William Dawes, US 1635

William Dawes immigrated at the age of 15 years. " On the English Customs House Register his name,' with that of a Francis Dexter only thirteen years old, immediately followed the name of one Daniel Hanbury aged twenty-nine and the copyist/ deduced that these mere children might have come over in that man's care, though no subsequent connection has been seen between them. They embarked on the "Planter of London," Nicholas Trerice, Master, sailing about April 10, and arriving at Boston on June 7, 1635 after almost two months on the ocean. That voyage in the tiny sailing vessels of that day would no doubt have brought unspeakable nausea to many of the passengers, but that particular passage in that very spring on that identical vessel seems fraught with such far reaching results for us as we look back upon it now,..." (Dawes, p. 12)

"... that the experiences of the passengers and friendships formed among them become unusually intriguing. For in addition to WILLIAM DAWES there came on that vessel our JOHN1 TUTTLE and his wife JOAN, with four of her Lawrence children including her little daughter MARY, who eventually became the wife of our THOMAS BURNHAM, with four of their Tuttle children, including our SIMON, with JOAN'S widowed mother Mrs. JOAN ANTROBUS aged sixty-five and several of their servants. There came also our FRANCIS NEWCOMB with wife RACHEL and their two older children, and Francis" Bushnell (son of our FRANCIS, Dawes-Gates, II, 164) with his wife and child. We may safely assume that WILLIAM was a strong, well built lad or he would hardly have been allowed passage alone lest he should become a liability to the community. After the vessel's arrival the families aboard scattered to various settlements, JOHN TUTTLE and his group to Ipswich, Bushnell to Salem, while FRANCIS NEWCOMB and probably also DAWES settled? for a time in Boston. There WILLIAM would have acquired quarters with some family and would have performed whatever tasks he found open to him. In those days there would have been no lack of occupation and WILLIAM gradually, if not at once, worked into the bricklaying trade. Boston possessed outlying land at Mt. Wollaston farther south and about 1638-40 some of her residents including FRANCIS NEWCOMB and JOHN MILLS with their families, as well as WILLIAM DAWES removed to that section which in May 1640 was given the name of Braintree. There in 1641 when WILLIAM would have been twenty-one he was married to SUSANNAs MILLS (see Mills, p. 444) and there their residence continued until 1650 or 1651 when they removed permanently to Boston. In June 1650 WILLIAM was called "DAWES of Braintree" and in their later lives he and his wife deposed that they had resided in Boston from "1652 and before." (Dawes, p. 12)

"WILLIAM and SUSANNA became members of the First Church in Boston at an unknown date but his membership antedated 1646 for on May 6, 1646 he took the oath of a freeman." After his return he purchased property in Boston on the east side of Sudbury Street (which was then known as "the lane fromPrison Lane to the Mill Pond") at the end toward the pond! (see map, p. 30) and though he eventually disposed of a part of this land, to his son AMBROSE and to others, the home he built is said to have remained in possession of the family for five generations" until it was torn down by the British during their occupation of Boston" in 1775. Since WILLIAM was a mason and builder he very likely constructed a more imposing dwelling than might have been planned if he had been under the necessity of paying others for their work and this probability is strengthened by the fact that the family home 'is sometimes referred t03,5 as a "mansion house." It was undoubtedly a well built structure and kept in good repair since at least its first three owners, WILLIAM, AMBROSE and THOMAS followed the trade of masons and builders. In 1656 WILLIAM1received £3 for work on Fort Hill." (Dawes, p. 12)

"Among the experiences of WILLIAM DAWES in Boston were the early and numerous conflagrations with which that town was cursed, several of which were fairly near the DAWES home. Each one of three early fires was, in its turn, called the "Great Fire" and each of those three exceeded its predecessors in the loss sustained. The earliest one accorded the title of "Great," occurred= on March 14, 1652-3, soon after the return of WILLIAM1 to Boston and we are told that little is known of it except that eight or more houses were destroyed and that three young children of the Sheath family lost their lives." (Dawes, p. 13)

"The next "Great Fire" occurred" on November 27, 1676 beginning at five in the morning and within four hours the section bounded by present Richmond, Hanover and Clark Streets which then contained forty-six dwellings including that of the Rev. Increases Mather, as well as several warehouses, stores and the North or Second Meeting House, lay in ruins. A strong south-east wind veered to the south when the fire was at its height and a heavy downfall of rain followed, without which it would have doubtless consumed all that section of the town. .

Early in 1679, however, the terrible work of incendiaries began to show itself plainly with several fires which were promptly discovered and controlled, but on August 8, 1679 there occurred a second incendiary firing, about midnight, of the ale-house of Clement Gross, "The Three Mariners," near the Dock which resulted in the most disastrous conflagration Boston had yet endured. The territory laid in ruins extended from the Mill Creek (which occupied the same place Blackstone Street now westerly to Dock Square and. southerly to Oliver's Dock (near the place now called Liberty Square). In this territory not a single building was left complete. The fire burned for twelve hours, destroying eighty dwellings, seventy warehouses with their contents and all the vessels lying at the Town Dock with an.estimated loss of not less than £200,000. The conduit, being in this immediate vicinity, is acknowledged to have justified its existence as during a twelve hour fire the tide would have failed them, perhaps when most needed.~ .

Another cause of anxiety for WILLIAM and all other residents would have been the frequently repeated small-pox epidemics which raged in Boston. One historian" lists those which occurred during the life of WILLIAM as prevailing in 1640, 1660, 1677-8, 1680, 1690 and 1702. And the horrible witchcraft delusion'" reached its height in 1692 and happily waned during the life of WILLIAM DAWES.

The ability of WILLIAM as a chimney builder was recognized in his appointment" as inspector of chimneys from 1667 to 1673 and in 1691-2 in which service he was sometimes associated with Richard Knight, a bricklayer, and at other times with his own son AMBROSEs DAWES. In one case they two reported seventeen faulty chimneys on which repairs were ordinarily required within' eight days if a fine was avoided. In one case report was made in mid-January on an especially unfit chimney and the authorities ordered the residents to make no fire until repairs were completed but allowed them to use charcoal on the hearth," (Dawes, p. 14)

"Two sons of WILLIAM1 became masons and builders and were frequently recorded in close association with their father and other men in that business. In 1681 WILLIAM, AMBROSE, and James" Hawkins (nephew to WILLIAM) were evidently building a house for Thomas" Danforth, then deputy governor, and having failed to get accurate lot lines, they excavated his cellar "9 inches throughout fronting toward ye Docke, vpon the towne lands, & still stands vpon the Towne propertie" for which carelessness they were ·fined twenty shillings." In 1684-5 and 1689-0, the public service of WILLIAM was extended to cover inspection also of the making of bricks. Extant Boston tax lists show" the name of WILLIAM in 1676, 1681, 1686, 1687 and 1688. WILLIAM experienced, in common with all other early emigrants, the years of increasing concern" at the continued threat that their charter would be voided, the accomplishment of that threat by 1685-6; the three year rule of the intolerant royal governor Andros who laid exorbitant taxes and nullified all land titles, demanding that new titles be acquired from him and at his price. And finally in 1689 when word came that the Prince of Orange had been proclaimed King, there arose the rebellion or revolution of the colonists and the seizing and imprisoning of Andros and all of his officials" many of them in the Castle Island Fort of which ROGER CLAPP had for so long a time been commander.

But it was in connection with their church life that the names 'Of WILLIAM and of his wife SUSANNA have come down most significantly and more constructively than they could then have realized, for they were among the notable pioneers who founded" the Old South Church, toward the liberalizing of the requirements for baptismal rights and for the franchise. To summarize," we would refer (I) to the early and narrow ruling of the extreme Puritans which permitted the franchise and the holding of office only to full church members, creating thus a theocracy of a sort and a definite overlapping of state and church; (2) to the evidence of discontent over the restrictions resulting from the above rulings, which appeared when the General Court was petitioned for relief from the same, in 1646; (3) to the cumulative public opinion which caused the Bay Court in 1657 to advise and invite a general Council of the colonies to weigh the desirability of granting all privileges' of baptism and the franchise (withholding only that of the Lord's Supper) to such as had been baptized and lived decent lives. To this Council, Connecticut sent delegates and considerable favor was shown in some quarters for this latter planebut on the whole each succeeding move seemed only to inflame some of the churches more completely. Then the Bay Court appointed a Synod of all the ministers of that colony which met in Boston in September 1662, to weigh only two crucial points of the controversy, of which the chief one pertained to baptism and eligibility to that function. Unanimity of opinion did not result, but a majority at this Synod favored the liberalizing (commonly called the "Half-way Covenant") which had been sponsored by the 1657 council. The Rev. John Wilson of Boston First Church as well as his assistant the Rev. John Norton were of that ministerial majority and kept their church in line with the Synod's findings while they lived, but after the death of Norton in 1663 and that of Wilson in 1667 the controversy within their church on this point flared high and the anti-Synod group (earlier a minority) became a majority and insisted upon calling to their pastorate one of the strongest anti-Synodists in all of New England,..." (Dawes, p. 15)

Ecclesiastical historians point out carefully that this war of words in the new world, which probably had its hottest battlefield in Boston First Church was not a "mere sectarian schism, but an important political movement. . .. The political rights of a considerable part of the community were at stake,"19 for during the earlier days of the colony, only full church members had been eligible to vote, hold office or have their families baptized. Any considerable change, then or now, no matter how just and desirable, could be depended upon to raise a storm of disagreement and especially so when it pertained to the religious life of a community. There were twenty-eight male members of the Boston First Church, including WILLIAM1 DAWES who had firmly agreed with the views of Pastor Wilson and the Synod of 1662 as to the desirability of the adoption of the Half-way Covenant whereby those who had once been baptized, in their parents' right, and, who were living decent lives might have their children baptized and might become freemen, enjoy the franchise and hold office, lacking only the privilege of partaking of communion. This was definitely a forward-looking and' constructive view of the possible usefulness of the church in the community. This group of twenty-eight members, which had by 1668 become a minority in the First Church strongly objected to the threatened reversal of church policy and the calling of the Rev. Mr. Davenport and asked to be dismissed so that they might form another church body, but their request was vehemently denied. Several church councils were called, the first one in August, 1668, when the First Church itself asked for a decision against the seceders and a disciplining of them for their audacity. That body must have been irked at the failure of the* council ,to accede to its request, for the council refused to criticize and advised the dismissal (see Clapp, p. 162). Another council called by the dissenters themselves, met in April 1669 and when it learned that the First Church refused to give way one jot or tittle, it assumed the authority and responsibility of granting permission to the dissenting minority to withdraw and form a new church. This new organization took place at Charlestown** on May 12 and 16, 1669 and their body was named the Third or South Church. Thus after much of conflict WILLIAM1 became one of the founders of historic "Old South" within whose walls so many important events have taken place. The Third Church engaged as its pastor the Rev. Thomas Thacher, earlier a member at Charlestown who was installed on February 16, 1669-70 and served them until his death in October 1678. He was followed in the pulpit by Rev. Samuel' Willard who served until after the death of WILLIAM." (Dawes, p. 16)

"Mrs. Mary Norton* widow of the Rev. John Norton was, as her husband had been, a pro-synodist and completely in sympathy with the dissenters, to whom after their withdrawal from the First Church and forming of the Third Church, she made a gift of a portion of her home lot on which to build." The tract she gave by deed of April 1, 1669 conveyed nearly half an acre bounded on the south and west by what we know as Milk and Washington Streets (see map, p. 303). The site offered had been first the garden and home of Gov. John1 Winthrop and here he had died in 1649; next the home of Rev. John Norton** who died in 1663 and of his widow Mary after him. In June and July 1669 construction was begun under the oversight of three of the members including Joseph Rock, by the digging of a trench for the foundation of the structure. On this work AMBROSE" DAWES was employed. A warrant was obtained by some First Church members who were resentful at the withdrawal, to stop the work and Rock and AMBROSEs with others were committed to prison and bound over to the county court. The meeting house was built of cedar, had a steeple, galleries, square pews and a bell which cost £18. It was first occupied on December 19, 1669 and served its members until 1730 when the brick building, still standing (1940) was erected in its ·place.

The records show that many peaceful overtures were made by this Third Church toward the older body, but in spite of every effort fourteen long years of bitter enmity were endured by the seceders before peace was brought about. In the meantime the other New England churches had taken sides and had become most unhappily embroiled and even the General Court had had its tum at partisanship. Casual records show that in some instances retaliation was carried so far that imprisonment was resorted to presumably against some of the dissenters who formed the new church since a claim against them of failure to conform to their covenant once made is the only conceivable grounds for such action.

The wives of the men who withdrew from the mother church had also much injustice to suffer. Among them was SUSANNA, sometimes called "goody DAWES". They patiently and repeatedly asked for dismission from the First Church in order that they might go with their husbands into the Third. It was denied them and for a period of over five years there was conflict and unhappiness between "the sisters" and the First Church in which the women were patient and self controlled showing themselves to be superior to their persecutors. The reconciliation between the First and Third Churches occurred during the lives of WILLIAM1 and his wife SUSANNA, and in 1682 the two churches concluded the healing of the breach. In this matter SUSANNA appears as a woman of understanding and fine Christian character and like her husband one who had great influence among her associates.

The date of the death of wife SUSANNA has not been found but it was subsequent-" to June 1687 when WILLIAM conveyed the title of his home to his son jonathan", subject to the life occupancy of a part of it by his wife and himself,

*She was also one of the twenty-six "sisters" who in hopeless despair of peaceful dismission withdrew from the mother church and applied to Old South for admission in August 1674.

**Rev. John Norton, then serving the Ipswich Church, was "chosen by the Rev. John Cotton on his death-bed, as his successor, and [was) called- by Cotton Mather 'the chief of our burning and shining lights.' "47 In Norton's home "was bred Increase' Mather, to whom New England and Harvard College owe so much."(Dawes, p. 17)

"Jonathan died in 1690,* and on January I, 1694, WILLIAM conveyed his property on similar conditions, for £160, to Stephen" Minot (Johns, George') who lived as neighbor on Sudbury Street "but this conveyance also seems to have been rescinded.i'P As late as 1695 WILLIAM was still more or less active for Judge Sewall in his Diary recorded'" as of April 9, 1695" ... This day father Dxws makes my little Bridge" and added as of December 23, 1695 that "WILLIAM DAWS pater" was one of the bearers at the burial of** Dame Walker." WILLIAM seems to have left no will and Judge Samuel Sewall recorded of him on March 24, 1703 .... 4 that "WILLIAM Dxws, Mason, dyes about 2 p. m. A good old man, full of days, is got well to the end of his weary Race. " (Dawes, p. 18)

Generation Two:

Ambrose Dawes- b. 24 July 1642 at Braintree, Norfolk, MA; m. abt. 1663 Mary Bumstead at Boston, Suffolk, MA; d. 9 November 1705 at Boston, Suffolk, MA, aged 63 years.

Their Children:

1. Mary b. 24 September 1664 at Boston, Suffolk, MA; bapt. 23 December 1666 at First Church, Boston, Suffolk, MA; m. abt. 1680 James Webster; d. after 17 October 1705 at Boston, Suffolk, aged 41 years

2. Rebecca b. 25 February 1665 at Boston, Suffolk, MA; m. 11 April 1693 Eleazer Morton at Boston Suffolk, MA; d. 6 November 1730 at Plymouth, Plymouth, MA

3. Susan b. abt. 1666; bapt. 23 December 1666 at First Church, Boston, Suffolk, MA;

4. Anna b. abt. 1666; bapt. 23 December 1666 at First Church, Boston, Suffolk, MA;

5. Susanna b. 19 March 1668 at Boston, Suffolk, MA; bapt. 21 March 1669 at First Church, Boston, Suffolk, MA;

6. William b. 19 December 1671 at Boston, Suffolk, MA;

7. Susanna b. 11 January 1673 at Boston, Suffolk, MA; bapt. 11 January 1673 at First Church, Boston, Suffolk, MA.

8. Ambrose b. abt 1675; bapt. 5 March 1675; m(1) 14 April 1704 Mehitable Gardner at Nantucket, Nantucket, MA; m(2) 8 July 1714 March Chandler at Nantucket, Nantucket, MA

9. Joseph b. 21 October 1677 at Boston, Suffolk, MA

10. Thomas b. 1 November 1680 at Boston, Suffolk, MA; m. 20 August 1702 Sarah Story at Boston, Suffolk, MA; d. 17 March 1749/50 at Boston, Suffolk, MA.- His grandson, William Dawes, was an active Boston patriot, who also rode with Paul Revere on the famed night in April.

Ambrose's home was next to his father's on the east side of Subbury Street in Boston, Suffolk, MA. It is thought to have been a gift of the portion of his father's property. He and his father paid a tax on the house in 1676. "Ambrose is recorded in extant Boston tax lists as having been taxed also in 1681, 1686-8, 1691, 1695 and 1700-1." (Dawes, p. 18).

Like his father, Ambrose was a brick mason and was appointed with his father in January 1669-70 to surveying chimneys. In 1678 in 1683, he served as hog-reeve. He served as tithing man in 1680, 1686, 1690-1 and 1697. In 1688, he was a constable for Boston. He also was an inspector of making brick in 1691.

"In May 1681 Ambrose with his father, William, and his cousin, James Hawkins, all builders having contract to build a house for Deputy Governor Thomas Danforth were fined twenty shillings by the town for making the wall of the cellar nine inches over the town land. This house was frontinge toward ye Docke." (Dawes, p. 20)

"AMBROSE, as has been stated;" was occupied with the construction of the foundation of the Third Church in June 1669 and was involved in one phase of the persecution practised by the disapproving First Church. Being called "AM. DAWES one of the workmen," he was committed to prisons" in June-July 1669 with Joseph Rock and others who were bound over to the County Court on the claim that they had failed to get permission from the magistrates to erect the meeting house for the newly formed church. The governor called a meeting of his council to consider the offence on July 14 but that body side-stepped by merely advising the Third Church to obey the law. At the County Court held July 27 Joseph Rock and Benjamin Gibs, overseers, were both fined £ 5 and costs of court but they a ppealed and at the September Court they were acquitted by Jury and Bench and their fines were nullified. Popular opinion was favoring the Third Church more and more, however, and in late July they were granted permission by the selectmen to erect their meeting house as planned but a petition signed by twenty-six of the dissenters ineluding" WILLIAM1 DAWES, and addressed to the governor and magistrates was read in open court on September 16, 1669 with the only evident result being advice from the governor that they should delay construction until the General Court met to pass on their plans. But in the meantime" (Dawes, p. 20)

". · · the love of many Brethren in Neighbouring Townes is not to be for gotten who then (September 13) freely brought in 27 Carte loads of the meeting house timber, and upon the 27·(7) ber [September] brought in 43 Cartes laden with the same timber, from the place where it was framed, being 14 miles distant from the Towne, besides 13 Cartes from Muddy river with timber a111ayed in place .... " "The frame being in place on the I: of October helpe came in to raise it, and soe the worke was carried along gradually to the Compleating thereof, without the least dammage of anyone person that was there imployed .... "

"On December 19, 1669 the "Church met publiquely in the new meeting house,"56 and oil September 7, 1670 AMBROSEs DAWES joined" this Third Church, following that with the acquirement of freemanship'? on May 31, 1671. In 1674 AMBRosEs became a proud* member" 'of the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Boston (see Gore, pp. 320-1) of which three of his descendants became members= later, namely Thomas" (Thomas 4, THOMASa, AMBROSES) in 1754; WILLIAM4 (THOMASa, AMBROSES) in 1760 and his son WILLIAMs, who rode with Revere, in 1768.

*It has been stated that AMBROSE' soon became a lieutenant in this organization but the history of the Artillery Company fails to verify that claim. He did acquire a lieutenancy, in the colonial army, however, in 1689 during his active service in Maine in King William's War. " (Dawes, p. 20)

"AMBROSE DAWES definitely rendered his greatest public service in a military line for, briefly stated, he served-" through most if not all of King Philip's War in 1675-6; was a memberG,lo. of Capt. Thomas Savage's company of Boston militia from 1680 to 1686, and perhaps continuously until" 1691; and when King William's War began, "to the eastward," he served as a lieutenant under Capt. Nathaniel Hall in the first of the five expeditions led by Maj. Benjamin Church against the Indians of Maine and New Hampshire, may have served in the second expedition and certainly did so in the third of these expeditions when he acted both as soldier and mason at the building of Fort Pemaquid, and lost one of his eyes there, in 1692• EDWARDs WRIGHT also served in King William's War." (Dawes, p. 21)

"A brief comparison of the two Indian wars named for the Indian Philip and for King William seems fitting just here. Philip's War of 1675-6 (see Upham, pp. 622-7) was waged almost entirely in Massachusetts and the parties to it were Indians and the colonists. The Indians desired to exterminate the whites from New England, but though they utterly destroyed ten or twelve towns, partially destroyed and depopulated two score other towns, took five hundred to six hundred English lives and caused an expense of over £100,000, their objective was not attained for the N arragansetts and other tribes who became parties to the conflict found their strength and unity utterly broken by the "army of one thousand men" which was fighting for the existence of the white race in New England. There is no use trying to excuse or justify the frequent atrocities practiced by both whites and Indians in these wars. That phase is quite outside the scope of this work, which attempts merely to relate what occurred. In Philip's War the settlements in Massa.chusetts were so much more numerous than were those in Maine during King William's, that help could frequently be sent in haste from one village to another, though often not soon enough; but at least there would be in the minds of the people a consciousness of companionship, a unity of interest and an intent to help in time of need.

On the other hand, King William's War was fought mainly in what is now58 Maine with some battles over the line into present New Hampshire. A few preliminary conflicts occurred as early as 1676 during the closing days of Philip's War because the Indians "to the eastward," being Tarratines and Abenequis, nursed certain grudges against the whites; and they distrusted, too, the increasing number of colonists settling along the Maine coast. But presently they subsided into a sullen tolerance which lasted until 1688 when certain criminally foolish acts on the part of Gov. Andros of the Bay Colony fanned the natives' smouldering displeasure into activity. The French, wishing to hold the territory against the English, urged the natives on, exaggerating every cause for complaint, furnishing them with munitions and in 1689 the English King William put on the finishing touch by declaring war against the French, after which the French influence over the natives was exerted to the fullest, and atrocities which stagger description were practiced on the small and scattered English settlements along the Maine coast. This war ran'" for ten years until 1698, and every northern settlement except three (York, Wells and Kittery) was wiped= out by January 1692.

As to the DAWES' families' assistance or action in Philip's War, as will be shown, WILLIAM1 had two servants or substitutes in active service and, leaving his family to his father's care, AMBROSE2 must have been among the first to respond for duty, for on December 10, 1675, nine days prior to the Swamp Fight, AMBRosE2, credited under Capt. Samuel Appleton already had three pounds fourteen shillings due him. Then he took part in the trek from Dedham Plain to Wickford (see map, p. 618) and on to the Narragansett Swamp Fight of December 19, 1675, with its battle against the storm and bitter cold which must have been fully as exhausting..." (Dawes, p. 21)

",,, as had been the preceding battle against the Indians. Since no record is found of his receiving wounds, it doubtless fell to his lot to help carry the injured and dying through the long night march back to Wickford (see Upham, pp. 622-7) and he probably took part in the subsequent "Hungry March" northward, (see Woodward, p. 670). In February 1675-6 he and his father were both included among ninety-three signers" who petitioned the General Court, suggesting constructive plans for combatting the enemy and for the planting and care of sufficient crops for the colonists' needs, in spite of the man power required by the military emergency." The following petition" is self-explanatory:

"To ye honoured Councill now sitting in Boston, this 14th Aprill, Anno 1676.

"The humble petition of WILLIAM DAWS and AMBROSE DAWS sheweth, whereas that the said WM. DAWS hath had a man impressed to ye service ever since August last, and doth yet continue out by a man which he hired, yet Joseph Bicknell, in whose roome ye man is, he returning home went out again a volunteere under Capt. Reynolds, and now is under ye command of Cap'" Sill, and so ye said DAWS hath two servants out at this time; now ye said WM. DAWS doth desire that ye said Bicknell, which went out

volunteere, might be dismissed & returne home.

"And ye said AMBROSE DAWS sent another man out volunteere, & now under ye

command of Capt= Sill, the said AMBROSE DAWS having ben out him-selfe most part of y winter, he having great occasion for him doth desire y he might have an order for his release and returne home. Your poor petitionr's desire being granted will much oblige them for ever to pray for your Honours prosperity & ever rest ..

WILLIAM DAWS. AMBROS DAWES.'·'19 (Dawes, p. 22)

settlements. Eleven in all were established and garrisoned through the winter of 1688-9 by nearly six hundred men (see map, p. 19). This winter expedition suffered greatly from the heavy marches, construction work in the extreme cold, etc. Andros faithfully stayed on with his men until late March 1689 and when he arrived at Boston the Revolution against him was about to break, being the result of the popular displeasure against his rule, taken in conjunction with the rumor that King William was on the English throne. With this break in authority, many of the soldiers recently left in the Maine garrisons departed for their homes; the colonial office-holders of 1686 who were temporarily returned to power were not quick nor severe enough in their taking over protection of the Maine settlements and the Indians took immediate advantage of that fact. To combat the increased Indian activity the Bay government on August 21, 1689 gave an order58,64 that a body'" of six hundred men (seven or eight companies) should be raised by detachments from the militia or by voluntary enlistments, the command of which was given to Maj. Jeremiah Swaine who appointed as his headquarters and the place of rendezvous Newichawannock (Berwick, now Maine). One week later, on August 28, 1689, his forces began their march eastward. One of the companies under Swaine was made up of ninety friendly ("Praying") Indians from Natick (see Clapp, p. 160) commanded'" by Capt. Lightfoot (see p. 24); and another company58,59 in Swaine's group captained by Nathaniel Hall had as a member of the unit our AMBRoSEs DAWES.

In the meantime the commissioners of the United Colonies, including* Thomas' Danforth (NICHOLAS1) who was their president, being in session 'at Boston

addressed'" a letter of instruction" under date of September 18, 1689, to Maj. Benjamin Church (who had been ordered to assemble troops) to make all speed with his forces to Casco, also called Falmouth (now Portland) and there to cooperate with Maj. Swaine and to take over from him the command of the companies captained by Nathaniel Hall and Simons Willard who had marched east!" under Swaine. Another letter was addressed to Hall and Willard "now in or about Casco Bay" putting them under Church's orders. On Swaine's arrival at "the east" he had distributed many of his men at the various garrisons and Hall and his company, apparently working westward again, (see map, p. 19) arrived at Casco (Falmouth) on September 20-1, almost simultaneously with the arrival by boat of Church and his soldiers who reached Casco Friday afternoon September 20, 1689 to learn that for one or more days'" eighty canoes with about two hundred or more Indians'" and some French had been seen on Palmer's (now Peak's, see map, p. 19) Island, presumably awaiting reinforcements, and they were expected to attack Casco at any moment. Church promptly contacted the officers at Fort Loyal and also Capt. Hall] and his company (including AMBROSES) "who had just arrived.?" Church landed his own men at the fort after dark, and before daylight

(Dawes, p. 23)

came he had secreted them'" in nearby woods "not far from the head of Back Cove ... about half a mile north westerly from the* garrison" (see map, p. 19); while the Indians during that night had landed "upon the other or westerly side of the Cove," having moved to the upper part of the neck either'" by way of Fore River or of Back Cove; and in the morning of September 21, 1689, the Indians made a prisoner of .Anthony" Brackett (Anthony") who lived near at hand and presently they killed him. The alarm was immediately given by Brackett's sons, and Hall's Company, with AMBROSEs DAWES "who were in advance** hastened to the spot. The enemy were in Brackett's orchard, and here the action commencedt"" and most of the battle occurred.

Hall's men being in advance, had hurriedly forded some bit of water while the tide was low or out, in order to make a frontal attack upon the enemy and they "were very hotly ingaged.Y'" But others of the English, presently finding that the tide was already coming in, failed to get across so they occupied an elevation= and fired at the enemy over the heads of Hall's men.58,59 Maj. Church hurried up with reinforcements· and ammunition but could not get across to deliver them, so he called encouragement across to Hall and his men and explained that the full tide hindered his crossing" but immediately Capt. Lightfoot "laid down his gun, and came over the river, [toward the fort where their supplies were] taking the powder upon his head, and a kettle of bullets in each hand, and got safe to his fellow Soldiers."6o,61 Learning that there was a bridge about three-quarters of a mile

up, Church decided upon a flanking attack against the enemy Indians using the several companies on his side of the water, but the enemy sensing his intention, first advanced to attack him and prevent his junction with Hall'" but being unable to do that, they began to run'" from the river side, where they had built barricades of logs and. brush, and into the woods; and though Church did not know it until later, the natives were then in retreat." He thought they were attempting some other passage into the settlement but as he hunted for them, crossing the Neck to Capt. Clark's field on the south side, he found Clark's cattle feeding quietly, proving that the Indians had not passed that way. He was soon informed by his scouts that the Indians had completely disappeared into the protection of the woods. He then ordered that all the dead and wounded should be "brought over" which was done by means of canoes. The records state repeatedly that "Capt. Hall and his men being first engaged did great service and suffered the greatest loss in his men ... "59,61 but that the English and [friendly] Indians "coming suddenly to his relief prevented him and his whole company from being cut off."59

"By this time the day was far spent, and marching into Town about sunset, carrying in all of their wounded and dead men .... " The enemy was judged to be three or four hundred strong and the fight continued about six hours before the enemy retreated. Had Church arrived a day later, his only possible action would have been to bury the dead. The loss by the English was eleven dead and ten (Daws, p. 24)

wounded of which Capt. Hall had six slain. Church's letter of report to the Boston officials'" was dated September 21, 1689 the very day of the fight and immediately after that he ranged all the countryside, visiting. all garrisons and hoping to come upon the Indians, but they were dispersed and they troubled the settlements no more until spring. so Massachusetts authorities ordered Church to settle all the garrisons and put in suitable officers for the winter and to send all other volunteers home. He held a council of war at Scarboro on November II, 1689, which was attended by various commissioned officers of Saco, Falmouth and Scarboro and decided that twenty men each should be garrisoned at Saco and Scarboro. Then a council of war under Church was held on November 13 at Falmouth, attended by the above officers and by Capt. Nathaniel Hall, Lt. AMBROSEs DAWES* et aI, at which it was decided that sixty soldiers should be garrisoned there besides fifteen at Fort Loyal (see map, p. 19) and Capt. Hall was made commander-in-chief of the three towns named. so This is not proof but it seems to imply that AMBROSEs was listed for-service during the winter of 1689--90 under Hall, and probably at Falmouth.P" We have proof,60,77 however, that prior to November 13, 1689, AMBROSEs had been commissioned'V" a lieutenant but the date of his return to his home is not recorded. As a result of this unprecedented victory at Casco over the eastern Indians, the inhabitants there felt certain that the pride of the natives as well as the French would drive them to an even more vicious attack when spring opened up and so it came to pass," for on May 16, 1690, Casco (Falmouth) was attacked about dawn by between four and five hundred Frenchmen and Tarratine Indians" and after being besieged for five days and four nights the fort was forced'" to capitulate about three o'clock the afternoon of the twentieth. They had gradually assembled in the fort, abandoning the fortified houses which were then burned, and most of their men had been killed or wounded during the battle. Castine, the French commander." swore with uplifted hand to furnish the survivors in the fort a safe conduct to another English settlement, which, promise he promptly broke, allowing the Indian allies to murder or retain as captive the wounded men as well as the women and children." The survivors" suffered "insult, abuse and the most fiendish atrocities," but beautiful Portland eventually rose from Falmouth's ashes.

The next known service recorded of AMBROSEsDAWES occurred at Pemaquid'v-Pi'" (see map, p. 19) during the third expedition of Maj. Benjamin Church to the east in 1692. A stockade, built there by Andros in 1688-<), had soon been destroyed by the French and Indians and when Phipps came over from England" as the new governor of New England in May, 1692, he brought orders from the English government to build a real fort at Pemaquid. He raised a force of about four hundred and fifty men, including our AMBROSEs DAWES, and in company with Maj. Benjamin Church and some of his men, embarked'" early'" in August, 1692• On their way north they stopped at what had once been Fort Loyal at Casco where

Capt. Hall and AMBROSES had served so .valiantly on September 21, 1689, and buried the bones of the hundred or so of Falmouth's settlers who had been massacred there in May 1690 under Castine, and loaded onto their vessels the cannon which lay useless, for installation at Pemaquid. Church and his men began to (Dawes. p. 25)

scour the country for Indians while Phipps laid out the new fort" which was described as the finest fort yet built "in these parts of America," being intended as security against the Indians and a demonstration against the French. After planning the structure,60t62,6? Gov. Phipps hurried back to Boston where the witch-

craft trials were being held (see p. 370) and left the earlier part of the construction in the hands of Captains Wing and Bancroft though the later part of the construction was under Capt. March. It was given the name'" of "Fort William Henry" and though ordered by the English government, its cost amounting to about £20,000 was paid, reluctantly, by the Bay Colony.?" On this structure and at this place AMBROSE" DAWES served both as workman and as soldier, being repeatedly recorded19t36 as "in his Majesty's army at Pemaquid." The following petition is self-explanatory :19 ,128

"The Petition of AMBROSE DAWES

"Humblie sheweth that, wheareas yo'r petitioner was imploid in theare magesties sarvis at Pemiqitt in the yeare 1692, for the space of five months, wheare he did nott only attend as a soldier and as a workeman implid by Exelensie, and in said sarvis lost one of his eyes, beside the greate miserie and paine he underwent thearby, [and] he hath beene made unncapble of dooing labor six months or seven, and- alsoe more unable to gitt a liveliehood then formerly, togetherw'" the expensis of the chirurgion for the saving· the sight of itt. The premisis being considered, your poore sarvent humblie requests your honers to a 110 we him oute of the treshury so much, aither annewally or together, as your hon'rs shall in preudence thinke best; hoping you will not doe otherwise with your sarvent than in such casis of los of lims hath beene dun with others [so that] the redines of your sarvent, wch he hath alwars shewen for to attend their magestie sarvis at your comand, may be still incoridg, whoefor your honrs shall think it an honer to doe any firther sarvis weh he is capable to doe.

"And shall still praye for your Honers prosperitt as in deutie bound.

"For Answer to the Petition of AMBRos DAWES:

" r oted, That he be allowed ten pounds out of the Publiek Treasury, in consideration of damage sustained in their Ma'ties service by the loss of one of his eyes, and that he come not for any further satisfaetion."*

This was passed in the affirmative by the House of Representatives June 18 and by the Council on June 1 9, 1694.19

And thus ended all active participation against the Indians for AMBROSE" DAWES, but as has been shown and will be seen, ill health was his portion henceforth.

As to the private affairs'" of AMBROSE" DAWES, we learn but little. His mem- · bership in Old South Church began in 1670 which means that most of the period of trial which that organization endured at the hands of the First Church was a part of his experience as well as of his parents'. His wife MARY appears not to have acquired" membership. In September 1670, he is shown?" to have owned land in Roxbury, being then called "AMMJ DAWE" (the "j" being used in place of an"i" to furnish him an odd nickname!) After the death of THOMASt BUMSTEAD in June,

1677, AMBROSE" and MARY his wife joined the other heirs!" in disposing of her father's property; in August, 1685, AMBROSE" mortgaged= his home on Sudbury Street for £43 to his cousin James" Hawkins and to a neighbor James Barnes. This

·0£ course ten pounds meant much more in 1694 than it would now, but the insulting suggestion incorporated in the last phrase seems entirely uncalled for in connection with a man who had rendered double service in King Philip's War of both self and a servant; who had been a member of the "forlorn" at Casco in 1689 and had served again for months together at Pemaquid, as both soldier and builder, ultimately losing an eye as well as his health. (Dawes p. 26)

mortgage ran for nearly twenty years until on February 21, 1704, AMBROSE" conveyed a part of the property (doubtless then including the portion earlier held by his father WILLIAM1, lately deceased) to his son THOMAS", and at that time the old mortgage was discharged, but a new one for £33 was given to Susanna Jacobs,

which ran for fifteen years until long after the death of AMBROSE".

Of the ten or more children of AMBROSE" only four survived him, William" his eldest son having died as a mariner at Londonf in 1699; and Ambrose" having removed to Plymouth .Colony from whence some branches of his descendants re- v moved about 1769, to the Upper Kennebec (see map, p. 385) where their name became corrupted's to "Dor" or "Dors." That left only our THOMAS" and his descendants as the main group bearing the name of Dawes and resident at or near Boston.

On October 17, 1705, AMBROSE" made and signed his will, with Elisha' Story, brother of our SARAH1 as one of the witnesses. He referred to himself as a "mason, being very often sick and ill in body." After a deeply religious preface, and a direction that all debts be paid, he bequeathed to his wife MARY his whole estate during her life. After her death the moveables were to be divided equally between his four living children, Ambrose" the eldest son (resident at Nantucket), THOMAS", and their sisters Mary Webster and Rebecca Morton 71 (but carelessly rendered" as Moulton).

His home property was bequeathed to THOMASs after the decease of the mother and legacies totaling £30 were to be paid by THOMAS" to the three other heirs within three years time. The testator appointed Deacon John Marion and "my brother Mr. John Nicholls" to see that the will was carried out as directed'? and these two men filed an inventory of the estate on February 7, 1705, to the accuracy of which widow* MARY made oath on February 27. It showed evidence of very simple living and totaled a little over £90, of which the housing and lands represented £60 and debts due amounted 19 to about £30. .

Following the death of AMBROSE" on November 5, 1705, widow MARY lived less than a year, dying at Boston on May 22, 1706, aged 64 and another inventory was then filed of the household goods" showing only the addition of a few cooking utensils and of "a suit of printed curtains" for which she had paid thirty-five shillings. It appears that during the life of AMBROSE", or perhaps at his death, there had been purchased a burial lot in King's Chapel Burial Ground where he v and his wife MARY with undoubtedly other members of the family had been laid, for at a meeting of the Selectmen of Boston held on February 29, 1719-20, the following action was taken :73' (Dawes, p. 27)

"Liberty is granted to Mr. Thomas Dawes to erect a toomb in the spot of ground where his relations we buryed in ye Old burying place."

"This tomb was soon built and stands intact now (1940) bearing no inscription itself but having leaned against it, a slate headstone announcing that within lie the remains of Ambrose and his wife Mary, parents of Thomas and of seven children of Thomas and Sarah Dawed. There is also affixed upon the top of the tomb a bronze tablet commemorating the service of William Dawes (1745-1799) who rode with Revere. This tablet was placed in 1899 by the Sins of the American Revolution. On the adjoining lot is a monument dedicated to the other Boston branch of the Dawes family, namely to Col. Thomas Dawes)." (Dawes, p. 28)