TOWN RECORDS

            The earliest towns of New England apparently did not begin to keep records of their meetings from the day of settlement.  This was probably because Winthrop and other leaders believed in 1630 that the dispersal around the Bay was only temporary, and that they would eventually be gathering the whole population together in one place very soon.

            This of course never came to pass, partly because of personality differences between men such as Winthrop and Dudley, and partly because of the greatly increased population of Massachusetts Bay in 1633, making it impossible to bring everyone together in one settlement.

            This may be a partial explanation for the fact that most of the records for the earliest towns begin in 1633 or 1634 (although in some cases the first few leaves of the volume may have been lost).  The records for most of these towns have been published, and are used here in that form.  (See BTR, CaTR, ChTR, DTR, PTR, RTR, STR and WaTR in the Key to Titles.)  As with so many other  record categories the early Lynn town records are lost, and our only evidence for this town in the early years comes from colony records, private correspondence and a very few items of town records that were later recorded in the Essex Court records.

           The records of two towns require some additional comments.  The Dorchester town records as published begin early in 1633, but clearly the first two leaves of the volume have been lost.  An old index to this volume gives some entries from the lost pages, and these were published in a footnote on the family of John Greenway of Dorchester [NEHGR 32:58].

            The Charlestown town records are a special problem because, like the church records of that town, they were recopied in the 1660s.  The copyist omitted some of the early records, added a lengthy historical narrative at the beginning and inserted documents pertaining to Charlestown from colony records and elsewhere.  In addition he misread many of the names, especially given names.  The user of the Charlestown town records needs to be very cautious.  A careful, annotated edition of the town records of Charlestown would be an excellent addition to the literature.

 

VITAL RECORDS

            Most New England towns began the recording of vital records from the earliest days, and a great majority of these record books have come down to us intact.  The records for many of the Massachusetts towns were published in the systematic series a century ago, with the events being arranged in alphabetic order.  For other towns throughout New England vital records have been published in many formats, citations to which may be found in the Key to Titles.

            There is an unusual volume of vital records that was generated in the early days of Massachusetts Bay Colony which deserves special attention.  When published in the Register, beginning with the first issue of the second volumes they were referred to as the "Early Records of Boston," but they have only a limited connection with Boston.

            The document in question is in fact a compilation of those vital records submitted to the county court by the towns of Suffolk County, beginning in 1644.  Massachusetts Bay Colony established counties in 1643, two of them being Suffolk and Middlesex, but Middlesex did not take on an independent existence until 1649. Thus for the years prior to 1649 this book of records includes submissions from the towns of Boston, Roxbury, Dorchester, Braintree, Weymouth and Dedham (which then made up Suffolk County), and Cambridge, Charlestown, Watertown, Concord, Woburn and Sudbury (then Middlesex).  Hingham, which should have begun sending in its records in 1644, did not in fact do so until 1649.  Even then, it did not include items retrospectively, as did the other towns.  Also in 1649, Springfield sent in some vital records; it was for the moment part of Middlesex County, prior to the establishment of Hampshire County.

            The probable reason for calling these the "Early Records of Boston" is that they are now, and have long been, in the custody of the Boston City Registrar.  They are properly records of Suffolk County and should be returned to that jurisdiction.  This volume was transcribed in the last century by David Pulsifer, and, as noted above, published in the Register.

            For several of the towns the record tells us that the register of births and deaths runs "until the first of the first month 1644."  Given the problems with the calendar at this time, we want to know just what is meant by this limit on the first group of records, which supposedly includes everything back to the "first founding of their towns." Examination of several of the towns shows that in this record the year began on the first of March, and not on the 25th, as in many other records.  One specific example which helps in this determination comes from the entries from Dedham, in which Mary Aldridge, daughter of Henry and Mary, was born on the tenth of the first month (March) 1643, and died on the 24th of the second month (April) 1643.  This sequence is possible only if the first of March is New Year's Day.  Thus, the announced terminus for this first set of records, in the notation of double-dating, would be 1 March 1643/4.

            The clerks of the writs for the towns did not report all births and deaths which had occurred in each town prior to 1 March 1643/4, but only those for families which still resided in the town at that later date.  And for those families, only events which had taken place while the family actually resided there were recorded.

            The records in this volume are beset by another problem as well.  Since they were obtained from the town clerks by the county clerk, they have been copied over a number of times, which has allowed many errors to creep in.  In the best of circumstances, the county clerk might have copied directly from the original record prepared by the town clerk.  But more frequently it is likely that the town clerk made a copy of his records, which was then carried to Boston to be copied again by the county clerk into the single volume for the whole county.  And there may have been other steps of which we are unaware.  The opportunities for scribal errors were abundant.

            In general, then, the county copy, as represented by the misnamed "Early Records of Boston," is much inferior to the copy retained by the town.  Savage makes this point frequently in his Genealogical Dictionary of New England, when comparing this county copy (which is all that exists for Boston of civil vital records at this date) with the record of church baptisms.  If there is an existing alternative to the county copy for this period down to 1644, and a discrepancy appears, the first thing to do is to check the originals.  If the discrepancy persists, the alternative source should be preferred to the county copy.

 

CHURCH RECORDS

             Because religious conviction was the primary motivation for migration for most of those who came to New England during the Great Migration, establishing a church in each new settlement was one of the first matters attended to.  Although the survival of records from these churches is spotty, what does survive provides some of the most important evidence we have for the immigrants to New England during this period.

           The Boston records begin with the foundation of the church in 1630 and are continuous for the period of interest to us.  There is a listing of admissions to church membership, which for the first few years does not have the date of admission.  This list was however maintained in chronological order, and by correlating the list with our knowledge of other events, such as deaths or the dates of arrival of immigrants, we can roughly date an admission from this period.  By 1633 the admissions are dated, and soon this part of the church records also contains much disciplinary matter, and records of letters of dismissal and recommendation.  There is also a separate listing of baptisms. (See BChR in Key to Titles, and GMN 3:4-6, 7:3-6.) 

            The Salem church records before December 1636 consist only of a rough list of church members, which includes only those persons who were members in later 1636; all those who had joined at an earlier date, but had died or moved away, are omitted from this list.  There are also some who were still resident in Salem in 1636 and were known to be church members who were omitted.  From late 1636 there is a continuous record for several years of baptisms and admissions.  (See SChR in Key to Titles, and GMN 2:19-21).

            The church records of Lynn do not exist prior to 1792.  A few facts about the early church may be gleaned from such sources as Winthrop's writings and the lists of freemen [GMN 1:20].

            Charlestown church records survive from the founding of the church in 1631, and include both admissions to membership and baptisms.  As with other Charlestown records, the church book was recopied about 1660, and much of the data was corrupted.  (See ChChR in Key to Titles, and GMN 2:4.)

            Although the ordinary church records of Cambridge do not survive for the ministries of Thomas Hooker or Thomas Shepard, there are copies of some of the so-called "confessions" made by church members upon admission to membership [GMN 5:9], and these frequently provide information about the church members found nowhere else.

            The Watertown church records prior to 1686 have been lost, but, as with Lynn, some information can be obtained from other sources, again including Winthrop's writings and the lists of freemen.

            Roxbury church was founded in 1632, and Rev. John Eliot maintained a set of records that are a hybrid of proper church records and a private diary.  The list of admissions frequently goes beyond the basic data of the admission, and gives the spouse and children of the member, as well as other biographical detail.  There are also separate lists of baptisms and of deaths and burials (one is not always sure which was intended).  (See RChR in Key to Titles, and GMN 2:12-13, 6:19-25.)

            The first Dorchester church removed to Windsor when Warham and most of his flock left for that town.  All that remains for Dorchester is what was kept by Rev. Richard Mather for the second church which he founded.  This has both a list of admissions and a list of baptisms, the latter being annotated in a later hand, giving the fate decades later of some of those baptized in Dorchester.  (See DChR in Key to Titles, and GMN 1:29.)

            Plymouth did not have a minister for most of its early history, and lay leaders such as William Brewster carried out many of the pastoral duties.  The earliest Plymouth church records include a history of the early church, written many decades later; death records for a few of the early immigrants appear here, but it is otherwise not very helpful for the years of the Great Migration.  (See PChR in Key to Titles.)

            When Rev. John Lathrop arrived at Scituate, he organized a church, and kept records of that church during its few years at Scituate, and then for many more years after he and the church removed to Barnstable [NEHGR 9:279-87, 10:37-43; GMN 5:12].

            Similarly, Rev. Peter Hobart maintained a record of births, baptisms, marriages, deaths and burials at Hingham during the years when he was minister there; as with the journals kept by Eliot and Lathrop, this was not strictly speaking a church record [GMN 7:28-29].