Researcher Cody Luce recently called my attention to the interesting problem of Henry Lewis. Henry appears, so very briefly, in a 1649 court record at Salem, Massachusetts, then seemingly disappears forever.
Court held at Salem, 11: 5: 1649. Danyell Rumball, presented for bringing Henry Lewis into the town contrary to order, was discharged (Records and Files of the Quarterly Court of Essex County, 1:173).
Some background: New England towns controlled who could settle within their boundaries. Salem voted in 1643 “no inhabitant shall entertain any inmate above one month, without leave from the town.” In other words, if someone was going to stay in Salem longer than a month, they needed the town’s permission.
The usual reasons for refusing permission were the petitioner’s bad character or reputation, or their religious noncomformity. Settlers could also be excluded if the town was afraid they might become “chargeable.” That is, if the town thought it might be required to pay for the person’s support because they couldn’t support themselves. For example orphans, widows, orphans, the elderly, or men without steady work.
The record does not tell us why the Salem court objected to Lewis’ presence in the town. It was probably nothing more serious than Lewis had stayed beyond the time allowed. There is no indication the court had an objection to Lewis personally; no indication he was in some way unsuitable.
We should also note “contrary to order” probably means “contrary to good order.” That is, Rumball allowed Lewis to stay without getting the town’s permission for Lewis to settle there. It does not mean Rumball brought Lewis to Salem contrary to a previous order of the court. There is no record of any previous order relating to Henry Lewis.
The case was discharged, so we can infer Rumball was able to satisfy the court the problem was solved. The simplest solution would have been for Lewis to leave. That’s probably how it turned out: Lewis had left or was leaving. There is no record Lewis became a freeman or permanent resident of the town. Perhaps, however, the problem was solved some other way. For example, Rumball might have made Lewis his apprentice.
One bit of ambiguity remains. Why did the court charge Rumball but not Lewis himself? The answer might be the court had jurisdiction over Daniel Rumball, a legal resident of the town, but not over Henry Lewis, a transient resident. This answer is not entirely satsifactory. The town of Salem certainly had the power to haul anyone into court if the person was within the town’s physical jurisdiction and in violation of local law. There is no obvious reason Henry Lewis himself was not presented for coming in “contrary to order.” Not that there must have been a particular reason. Perhaps that’s just the way court did it.
But, there could be something more here. Perhaps Lewis was underage, so not yet legally competent. If Lewis was a youth, the court might have chosen not to summon him directly. Indeed, there is some slight evidence of this in the wording of the court record. Rumball was presented for “bringing Henry Lewis into the town.” If we read the plain language of the court literally, Lewis was not just a transient who overstayed his welcome, but someone brought in by Rumball. That is, Lewis might have been a child being moved about by an adult in charge. Although speculative, this would explain why Rumball was charged but not Lewis himself. Further, if Lewis was underage we might be seeing another layer of the story: the court was worried the town of Salem might become responsible for Henry’s maintenance.
Finally, we look at Daniel Rumball himself for further clues. He was a blacksmith with a turbulent and violent history. He was in and out of court frequently between 1641 and 1653. In 1644 and 1645 the court investigated the death of Rumball’s servant Henry Hall. Rumball was fined and admonished “for striking said Henry upon the head with his hand hammer” (Records and Files of the Quarterly Court of Essex County, 1:73, 83-84). At issue was whether Rumball had gone beyond the right of a master to correct a servant. Several other servants are mentioned in the records, so it would be plausible for Henry Lewis to have been a (youngish) servant. Given the nature of the surviving records for Plymouth Colony, we wouldn’t necessarily have a record if the case were resolved by Rumball taking on Henry Lewis as an apprentice.
Robert Lewis Family
Could Henry Lewis have been the unknown child of Robert Lewis (c1607-1643)? Maybe, but I don’t think so.
“Robert Lewes” (28) and wife “Eliz[abeth] Lewes (22) came on the Blessing in 1635 (Immigrants to New England, 4:292). Robert died at Salem in 1643 leaving a wife and child, without naming either. Neither his wife nor their child are traceable in later records.
John Croxen swore that the deceased [Robert Lewis] made Goody Jackson, wife of John, his executrix to pay his debts and give the remainder to his wife and child (Salem Quarterly Court Records, 2:157).
Robert and Elizabeth’s unknown child was not named on the passenger list of the Blessing, so must have been born in America after their immigration in 1635. The child is often speculated as Ann Lewis (c1632-c1686), but there is no clear evidence.[1] Ann married Robert Morse on 30 October 1654 in Newbury, Massachusetts. Newbury is 19 miles north of Salem, so the proposal is plausible but “not proven.”[2]
The connection with Goody Jackson might give us just a bit more. We don’t know why Robert Lewis made “Goody Jackson” his executrix rather than his wife Elizabeth. Perhaps Elizabeth was infirm or for some other reason unable to competently manage her husband’s estate. There is no later record of her. She is often presumed to have died shortly after her husband, but it’s possible she re-married.
“Goody Jackson” was Margaret Jackson, wife John Jackson, of Salem. In 1638 John and Margaret Jackson were admitted to the church at Salem (Immigrants to New England, 4:23). Margaret was still alive in 1646, when she witnessed the noncupative will of John Thorne (Immigrants to New England, 4:24). She died before her husband, that is before 1656 (he having already re-married).
The chronology works beautifully. Robert Lewis died in 1643, leaving an unnamed child. Robert’s wife seems to have died not long after. Margaret Jackson, the executrix of his estate, died some time between 1646 and 1656. In 1649 Henry Lewis appears in the household of Daniel Rumball.
But one piece doesn’t quite work–why would the local court object to Daniel Rumball bringing in Henry Lewis if Henry was a son of Robert, who died there just six years earlier? Further, the unknown child likely became a ward of Margaret Jackson, also of Salem. If Henry were the son of Robert and Elizabeth Jackson, and later the ward of Margaret Jackson, it’s unlikely Henry ever left Salem before 1649. His support would already have been chargeable to the town. To get around this problem, we would have to suppose Elizabeth Lewis survived her husband, re-married, and moved elsewhere with Henry. But, in that case, we have no evidence to support it, and the appointment of Margaret Jackson as executrix becomes inexplicable. My sense is this problem is insurmountable. Henry is not likely to have been a child of Robert Lewis.
London Orphans
Could Henry Lewis have been one of the 20 orphans who came to Plymouth Colony is 1643? Perhaps, but the chronology would be very tight.
Gov Winthrop’s journal says:
“One of our ships the Seabridge arrived with 20 children and some other passengers out of England, and £300 worth of goods purchased with the country’s stock —given by some friends in England the year before; and those children with many more to come after, were sent by money given one fast day in London, and allowed by the parliament and city for that purpose.” (p. 274; 2:96, 20 June 1643)
Of the 20 children, only one has ever been identified: Nathaniel Sewell. That one child was identified only because he was killed by his master, who was prosecuted for the crime.
Kids were sent to be apprenticed, probably between 8 and 13 years old. (Felt, 164-65).
If the children came using money given “one fast day in London” and they needed special permission from parliament and the city of London to do it, wouldn’t it make sense the kids were from London? And–if they were–then Henry Lewis might himself have been from London.
- Ann (Lewis) Morse has also been speculated as a daughter of Edmond Lewes, of Lynn, and his wife Mary (…) Lewes. Lynn borders on Salem and is just 5 miles away. Given the shorter distance, it might be marginally more likely Ann Lewis was Edmond’s daughter but there are many other considerations. For example, Ann Lewis named her oldest daughter Elizabeth, which adds strength to the theory Ann was daughter of Elizabeth (—) Lewis.
- It has been suggested Robert Lewis lived at Newbury, but the Great Migration Project finds no evidence to support the claim (Immigrants to New England, 4:293). It’s easy to see how the idea could have originated. Someone thought Ann was Robert’s daughter. She was married at Newbury, so someone speculated Robert had lived at Newbury.
Sources
- Great Migration, Immigrants to New England.
- Records and Files of the Quarterly Court of Essex County.