besmirch Mercy’s character. One of her Fairfield neighbors, James Redfin,
not content with being one of her accusers during the witch trial, alleged four
years later that Mercy had been pregnant and gave birth to a child when she was
living with the Bulkeley family in the New London, Connecticut rectory in the early
1660s. In fact, Bulkeley stated in this letter, it was Elizabeth Walker, an
unwed Scottish indentured servant who was pregnant when he bought her time; it
she who gave birth to a child which died at birth, not Mercy[70].
The
records of Mercy and Elizabeth’s trial were kept by Samuel Wyllys among his
private papers labeled Trials for Witchcraft. These documents were uncovered by
William L. Stone as he was going through papers in the possession of the
Wyllys family in 1820, while residing in Hartford as editor of the Connecticut Mirror. Stone published some
of the trial depositions in the New York Commercial
Advertiser on July 14 & 15, and these in turn were, reprinted in the New York Spectator on July 18th, and in
the Times and Weekly Advertiser,
Hartford on August 8, 1820.
Stone also made
use of some names and incidents of this trial in a collection of his short
stories in Tales and Sketches,
published in 1823. The first story in that volume, ‘Mercy Disborow’, can best be described as a fictionalized screed
that totally distorts the facts. For
starters he has Mercy being the daughter of Thomas Disborough not his wife. He
describes Mercy being a young beautiful girl when she was in fact in her late
50s, and it goes downhill from there.[71]
Thomas
Sr. died sometime prior to April 25, 1707, the date an inventory of his estate
was presented to the court by his son, Thomas. The Court appointed Mercy as
administrator which, after debts paid, was valued at £337.03.02. (£46,550 in
2011 rpi). Thomas, Jr. inherited the family farm.
There
is no official record of when Mercy died, however, according to Michael S. compiler
of the Disbrow Family History
It would appear
that she was still living as of 27 May 1713 when she received her part of the [estate] distribution. She died sometime within the following five years, as a
document bearing the date 4 June 1718 states: "John Nickols and Thomas
Disbrow, sons of Mercy Disbrow, late of Fairfield, dec'd ...", and was
probably buried near her husband in the old Compo Burial Place, south of their
Compo Hill farm.[72]
As
stated earlier, I am immensely proud of these Holbridge/Disbrow forbearers of
mine! I’m also pleased they were made part of the nation’s historical record. Their day-to-day acts of living as best they
could, under at times trying circumstances, serve as a reminder to us all that
we never know what may lie around the corner as we, their descendents, create
our own his-her/story.
[1] (Savage, 1861 VII) p. 329; Savage indicated that
Arthur’s surname has been variously spelled as Halbich, Halbidge, Halbridge,
Holbeech, Holbidge, Holbridge but usage over the years has settled on the
latter: Holbridge.
[2] (Nobel, 1904) p. 56 (73); Note:
First page number is that of the actual document, the one enclosed in ( ) is
the internet document page number.The first meeting of the
governing body of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, the Court of Assistants, was
held on August 23, 1630. Their first item of business was to order housing and
food be provided to ministers at parishioners’ expense. The next agenda item
established wages for carpenters, joiners, bricklayers, sawyers and thatchers
at two shillings a day; violation of which would result in both parties being
fined two times the amount paid. Idleness would not be tolerated and would be
punished.
[3] (Officer & Williamson) For computing
relative worth between previous and current monetary value go to: http://www.measuringworth.com/ukcompare/
[7] According
to Jacobus: “There are scarcely any vital records for the
period before 1700, and the extant church record do not begin until 1694. In
consequence, the probate and land records constitute our chief sources of
information. Brief abstracts of probate and land records are given, to show
record evidence for most statements.”
[8] (Hoadly, 1857) p.
11; Quinipieck was the Algonquin word for the area. The names of those attending this meeting were all male so if any women attended their names were
not recorded.
[9]
(Hoadly, 1857) pp.17-18; Later an
addition 48 signed for a total of 111. The oath the they took stated: Whereass there was a fundamentall agreement
made in a generall meeting of all the free planters of this towne, on the 4th
of the fowerth moneth called June, [1639] namely that church members onely
shall be free burgesses, and they onely shall chuse among them selues
magistrates and officers to have the power of transacting all the publique
ciuill affayres of this plantation, making and repealing laws, devideing
inheritances, decideing of differences thatt may arise, and doeing all things
and businesses of like nature. Itt was therefore ordered by all the said free
planters thatt all those hereafter should be receiued as planters into this
plantation should also submit to the said foundamentall agreement, and testife
the same by subscribeing ther names vunder the names of the aforesaid planters
as followeth.
[12] A conventicler is a small,
unofficial and unofficiated meeting of laypeople to discuss religious issues in
a non-threatening, intimate manner.
[13]
(Lambert);
p. 19 (25)
[15]
Sandwiched between Massachusetts and Connecticut, this later
became Rhode Island which was the first of the thirteen colonies to declare
independence from British rule, declaring itself independent on May 4, 1776,
two month before any other colony,
[17]
(Calder, 1934); p.
37-38 (45-47): An Apologie of
the Churches in New England for Church-Covenant.
[18]
(Quinnipiac): See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinnipiac
for a detailed history of the Quinnipiac Tribe. The
bill of sale, while creating the first Native American reservation, also marked
the beginning of ethnic cleansing.
[19]
(Barber, 1831); pp 23-29.
[20] (Calder, 1934); p. v, vi (5-6) p.29-30 (37-38): One error Calder makes on page 29-30 (37-38)
is listing
Arthur
Holbridge as one of the Davenport-Eaton Contingent that sailed from London in
1636 on the Hector; however, as
attested to in Nobel, he was already in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1635.
See Nobel p. 56 (73)
[21]
(Lambert);
pp. 52-3 (58-9): p. 52 contains an
illustration of Eaton’s house.
[22] (Lambert); pp. 23-26: The Governing Body chosen were Theophilus
Eaton, Governor, Stephen Goodyear,
Deputy Governor, Thomas Fugill, Secretary and Thomas Kimberly as Marshall—all of New Haven.
Magistrates were Thomas Gregson, New Haven; William
Flower and Edmund Tapp of Milford; Thurston Raynor, Stamford. Deputies were: George Lamberton and Nathaniel
Turner of New Haven; John Astwood and John S. Herman
of Milford; William Leete and Samuel Disborough of Gilford; Richard Gildersleve
and John Whitmore of Stamford.
[23]
(Lambert); p.
28: In April 1644 the General Court (the
legislative body of New Haven) adopted Mosaic Law as their legal code which “coincided with their notion that all government
should be in the church, inasmuch as ‘the saints should rule the earth.’
[26] (Lambert);
p. 46 (52): This short paragraph gives examples of the several misspellings of
his name in this short paragraph
[27]
(Lambert); p. 56 (62)
[28]
(Lambert);
p. 62 (68)
[29]
(Hoadly, 1857); p. 92 (100): This would amount to relative purchasing
index of £2,787 in 2011 rpi. His tax in 2011 rpi would have amounted to £980.
[31]I (Hoadly, 1857); p. 153: His fine
would have amounted to £1130 in 2013 rpi.
[32]
(Lambert);
p. 62 (68) See 2nd footnote.
[33] (Hoadly, 1857); p. 170
[35] (Hoadly, 1857); p. 302: I presume the 'seat' was
actually a bench. Also see:
(Bacon,
1839); p. 310 (324)
[36] (Hoadly, 1857); p. 300
[37] (Lambert); p. 364
[38]
(Hoadly, 1857); p.300: Footnote at the end of this page lists debts
several people owed Iles, one of whom was Arthur.
[39]
(Hoadly, 1857); p. 364
[40] Prior to
adopting the Gregorian calendar in January 1752, the New Year began on March 25
instead of our January 1. Therefore, using old style dating for the period
between January 1 and March 25, the year cited is given as January 1, 1648/49
to March 24, 1648/49.
[41]
(Lambert); p. 433
[42] (Jacobus); Vol
2, p. 288-9 There has been much speculation about a
marriage between one Susan Hollingsworth and Arthur Holbridge; however,
Susannah ‘Susan’ Hollingsworth (nee Woodburry) husband Richard lived until 1645
and she gave birth to their last child, Abigail, in 1641.
[43] (Lambert), p. 383
[46] Numerous records give Mercy's surname
as Jones, however, as she was an adult when her mother married Jones, there
would have been no reason for her to subsume that surname.
[47] (Jacobus, The
Bulkeley Genealogy, 1933); 100 (107) “The English Church at that
period was, in the opinion of the Puritans, too much concerned with ritual and
ceremonials, and not sufficiently concerned with the inner religious needs of
the common man. In brief, the ideal of the
Puritans was to get away from formalism, to eliminate the trimmings and
trappings, to appeal to the conscience of the individual, and to make the Bible
(rather than church doctrine) the basic guide and authority for the religious
life.”
[48] (Lambert) Vol. 1, p. 373. It is interesting to note that in the
Index of Lambert’s book their names are listed as: Holbridge, James, &
Holbridge, Marcy. There was indeed a Joseph Jenes/Jeanes living in New Haven as
attested to in Dexter, p. 407 & p. 431. And, because of the numerous
misspellings of names in these early documents I feel certain this is the same
person.
[49] (Jacobus,
History and Genealogy of the Families of Old Fairfield) pp.
300-03. A copy of this letter is provided in Appendix I.
[50]
(Lambert) Vol. 1 p. 316
[51]
(Jacobs, 1930), Vol. 1, p. 344 (348)
[53]
(Sanborne), p. 193
(211)
[54]
(Jacobs, 1930) Vol. 1, p. 434
(438). Sgnt. Francis Nichols, was put in charge of military affairs for
Stamford. In Jacobus’ documents the name is variously spelled as: Nichol,
Niccolson, Nichols, Nikols.
[55] King
Philips’ War began on June 24, 1675, ending August 1676. This was a short
vicious war in which Philips, a.k.a. Chief Metacomet, head of the Pokunoket
Tribe, sought to drive the setters out of the colonies. During this war, 5,000
people died, three-fourths of whom were Native Americans. Philips was beheaded.
http://www.history.com/topics/pilgrims
[56]
(Jacobs, 1930), Vol. 1, p.435
(439)
[57]
(Dayton, 1995), p. 330. Women before the
Bar is
the first study to investigate changing patterns of women's participation in
early American courts across a broad range of legal actions—including
proceedings related to debt, divorce, illicit sex, rape, and slander.
[58]
(Sanborne), p. 79 (97). In the
index to this publication the surname is spelt as: Desborough/Desborow/Disborough/Disbrow.
[59]
(Jacobs, 1930), Vol. 1, p. 187 (191)
[61]
(Disbrow, 1992 (Reprinted
1996), p. 22-23 (15-16)
[62]
(Godbeer, 2005), p. 6
[63]
(Godbeer, 2005), p.
38-9
[64]
(Godbeer, 2005), p.
44. This book, issued as one of the New
Narratives in American (sic) History,
gives an excellent account of these witchcraft trials in Connecticut.
[65]
Suspected witches were sometimes dropped into a
body of water to determine if they possessed evil spirits. The theory behind
the so-called “ducking test” was if the person sank she was innocent but if she
floated she was guilty because the pure water would cast out her evil spirit.
See Appendix Two
[66] (Godbeer, 2005), p. 94. I contend what they located were Elizabeth and Mercy’s
respective cliterous’.
[67]
(Godbeer, 2005), p.
123
[68]
(Godbeer, 2005), p.
124
[69]
(Godbeer, 2005), p.
125
[70]
See Bulkeley’s letter in the Appendix.
[71]
(Hoadly, 1857), p. 86. The information about Stone and
his writings were contained in a footnote on this page. I then did an internet
search where I located a copy of Stone’s book stored in the University of
Michigan Library.
[72]
(Disbrow, 1992 (Reprinted
1996), p. 44 (31)
Bibliography
Anne Hutchinson Biography. (2012).
Retrieved July 8, 2013, from Anne Hutchinson Society:
Barber, J. W.
(1831). History and Antiquities of the
New Haven, (Conn.) From its Earliest Settlement to the Present Time. New
Haven, Connecticut,
Bradford, A. New England Chronology. Boston,
Massachusetts, http://archive.org/stream/newenglandchrono00brad#page/40/mode/1up
Calder, I. M.
(1934). The New Haven Colony.
New Haven, Connecticut. Yale University Press.
Dayton, C. H.
(1995). Women Before the Bar: Gender,
Law and Society in Connecticut, 1639-1789. Omohundo Institute of Early
American History.
Dexter, F. B.
(Ed.). (1917). New Haven Town Records
1649/50 to 1662 (Vol. 1). New Haven, New Haven Historical Society.
Disbrow, M. S. (1992 (Reprinted 1996). Descendants of Thomas & Mercy
(Holbridge) Disbrow: The First Six Generations (Vol. 1). Manton,
Michigan, USA. Library
of Congress Catalog Card Number: 92-070831
Godbeer, R.
(2005). Escaping Salem: The Other
Witch Hunt of 1692. New York, New Yor,, USA: Oxford University Press.
Hoadly, C. J.
(1857). Records of the Colony and
Plantation of New Haven from 1628 to 1649. State Library of Connecticut.
Hartford: Chase, Tiffany and Company.
Jacobs, D. L.
(Ed.). (1930). History and Genealogy of the Families of Old Farifield. Vol. I . Genealogical
Publishing Company, Baltimore, 1976, 1991
Retrieved
July 28, 2013, from www.ancestry.com: http://search.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=48014
Jacobus, D.
L. (Ed.). History and Genealogy of the Families of Old Fairfield, (Vol.
2-1). Genealogical Publishing Company, Baltimore, 1976, 1991. Retrieved July 28, 2013, from www.ancestry.com:
http://search.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=48015
Jacobus, D.
L. (1933). The Bulkeley Genealogy.
New Haven, Connecticut,
Lambert, E. R. Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut Prior to the Union with New
Haven Colony (Vol. 1 - 1636/1665). Hartford, Brown & Parsons.
Nobel, J.
(1904). Records of the Court of
Assistants of the Massachusetts Bay Colony 1630-1692. Boston,
Massachusetts, County of Suffolk.
Officer, L.
H., & Williamson, S. H. (n.d.). Essays in Measures of Worth MeasuringWorth.com. Retrieved: http://www.measuringworth.com/ukcompare/
Quinnipiac. (n.d.). Retrieved July 12, 2013, from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinnipiac
Sanborne, M.
L. Third Supplement to Torrey's New
England Marriages Prior to 1700. Genealogical Publishing Company.
Baltimore, 2003
Savage, J.
(1861) A Genealogical Dictionary of
the First Settlers of New England (Vol. 2, D-J). Brown,
Little and Company, Boston, 1861
Savage, James, A
Genealogical Dictionary of the First Settlers of New England. (Vol. 3, K-R).
Brown, Little and Company, Boston. 1861
Winthrop Society. (1995-2012). Retrieved July 7, 2013, from American History
and Genealogical Project: http://www.winthropsociety.com/
Winthrop, J.
J., Medical Journals of John Winthrop
Jr., 1657-1669. Massachusetts Historical Society.
Appendix One
June 3, 1699
Loving
Cousin,
Yesterday, when I was not at home,
somebody (I knew not who) left two loose papers at my house, one was a copy of
your and your wife’s testimony, attested by Nathan Gold Clark, relating to the
scandal cast upon Mercy Holbridge (now Disborough) by James Redfin That his tale, so far as it concerns Mercy Holbridge,
is a most malicious lie from the beginning to the end & I cannot but wonder
at the bloody malice of some men, who having by a good Providence missed their
mark of taking away her life by one project [the witchcraft charge], would now
ruin her character by another means
Where he
says that Mercy Holbridge was with child when she lived with me at New London:
I say this; while is it true that she did live a while with me at New London,
it is not true. In our conversations she
was as blameless & inoffensive, as any person (especially of her years) in
the entire Colony. [Mercy would have been about 24]
1.
Whereas
he says, that she went to Wethersfield with me & was there delivered of a
child is a very great lie for Mercy never went with me from New London to
Wethersfield. [However,] Elizabeth Walker (a Scotch wench whose time I bought
at Boston was indeed was (to my grief), with child while she lived with me at New
London, & she went with me to Wethersfield, & was there delivered of a
child: But what is this to Mercy? In this regard, Redfin is in a great error.
2.
Whereas
he says, that the child died & this was kept quiet because the supposed
father was a great man I answer
a.
It is true that Elizabeth Walker’s child born
at Wethersfield did die and because we weren’t sure why it died I requested a
Jury to be panelled This was done by Capt. Wells (who was then a Commissioner
in Wethersfield) and one of the jurors was Thomas Buxton (Bulkand?) of
Hartford. The Jury heard the evidence about the death of the child and gave
their Verdict. I also remember this was done on a Saturday night but I don’t
remember more than this.
b.
James
Redfin claims he knows the name the child’s father whom he indicates is well
known. In fact, the man [Elizabeth
Walker] said was the father of the child was not a very great man and he
appeared at the next County Court at New London, held after the child’s birth
to answer to her accusation, where (as I remember) he denied the fact. This, I
suppose, the Record of the Court at New London will show.
Lastly, I
am of the opinion that Redfin knows he lies. He did not see Mercy go with me
from New London to Wethersfield because she never did. He never saw her
delivered of a child there because she never was. No, no Redfin hath needs
forgiveness of the God of truth and of Mercy & to make good recompense for
such a heinous & wilful wrong.
For my own
part, I value not a thousand such tongues, I am so well privy to my own
innocence in this matter & I have other fish to fry than to regard the
tattle of malice. But it behoves wise men to take heed how they treat such
malicious liars, lest they also be partakers of their sin. This I thought good
to write for the satisfaction of friends & if it may be any way beneficial,
you may show it to whom you please. I shall stand by it to the last. Let Redfin
muster up all the forces he can to the contrary.
I send my
love & respect to yourself & your wife & so commending you all to
God, I am
You’re
Loving Uncle
Gershom Bulkeley.
Appendix Two
Catherine Branch’s disposition given at
Mercy’s Trial - September 14, 1692
Mercy’s Bill of Indictment: Mercy Disborough, wife of Thomas Disborough
of Compo in Fairfield, thou art here indicted by the name of Mercy Disborough
that, not having the fear of God before thine eyes, thou hast had familiarity
with Satan, the grand enemy of God and man, and that by his instigation and
help thou hast in a preternatural way afflicted and done harm to the bodies and
estates of sundry of their Majesties’ subjects or to some of them contrary to
the peace of ye sovereign Lord the King and Queen, their crown and dignity and
that on the 25th April in the 4th year of their
Majesties’ reign and at sundry other times, for which by the law of God and the
laws of this colony thou deservest to die.
15 September James Allyn, Secretary
