From: Anna B. Williams. The Rogerenes: Part II, History of the Rogerenes. Boston: Stanhope Press, 1904.

Page 212

CHAPTER VII.

1707.

JUNE 4, of this year, a complaint is made by Samuel Beebe against John Rogers, as executor of his father's estate, for detaining from Samuel Beebe three cows, which, by the codicil of the will, were to be given to his wife Elizabeth after the death of her mother. The cows are evidently given up to him, since nothing further concerning them appears on the court records.

The peculiarity about this complaint is that, while claiming what is given to his wife under the codicil, he is still (as will be seen) firmly adhering to the irregular proceeding of the widow in 1692, which ignores the codicil to the extent of attempting a distribution of the movables – and also a portion of the residue of land – in a manner entirely different from that directed by the testator in this codicil.

The determination of Samuel Beebe to, if possible, prevent the executor from carrying out the full intent of the testator is sufficient to account not only for the detention of the cows, but for the much longer delay made by the executors, John and Bathsheba, in attempting to make the final division indicated by the codicil, a preliminary to which division would be their taking for themselves all of the household goods.¹

No complaint against the Rogerenes has appeared on the court records during the nine years previous to this date. While this does not imply entire cessation of hostilities on the part of the town authorities, it shows that none of these have been of such a character as to call forth the countermove, which is punishable by the County Court.

John Rogers has recently attracted to his following one of the

¹ "Things about the house John and Bathsheba must take them first before the others be divided." –Codicil.

Page 213

most intelligent and upright men in the community, who has been a member of the Congregational church. This is John Bolles, a young, married man, only son of Mr. Thomas Bolles, one of the wealthiest and most exemplary of the early settlers of this place, himself oldest son of Joseph Bolles (of an ancient family of the English gentry Nottinghamshire), who emigrated to Maine previous to1640, and by the death of his two elder brothers became heir to the family estates in England.¹

Mr .Thomas Bolles settled in New London at the earnest solicitation of Governor Winthrop.²

The wife of John Bolles is daughter of Mr. John Edgecomb, another prominent planter of New London, also of gentle blood of Old England. (Edgecombs of Mount Edgecomb.)

As his father's sole heir and by right of his wife in her father's estate, as well as through his own prudence and enterprise, this young man is destined to be one of the richest men in New London.

On account of a remarkable escape from death while an infant in arms, John Bolles was led, while still a youth, to pledge himself to the service of God. Now, after careful examination into the doctrines of John Rogers, he devotes himself, in obedience to his youthful pledge, reverently and enthusiastically to that cause. (See Part I., Chapter VI.)

The home farm of John Bolles is half a mile south of that of John Rogers, on the same (Norwich) road, on a height of land known as Foxen's Hill (later Bolles Hill), directly overlooking the town of New London, with a further view of Long Island Sound.³ He has lived for years in the near neighborhood of John Rogers, and has been one of his personal acquaintances and friends. If

¹ The pedigree of John Bolles in the male line is traceable to time of the Conqueror. The name is on the Roll of Battle Abbey.

² The Thomas Bolles place is now the Lyman Allyn farm on the Norwich road. Just south of the Allyn house is the site of an old well. By this well stood the house of Thomas Bolles, where occurred the murder of his wife and two children, leaving only the babe, John. (For particulars, see "Bolles Genealogy.")

³ His house stood just south of present house of Mr. Calvert. His father's home farm was about one-fourth of a mile south of this point.

Page 214

this extremely conscientious young man knew of any cause to distrust the character of this reformer, even in the days when most maligned on account of his independent marriage to Mary Ransford, he would not (in this year) have been baptized by him and entered upon the unpopular and perilous career of one of his followers.

John Bolles states in his "True Liberty of Conscience" that although the Rogerenes had not been molested of late, yet directly after his leaving the Congregational church for that of the Rogerenes (1707) serious persecutions were reinstituted, directed against the performance of labor upon the first day of the week.¹ Evidently something must be done, to prevent an influence that can still reach within the precincts of the Congregational church, to draw forth to this heretical following some of its brightest and its best.

1708.

In this year Mr. Saltonstall, so popular among the clergy and other leading men of Connecticut, as a staunch and able advocate of Congregational church supremacy, is elected governor, and is succeeded in the ministry at New London by Rev. Eliphalet Adams.

Dissenters of several kinds are now so numerous that it is impossible to disregard their combined outcry against ecclesiastical tyranny. Accordingly, in this year we find the General Court enacting a law allowing those "who soberly dissent" to worship in their own way, "without any let, hindrance or molestation what-

1 John Bolles further says in regard to the persecution he suffered upon joining the Rogerenes: "God gave me such a cheerful spirit in this warfare, that when I had not the knowledge that the grand-jury man saw me at work on said day, I would inform against myself before witness, till they gave out and let me plow and cart and do whatsoever I have occasion on that day."

Here will be recognized an imitation of the early policy of the Rogerenes in time of persecution, a policy likely to have been recommended to all their followers; viz.: to give their opponents so much more trouble when molesting them than when letting them alone that the institution of a season of severe measures will be the less liable to occur. This is the policy recognizable in the countermove, so sure to take place in time of severe persecution.

Page 215

ever," provided it be well understood that none are excused from paying their full share towards the maintenance of the Congregational and Presbyterian ministry , and that those who desire the liberty of worshipping in other than the Congregational or Presbyterian way, shall "qualify themselves at the County Court, according to an Act, made in the first year of the late King William and Mary, granting liberty of worshipping God in a way separate from that by law established."

The Rogerenes do not derive any benefit from this law; John Rogers and his followers being resolved never to countenance, by their obedience, any civil law whatever which dictates in regard to the worship of God.¹ Baptists, Episcopalians and Seventh Day Baptists build meeting-houses,² qualify themselves under this law and hold their services in peace; but meetings of the Rogerenes are still held without legal sanction and so without legal protection.

In this year, the Saybrook Platform, conceived by Mr. Saltonstall and his ecclesiastic friends, becomes a law. By this device, church and state are firmly welded together. Although certain dissenters may secure leave to worship in their own way in their own churches (provided they will pay for both their own and the Congregational ministry), the indifferent or irreligious masses are still subject to the dominant church, as regards compulsory Congregational church attendance and money tribute. All yield except the Rogerenes, who heroically go their way, regardless of

¹ It will be seen that as late as 17I6 (see Chapter IX.), so prominent a Rogerene as John Bolles was even declared to be "ignorant of this law." That he ignored it, with all other ecclesiastical laws, is more likely to have been the case.

² A Baptist church springs up at Groton and one on the Great Neck. The Baptist edifice on the Great Neck ("Pepper Box") is used in an admirably liberal and pacific manner by both the regular Baptists and the Seventh Day Baptists. The leading members of these two friendly societies are largely of Rogers descent; – descendants of Captain James and of Joseph being of the first-day persuasion, and those of Jonathan of the seventh day, as a rule. Since the history of these societies on the Great Neck has been given by Miss Caulkins more largely than would be possible in this work, the reader is referred to the "History of New London" for particulars regarding them.

Page 216

menace or punishment. They see their cattle and other property sold at outcrys to satisfy extortion, yet hold their peace, unless some action threatening the continuance of their following of New Testament teachings necessitates an extraordinary show of non-conformity, by way of unusual Sunday labor, or perhaps even brings out the countermove, that last but most efficient means of defense.

1709.

In this year, James Rogers, Jr., is admitted to the bar, and soon becomes a prominent lawyer of this vicinity.

An attempt is made at this time to stop the preaching and proselyting of John Rogers. Among his followers at this period is Peter Pratt, son of Elizabeth Griswold (see Chapter VI.). This young man now experiences the great necessity for courage and endurance on the part of anyone who would faithfully adhere to Rogerene principles; since he is imprisoned with other Rogerenes.¹

Judging from past indications, the fact of their having gained a new convert from a prominent family of the Congregational persuasion is at any time a sufficient cause for the institution of severer measures against this sect.

But other annoyances are now at hand for John Rogers. There is the still unsettled residue of the estate, so difficult of adjustment on account of the claims of Samuel Beebe, (under the widow's "deed" of 1692. See Chapter III.), which will be put forward as soon as any move is made by the executor to divide the residue of the estate according to the codicil. These claims include certain young slaves, coming under the head of "moveables" belonging to the estate of James Rogers, of which movables, by the widow's deed, one-half was to be given, after her decease, to her daughter Elizabeth Beebe, and one-half to her son Jonathan.

During his executorship, John Rogers has freed a number of his

¹ For what cause or by what pretense this imprisonment occurs does not appear . It is revealed by a statement made by Peter Pratt himself. ("Prey Taken from the Strong.") In referring to his being imprisoned with other Rogerenes, he speaks of his wife as a bride at that time. He was married in 1709.

Page 217

father's slaves. Two of these slaves (called "servants") are mentioned in the inventory of the estate, in 1688, where it is stated that they are to be free in three years. The bond-children owned by James Rogers, as yet of no value, were not mentioned in the will or inventory, but they appear to have been classed with that residue of the estate ("moveables") which, by the terms of the codicil, was to be divided between John, Bathsheba and James.

[There are indications that not only had John Rogers come to regard the keeping of slaves in life bondage as contrary to the teachings of the New Testament, in the line of the Golden Rule; but that his father had come to the same conclusion, and had made plans for freeing all his slaves. His charge to his children – John, Bathsheba and James –in the codicil to his will, to "remember Adam," one of his two able-bodied negro slaves, appears to have been understood by them as referring equally to the children of this slave; since one of the young slaves freed by the executor is proven – by " Hempstead Diary " – to be Adam, son of this Adam (each being called "Adam Rogers"). It is probable that others of the young slaves were Adam's children, while some of them were children of the negro woman, Hager, who, as stated in inventory, was to be freed in three years.]

By various documents on record, it is evident that the administration of the estate by John has gone on in a very methodical manner and strictly according to the tenor of the will. The order of the committee (1693) was that, after the death of the widow, the remainder of the estate. should be "disposed of according to the terms of the will," of which the codicil was the part that referred to this residue. The codicil, however, does not contain explicit directions regarding the movable estate, but simply says that John and Bathsheba are to "take" the things about the house, "before the others be divided," and that – after the cows have been given to Elizabeth – the remainder of the movable estate "whatsoever" be divided by John, Bathsheba and James among themselves. The residue of land legacies is clearly defined. The whole estate having been placed under the executorship of John

Page 218

and Bathsheba, presumes their continuance in that office until the final settlement. This is evidently the expectation of the court and of those concerned, as they continue to be called executors.

No fault has hitherto been found with the executorship, save in the demand of Samuel Beebe for the cows. Yet the executor is well aware of the irregular claims pending, and by his father's request will be held from making appeal to the court against any unjust action which Samuel Beebe may take in this matter.

At this crisis, Captain James comes to the rescue, evidently by aid and advice of his son James, the young lawyer. A method is devised by which the irregular claims may be thwarted and, at the same time, the testator's request in regard to legal proceedings on the part of any of his children be respected.

The first indication of the above intention is found in June of this year, when Captain James makes over to his son James all interest which he himself has in "all the moveable estate" left by his father.

The next step is for James, Jr., to enter complaint (July 13) at the Probate Court that the settlement of the residue ("moveables") of his grandfather's estate – after the death of the widow – has not been attended to by "the formality of the law." Being himself interested in the estate, he desires that "such methods may be taken as the taw directs." The court, upon consideration of this enigma, finds that the estate was to be settled not by legal form, but by agreement among the children to John's executorship, as approved by the General Court. The Probate Court, therefore, declines to meddle in the matter.

James, Jr., now enters complaint, at the Superior Court, that John Rogers and Bathsheba Fox, administrators on the estate of James Rogers,

"have not administered thereon according to the order of the law, and have not ever yet made and exhibited in the Court of Probates, and recorded there, any inventory of said estate; but dispose thereof at their own will and pleasure without giving account."

Page 219

The manner of administration of John and Bathsheba regarding the movables and lack of exhibition of any inventory of same to the court, have been in entire accordance with the direction of the testator. Moreover, had James Rogers, Jr., held to the mode of division directed in the codicil, his share would be much larger than by the method now being sought. An ulterior motive is evident from the start. The court undoubtedly understands the full meaning of this outwardly peculiar procedure on the part of James, Jr.

The Superior Court directs the Probate Court to issue a writ summoning John and Bathsheba to render an inventory, etc., "according to law," and if they do not appear, then the Court of Probate shall grant letters of administration to James, Jr., "or some other person," "to the end that a just division be made."

John and Bathsheba not complying with a demand so contrary to the directions given them by their father, James, Jr., is appointed executor, to complete the settlement, viz.: the division of the movable estate. He now presents an inventory, which inventory is dated as having been taken in 1788, just after the death of James Rogers. The movables, of which he claims that John Rogers should render an account, figure at £100 value. Although the original inventory presented mentions an Indian and his negro wife and a mulatto man, each having about three years to serve, also a negro woman "deaf and dumb," no mention is made of these or of any other slaves by the new executor, and no complaint is made regarding the fact that they and their children have been freed by the former executor.

While this is going on, John and Bathsheba appear in court in regard to Hager, a former slave of John Rogers (the negro wife mentioned in the inventory), who has lost the written discharge from bondage that was given to her years before by the executors. John and Bathsheba testify that, shortly before his decease, their father agreed with William Wright to sell him his negro slave, Hager, for a certain term of service on the part of William Wright, and at the time of this agreement gave her to him for his wife,

Page 220

providing for the couple "a wedding dinner." They also say that long before this agreement with William Wright, their father and mother had promised Hager her freedom at the age of thirty-six years.

"William Wright having been banished before his term of service had expired, we, being intrusted by our deceased father with his whole estate, seeing the support of the woman and her children was more than her service, gave her a written discharge, upon condition she should support her younger children" (her eldest son to be free at the age of twenty-one), " which said writing she hath lost." She is herewith again discharged, with all her children except the above, "by these presents."

The next move by James, Jr., is to attach property belonging to the late executor to the amount of the value of the aforesaid "moveables." Thus, with no appeal to court on the part of any of the children of James Rogers, and with no breach of trust on the part of John and Bathsheba, the residue of the estate passes fully into the hands of the new executor, and is clearly minus any of the "negroes" which the irregular claimants were prepared to demand.

By this time, Samuel Beebe sees that the young lawyer contemplates nothing short of preventing every irregular claim which he may venture to make. Samuel Beebe is no more in need of servants; lands or goods than are the other heirs, having a good estate from his own father and another by gifts to his wife from her father. He is now living at Plumb Island, and in so showy a way that he is called "King Beebe." – (Caulkins.) It is apparently, on his part, a game played mainly for the zest of it; as Samuel Beebe might sail a boat of his own against one of Captain James or that at Mamacock. But alas! a young wife and mother is to become a victim of this game.

For about four years now, a young negro woman named Joan, who was born of a slave of James Rogers, Sr., has been the wife of a free colored man named John Jackson, a servant of John Rogers, living in a house on the Mamacock farm. Joan has, by

Page 221

Jackson, one child, a son, about two years old, and is expecting another. While yet a child, Joan was given by the widow of James Rogers to Elizabeth Beebe, in payment of the legacy of £10, which latter was to be paid to said Elizabeth Beebe (according to the terms of the will), by said widow, "with consent of my son John." Said executor not seeing fit to transfer Joan to a man who kept slaves in life bondage, and not doubting that the arrangements for settlement of the estate according to the will and codicil would fully sustain him in not allowing this claim of Samuel Beebe by the unwarranted and unsanctioned act of his mother, freed Joan in due course of time, as he did the rest of the young slaves.

1710.

About October 1, 1710, Samuel Beebe, in some manner not indicated by the court records, succeeds in securing Joan Jackson and her boy and detaining them at Plumb Island.

Unfortunately, and apparently very carelessly (as shown in Chapter IV.), the committee, in their decision of 1693, instead of using the wording of the will in regard to the payment of the £10 by the widow, viz.: "with consent of my son John," rendered it that the £10 be paid to Elizabeth "by John and Bathsheba, when the widow so order."

September 19, 1710, James, Jr., enters complaint at the County Court that Samuel Beebe is illegally detaining from him, present executor of his grandfather's estate, a negro woman, named Joan, who was the property of James Rogers at the time of his death. The defendant claims that the woman was part of the legacy of £10 given his wife.

The court decides in favor of Samuel Beebe, its decision being grounded on the blunder of the committee of division, in 1693. James, Jr., appeals to the Superior Court. The latter court decides that if the settlement of the committee in 1693, in accordance with the terms of the will,

" were in point of law a sufficient conveyance of the negro woman to Eliz. Beebe, without John Rogers' consent to said conveyance by his

Page 222

mother, then the jury find the case for Samuel Beebe; but if the consent of John Rogers was, in point of law, under said settlement by said committee, necessary to such a conveyance, then they find the woman for John Rogers."

This calls for the decision of Judge Gurdon Saltonstall, the arch-enemy of John Rogers, who, naturally, ignores the blunder of the committee and adjudges Joan and her child to Samuel Beebe, as slaves for life.

Two months later, a second child is born to Joan, at Plumb Island, a babe its father may neither claim nor behold. Nearly six months more drag slowly by, in great and grave suspense.

1711.

As for Joan herself, she is not likely to settle down at once, if ever, in meek submission to her fate. Woman-like, her first thought would be to escape, if possible, to her husband and the kind masters at Mamacock, being sure that if she is once upon that shore, they will not willingly return her to Plumb Island. She cannot be supposed to consider, in so dire a strait, the peril they would incur by harboring a runaway slave, such as she now is, by the decision of the Superior Court.

In the latter part of May, 1711, John Rogers, Sr., is in the vicinity of Long Island, and also on the mainland of New York. Southold, L.I., is a common stopping-place for boats from New London. His friend, Mr. Thomas Young, is now of that place.

If John Rogers landed at Southold, Joan might learn of this fact and act upon it. But by nightfall the man for whose assistance she may have hoped is at his objective point on the mainland. She finds conveyance of some kind, however; for, this same night, she escapes from Plumb Island with her two children. Upon his return to Mamacock, the next day, John Rogers finds them there and is accused of so poor a trick as the bringing them to his own home. He may have had in view some scheme for their escape; but if so, his plans have been thwarted by Joan's imprudence, through her eagerness to reach her friends in New London.

Page 223

At the New London County Court, June 5, Christopher Christophers, one of the chief enemies of John Rogers, being one of the judges, Samuel Beebe enters complaint against John Rogers and John Jackson, "on suspicion that they stole Joan and her two children out of his house the night of May 29th last." The accused men, being now before the court, plead not guilty to the charge of taking Joan from Plumb Island; but acknowledge that, after her arrival at Mamacock, they conveyed her into Rhode Island. Samuel Beebe owns that the woman and her children have since been returned to him by the governor of Rhode Island, and that he has them now.

Upon no further evidence of theft than the fact of the presence of Joan and her children at Mamacock and their conveyance into Rhode Island by John Rogers and John Jackson, and having given the accused parties but a few days to secure testimony, also without regard to the fact that the alleged theft occurred in another colony, or that it is a capital offense, on the law book, this court, without a jury, adjudges John Rogers and John Jackson guilty of stealing Joan and her children, and sentence them to pay twice the amount of the worth of said slaves (£40) and costs of prosecution. In case John Jackson be not able to pay his part, he shall serve Samuel Beebe or his assignee at the rate of £5 per year until the whole amount is cancelled. So that Samuel Beebe not only has the negroes fast, but £40 reward for his complaint against John Rogers.

The record further states that

"John Rogers, upon hearing the above sentence, did, in open court, declare the said sentence to be rebellion against her Majesty, and that it was injustice, and declared that this court are rebels against her Majesty,"

for which contempt, said court

"order said Rogers to give bond of £200 for his appearance at the Superior Court, in act. next, to answer for his offense and for keeping her Majesty's peace and being in good behavior in the meantime, and for want of sureties, to be committed to prison until he shall be released by due form of law."

Page 224

Two of the justices on this occasion are bitter enemies of John Rogers, while the Superior Court that is to try him for contempt has Governor Saltonstall for its judge.

Thus, of the two men not proven to have committed this offense, one departs from the court-room to a long imprisonment, to say nothing of an execution upon his property, and the other to four years of slavery, under dictation of the man who has stolen his wife and children, unless he be able to pay the large sum of £20 for his freedom.

In this dilemma, John Rogers makes an effort for justice. He presents a Petition to the court, in which he objects to a trial in the County Court of New London for a crime alleged to have been committed within the jurisdiction of Long Island. He asks for a trial in the latter jurisdiction, where he can produce evidence to clear himself from any such charge. No attention is paid to this Petition. (See John Rogers' account of this affair, Part I, Chapter V.)

On no account will John Rogers go back of this charge of man-stealing, to enter suit regarding Samuel Beebe's seizure of this freed woman; that would be bringing before the court something relating to the estate of his father. Evidently, for the same reason, he who fears not at his peril to denounce an unjust decision in any court of the land, has made no complaint in regard to the so plainly prejudiced award of Joan to Samuel Beebe, by the judge of the Superior Court. Even thus can this man hold his peace, when he will.

The next move, as revealed by the records, is the sale (June 13, 1711) of Joan and her children "for their natural life" to John Livingston (a prominent attorney); one of the children "a boy of three years named John," the other "a girl of six months," to all of whom Samuel Beebe says he "has full right by judgment of court, viz., for the woman and one negro she had with her when she came" (that is, when, in some way, he secured her) "and the youngest born since."

Captain James Rogers appears to be as much opposed as his

Page 225

brother john to keeping persons in lifelong bondage.¹ James, Jr., will take any legal action yet possible to rescue Joan and her children.

Among other things, outspoken dissent to certain state church doctrines and usages will be far less prominent with John Rogers behind the bars. Popular opinion appears to have proven unfavorable to continued persecution on religious grounds, ever since John, Jr., went "up and down the colony" selling that little book. The case regarding Joan has been a fortunate happening for Govemor Saltonstall and his friends.

Although, by the sentence, the trial for contempt was to be before the Superior Court at New Haven in October, we find it taking place at a session of this court in New London, September 25, in the meeting-house.²

John Rogers asks to be tried by a jury, choosing the one then sitting, but Judge Saltonstall denies him trial by jury, – John Rogers has too many friends in these parts. There must be no means of escape for the opponent he has so often bled before, and would fain bleed to the death. He pronounces judgment in a fine of £20 and costs of prosecution, and a bond of £100 "for good behavior" until the March session of the same court, with imprisonment at prisoner's expense, – unless he give surety for the bond, which Gurdon Saltonstall well knows he will not do, thereby to acknowledge that he has been "misbehaving" himself. All this is (by the court record) because John Rogers "falsely and slanderously declared in court that the sentence of said court against himself and John Jackson was 'rebellion against her Majesty."'

They examine the deeds to find suitable land to take in execution for this fine of £20, and discovering such land, by Upper Alewife Cove, that was sold to "John Rogers," they proceed to claim it for the Colony of Connecticut. John, Jr., in vain assures them

¹ In his own large inventory is no mention of any slaves.

² In lieu of other suitable accommodation in New London this edifice continued to be used, for some time, for sessions of this court. – (For John Rogers' account of this trial, see Part I., Chapter V.)

Page 226

that he himself bought this land, with his own money, and it is also in vain that he presents the original deed, in the copying of which, upon the town records, the clerk omitted the word Jr. Nor will his father's after affirmation in court that he himself made out this deed, and wrote the. Jr .therein, secure its release. Moreover, as John Rogers himself declares (Part I., Chapter VI.), they kept the original deed presented in proof, and, after John, Jr., had paid them their price for the redemption of this land, viz., £20 – as proven by court record – they took this very land again for another fine of £20.¹ Here are indications of the bitterest venom on the part of those in power, at this period, yet no complaint on the records regarding "servile labor, etc.," or baptisms, or "blasphemy," or any other nonconformity .

By these signs it may be judged that never was the influence of John Rogers more feared than at this very period, yet never also were the authorities more cautious regarding complaints and actions against him on avowedly ecclesiastical grounds.

¹ Why seizures at this time are confined to this piece of land, can only be conjectured. At this date, the Mamacock land still lay under the attachment of the new executor, James, Jr., and so was safe from this sort of seizure. The attachment by James, Jr., was evidently a mere blind, and it served a double purpose.

Return to QUAKERTOWN Online