hide Sorting

You can sort these results in two ways:

By entity
Chronological order for dates, alphabetical order for places and people.
By position (current method)
As the entities appear in the document.

You are currently sorting in ascending order. Sort in descending order.

hide Most Frequent Entities

The entities that appear most frequently in this document are shown below.

Entity Max. Freq Min. Freq
Hannah 1,758 8 Browse Search
Nathaniel Thomas 1,566 2 Browse Search
Harriot Elizabeth 1,274 2 Browse Search
W. Camb 850 0 Browse Search
John Benjamin 808 4 Browse Search
Reana James 656 0 Browse Search
Mary Elizabeth 604 0 Browse Search
Mary Emilia Elizabeth 552 0 Browse Search
Anna 504 2 Browse Search
Ann Elizabeth 500 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Lucius R. Paige, History of Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1630-1877, with a genealogical register. Search the whole document.

Found 453 total hits in 196 results.

... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ...
Increase Mather (search for this): chapter 11
etters of Thomas Danforth to Gov. Hinkley and to Increase Mather. Danforth omitted from the Council by Mather, but reinstaMather, but reinstated by the General Court; appointed Judge of the Superior Court, but not of that special Court which tried and condemned theperson well acquainted with the facts, perhaps by Increase Mather, who was at that time in London. The case is so well stat sorrowful bondage; for several gentlemen desired Increase Mather, the Rector of the College at Cambridge in New England, tohighly probable that Danforth prepared it, and sent it; to Mather, who made a few verbal alterations before presenting it to Soc., XXXV. 192. Three months later, writing to Rev. Increase Mather, then in London, he says:— I am deeply sensible thaomas Danforth, Esq. [our late deputy-governor]; the Rev. Mr. Increase Mather, and the Rev. Mr. Samuel Willard. Major N. Salt the provisions of the new Charter is said to have induced Mather to omit his name from the list of Councillors; yet he fina
Josiah Winslow (search for this): chapter 11
Early in 1689, much excitement was produced by a rumor that the Prince of Orange had landed in England, with an armed force, and that a Revolution in the English Government was probable. This rumor took a more definite form, April 4, when one Mr. Winslow came from Virginia and brought a printed copy of the Prince of Orange's declaration. Upon his arrival, he was imprisoned by Justice Foxcroft and others, for bringing a traitorous and treasonable libel into the country, as the mittimus expressed it. Winslow offered two thousand pounds bail, but it could not be accepted. A proclamation was issued, charging all officers and people to be in readiness to hinder the landing of any forces which the Prince of Orange might send into those parts of the world. The old magistrates and heads of the people silently wished, and secretly prayed, for success to the glorious undertaking, and determined quietly to wait the event. The body of the people were more impatient. The flame, which had be
High Sheriff (search for this): chapter 11
s the right still to remain in his Majesty, and humbly prays a grant for the same. Ed. Randolph. Boston March ye 17th 1687-8. Mass. Arch., CXXVIII. 111, 112. Subsequently, another order of notice was issued:— Boston 22d June 1688. Mr. Sheriff, You may give notice to any persons that lay claim to the land in Cambridge petitioned for by Edward Randolph Esq., that on Thursday next, in the forenoon, they appear before his Excellency in Council, and give their full answer therein. I am, sir, your servant, John West, D. Sec. Superscribed, To Samuell Gookin Esq. High Sheriff of Middlesex, at Cambridge. Ibid., p. 281. At the time appointed, the proprietors of the lands in controversy presented their case more fully:— The Reply of the proprietors of those lands lying between Sanders Brook and Spy Pond near unto Watertown, in the County of Middlesex, to an answer made to their address presented to your Excellency and the honorable Council, referring to the pet
Samuel Champney (search for this): chapter 11
ither again; which made him take a more particular leave than otherwise he would have done. Sixth day, Nov. 10, 1699. Mr. Danforth is entombed about 1/4 of an hour before 4 P. M. Very fair and pleasant day; much company. Bearers: on the right side, Lt-Governor, Mr. Russell, Sewall; left side, Mr. W. Winthrop, Mr. Cook, Col. Phillips. I helped lift the corpse into the tomb, carrying the feet. In the long and perilous conflict on behalf of chartered rights, Gookin and Danforth were supported by their brethren the Deputies from Cambridge, all good men and true. Deacon Edward Collins was Deputy from 1654 to 1670, without intermission; Edward Oakes, 1659, 1660, 1669-1681; Richard Jackson, 1661, 1662; Edward Winship, 1663, 1664, 1681-1686; Edward Jackson, 1665-1668, 1675, 1676; Joseph Cooke, 1671, 1676-1680; Thomas Prentice, 1672-1674; Samuel Champney, 1686, and again, after the Revolution, from 1689 to 1695, when he died in office. Their names should be in perpetual remembrance.
Clark Ruling Elders (search for this): chapter 11
gment in the case to be this, viz., that these methods will utterly ruin and undo poor N. E. I shall nominate some of these to you, viz., the Hon. Simon Bradstreet, Esq. [our late governor]; the Hon. Thomas Danforth, Esq. [our late deputy-governor]; the Rev. Mr. Increase Mather, and the Rev. Mr. Samuel Willard. Major N. Saltonstall Esq., who was one of the judges, has left the Court, and is very much dissatisfied with the proceedings of it. Excepting Mr. Hale, Mr. Noyes, and Mr. Parris, the Rev. Elders, almost throughout the whole country, are very much dissatisfied. Several of the late justices, viz., Thomas Graves Esq., N. Byfield Esq., Francis Foxcroft Esq., Son-in-law of Thomas Danforth. are much dissatisfied; also several of the present justices: and in particular, some of the Boston justices were resolved rather to throw up their commissions than be active in disturbing the liberty of their majesties' subjects, merely on the accusations of these afflicted, possessed children
Samuell Gookin (search for this): chapter 11
r the same. Ed. Randolph. Boston March ye 17th 1687-8. Mass. Arch., CXXVIII. 111, 112. Subsequently, another order of notice was issued:— Boston 22d June 1688. Mr. Sheriff, You may give notice to any persons that lay claim to the land in Cambridge petitioned for by Edward Randolph Esq., that on Thursday next, in the forenoon, they appear before his Excellency in Council, and give their full answer therein. I am, sir, your servant, John West, D. Sec. Superscribed, To Samuell Gookin Esq. High Sheriff of Middlesex, at Cambridge. Ibid., p. 281. At the time appointed, the proprietors of the lands in controversy presented their case more fully:— The Reply of the proprietors of those lands lying between Sanders Brook and Spy Pond near unto Watertown, in the County of Middlesex, to an answer made to their address presented to your Excellency and the honorable Council, referring to the petition of Edward Randolph Esq., he praying a grant of seven hundred acres,
Edward Randolph Esq (search for this): chapter 11
Quo Warranto was issued forth against this Colony, as also by his present Majesty in his declaration, as in our address so we do hereby again humbly claim. If any thing be yet behind on our part, necessary for the evincing our claim, we humbly pray that we may be informed what those things are, and time given us to bring in our further answer to your Excellency and the Council. In the name and by the order of the proprietors, together with ourselves of those lands petitioned for by Edward Randolph Esq. Samll. Andrew. Walter Hasting. Zachartah Hicks. John Gove. Mass Arch., CXXVIII. 115, 116. On the same day, June 28, 1688, the Council passed the following order:— Upon further hearing of the petition of Edward Randolph Esq., praying his Majesty's grant for a certain parcel or tract of vacant and unappropriated land, containing about seven hundred acres, lying between Spy Pond and Sanders Brook near Watertown in the County of Middlesex, as also a certain writing presen
Samuel Smith (search for this): chapter 11
ly seized, and about nine of the clock the drums beat through the town, and an ensign was set up upon the beacon. Then Mr. Bradstreet, Mr. Danforth, Major Richards, Dr. Cooke, and Mr. Addington, &c., were brought to the Council-house by a company of soldiers under the command of Capt. Hill. The mean while, the people in arms did take up and put into goal Justice Bullivant, Justice Foxcraft, Mr. Randolf, Sheriff Sherlock, Capt. Ravenscroft, Capt. White, Farewel, Broadbent, Crafford, Larkin, Smith, and many more, as also Mercey, then goal-keeper, and put Scates, the bricklayer, in his place. About noon, in the gallery at the Council-house, was read the Declaration here inclosed, etc. Revolution, etc., pp. 3, 4. Under eleven heads, this Declaration sets forth the grievances which had become intolerable, and which justified armed resistance. It is scarcely possible that a document of such length and character could have been prepared in the four hours of intense excitement and conf
Bartholomew Gidney (search for this): chapter 11
son and estate; otherwise we are assured they will endeavor the taking of the fortification by storm, if any opposition be made. To Sir Edmond Andross, Knight. Wait Winthrop. Simon Bradstreet. William Stoughton. Samuel Shrimpton. Bartholomew Gidney. William Brown. Thomas Danforth. John Richards. Elisha Cook. Isaac Addington. John Nelson. Adam Winthrop. Peter Sergeant. John Foster. David Waterhouse. Revolution, etc., p. 20. Unable to resist the force arrayed against hie fort, and with his associates went to the town-house, whence he was sent under guard to the house of Col. John Usher, who had been Treasurer under his administration, but, like Stoughton and other members of his Council, Winthrop, Shrimpton, Gidney (or Gedney), and Brown, had been members of the Council. united with the patriotic party in this revolutionary movement. But this kind of duress did not satisfy the people; and on the following day, at their urgent demand, he was imprisoned in t
Thomas Brattle (search for this): chapter 11
hat the leading questions were put by Parris, and not by Danforth. On the contrary, perhaps partly in consequence of this examination, he declared his dissatisfaction, and dislike of the judicial proceedings. In a letter dated Oct. 8, 1692, Thomas Brattle, one of the most intelligent and persistent opposers of the witchcraft infatuation, says: But although the chief judge, and some of the other judges, be very zealous in these proceedings, yet this you may take for a truth, that there are sevelmost all his contemporaries, believed in witchcraft, and considered witches justly obnoxious to punishment, is probably true; but it is not true, that he was a member of that special court which held such bloody assizes, nor, if we may believe Brattle, his personal friend, did he approve its proceedings. The Superior Court, of which he was a member, held a session at Salem in January, 1693, at which twenty persons were tried, and three convicted; but spectral evidence was not admitted; Up
... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ...