V-"<^^^>^ %'^^^^\^^ %'^fr^\ublic records that a large number of peo- ple died in Duxbury before that time. Besides, the Wadsworth records state that eighty four persons had died in Duxbury up to 1088, \. D. Now it would be impos- sible to bury such a number of i)eople in a graveyard on Harden Hill and at this date tind no trace of such a number of graves. Again, it would be impossible for such a graveyard to be washed away by the sea and the people of the town not to know it and to take care to keep their dead from being washed into the sea. This is all the more evident when you consider that the people of Duxbury were always a sea far- ing people having at least the ordinary reverence for their dead. It would have been impossible for the sea to encroach year alter year oo their shore without their knowledge, and, having that knowl- edge, is it either probable or possible that the early settlers would take no steps to keep their dead from being carried into the bay ? Every week the people were at their di- vine service; over and over again they car- ried their dead there ;fre(iuently they must have visited the graves of their former friends; their town-meetings were held in the meeting-house, and all public business was transacted in it; for all these reasons and many others that will suggest them- selves, the people of Duxbury would have had manv and ample opportunities for ob- serving the destruction of their graveyard by the tides, and such destruction could not have taken place without their knowledge of it. But there is no tradition of such destruction. It must be borne in mind that this destruction should have taken place between IG06, when Staudish was buried, and 1GG5. The graveyard was in existence when Standish was buried in 1G5G, and the records are complete since 1GG5. Had the graveyard been Avashed away since this time, some record of it would be left in history or in tradition. The assumption that the graveyard was washed away was forced on the defenders of the Harden Hill theory, because no trace of a graveyard is found there now, and they justly feel that the absence of an entire public graveyard must be accounted for in some way. Mr. Bradford'made extensive excavations and searches on Harden Hill for traces of a graveyard. Mr. Bradford was assisted by his brother, and after a diligent search, digging several feet deep and exploring, as sextons know how to explore for graves, they could not find one trace of a graveyard on Harden Hill. As to the bones that were found on Har- den Hill, the belief was that they were Indian bones, until Mr. Justin Winsor stated in his book that they were Caucasian bones, from the fact that this supposed graveyard "was near the first church." That it was not near the first church is ab- solutely certain, even according to Mr. Winsor's facts. The foundation for his supposition is gone and the supposition vanishes. It is not necessary that we should ac- count for the bones found on Harden Hill, for they do not in any sense correspond with what history, tradition, and Standish's own will require to prove that they were the bones of the Standish family. How- ever, there are many ways of accounting for these bones. They uiay have been In- dian bones. They may have been tlie bones of some shipwrecked peoi)le; tliey may have been the bones of jjcople who for some reason were buriecl on their own farm. The most likely thing of all is that they were the bones of the several people who were exe- cuted in the town during its early years. The bones found were tlie skeletons (jf a woman and a child buried with her, "three skulls and several bones apparently of tlie thigh. The teeth in one were iicrfect, and in one there were two. On one there was some light sandy hair." The woman and the child may have been Alice Busluip (the wife of Richard Bushup who lived with Love Brewster), and her chikl. They were married in 1G44, and she was hanged in 1G4S for the murder of her child. Tlic other skulls were probably of the other persons who at various times were put to death or were buried apart for special rea- sons. There are records of three or four early executions. The swamp-encircled sand hill would have been a retired place in which to bury such people. That these bones could not have been the remains of the Staudish family is evi- dent. Neither Lora nor Mary Staudish was buried with a child. These two young womeu were buried near each other. The Captain was buried near them. All agree that they were buried in tlie graveyard attached to the church. Those who would bury the Captain at Harden Hill, or on the farm of Mrs. Thomas Chandler, claim that tlie first church was in one or the_other place respectively. On Harden Hill no two young women were found near an old man. No two remarkable pyramidal stones were found marking the place. No tradi- tion in the oldest families supported the notion that there ever were a graveyard and a church on Harden Hill. There never was a public road leading to Harden Hill, and the public roads all led to the meeting- house. There never was any town-land on Harden Hill. The church, and the pound, and the stocks, were always placed on the town-land and in a convenient phice on the highways. The farms bounded with reference to the old church and the town- land, are all located near Hall's Corner and towards Bayley's Corner around the old cemetery in that vicinity. All the evidence in the case is opposed to the supposition that Harden Hill was the site of the first church and graveyaid. Even if we granted Mr. Justin Winsor's hypothesis tliat the bones found on Har- den Hill were Caucasian bones, this would not prove that the first church was there; and even if vhe first church was there, this would not prove that Standish was buried on Harden Hill, as long as the tra- ditions of the town prove that he was ])uricd elsewhere. We shall again refer to Mr. Winsor's great mistake in locating the meeting-house on Harden Hill, and out of his own book wc shall prove his mistalie. It might be well to say that the rem- nants of a cofRn found on the water-front at Harden Hill would not prove that the bones were not Indian bones. There were manv praying or Christian Indians in the colony, and they would have learned how to bury their dead in cofhns. We might ask, too, where were the slaves, formerly owned in the town, buried? The nature of the soil where the rem- nants of the coffin were found would make the wood and nails decay rapidly, so that even a cottin recently buried would soon give signs of having been buried for a great number of years. CHAPTER II. It would hardly be necessary to say much more about Mr. Winsor's theory that Harden Hill was the site of the first church and churchyard, and consequently the burial place of Standish, if others were not misled by Mr. Winsor's authority, and if some were not even prejudiced enough to maintain what Mr. Winsor himself does not maintain, that Mr. Winsor's authority is final on this ijuestion of the grave of Mvles Standish. Had Mr. Winsor adverted to what he has on page 183 of his "History of Dux- bury," he would not have adopted the Harden Hill theory, nor would so many people have been led astray by his author ity. Speaking of the parsonage given to Mr. Wiswall in 1694, Mr. Winsor says: "In 16!»4, we find the first mention of a parsonage when a committee was appoint- ed to give Mr. W. a deed of the towne house, 'and the land he now lives on. At this time the town granted him half ye meadow called Rouse's meadow, yt be- longed to ye ministry, to him and his lieirs forever, and ye use of yt whole his lifetime.' The house above named was built by the Rev. John Holmes, on land he purchased of John Sprague, and was situated west of the road leading from the meeting house into the Nook or Capt. Standisli's point, containing about five or eight acres. The house was afterward sold by Major William Bradford, who married the widow of Mr. Holmes, to the town." From the location of this house built by Mr. Holmes, it was easy for Mr. Winsor to perceive that tiiis house lying west of the road leading from the meeting-house into the Nook, the meeting-house could not have been on Harden Hill. To reach the Nook from a supposed meeting-house on Harden Hill you would have to go west until you n\et the road leading from the mill at Mill Brook to the Nook. The main road would be from the Nook to the mill, and a road running at right angles, or nearly so, would lead from this main road to the supposed meeting-house on Harden Hill. This latter would be the meeting- house road proper, for the one from the Nook to the mill was known as the road from the Nook to the mill. As a matter of fact the meeting-house was on the west- ern side of this main road, and so this road was also called the road from the meeting-house to the mill, and the road from the meeting-house to the Nook. It took its designation indiscriminately from the three important places on it, the Nook, the meeting-house, and the mill. A farm west of the road leading from the meetinghouse to the Nook, could not be at Harden Hill, nor could it be at Mrs. Thomas Chandler's farm as we shall see. Here then Mr. Winsor had proof that his conjecture, that for seventy years the first church was on Harden Hill, was wrong. On the same page of his History of Dux- bury, 183, Mr. Winsor continues directly after the words quoted: "At the same time they gave him (Mr. Wiswall) one half of Bump's meadow, and the old pasture bounded north-east by the before men tioned house lot, N. west by Mr. Ralph Thacher's homestead; south-west by Mor- ton's Hole marsh; and south-east by Thomas Boney's." It will be seen, then, that the homestead of Rev. John Holmes given by the town to Mr. Wiswall was the north-east boundary of this other piece of land given to Mr. Wiswall, which was bounded on the south-west by Morton's Hole marsh. By looking at the map of the town Mr. Winsor could have at once de- termined where Rev. Mr. Wiswall's home was, where Rev. Mr. Holmes' home was, and where the Rev. Mr. Partridge's home was. The three are mentioned in this paragraph giving the boundaries of this piece of land given to Mr. Wiswall. From the position of the marsh at Morton's Hole, and from the location of the two pieces of land given to Mr. Wiswall, one the Holmes homestead, and the reference to the road from the meeting-house into the Nook as the eastern boundary of the above homestead, we can easily show that the meeting-house was not on Harden Hill, nor could it have been on Mrs. Thomas Chandler's farm. The evidence all proves that it was at the present old cemetery be- tween Hall's and Bayley's Corners. Mr. Ralph Thacher, whose name is men- tioned in the last boundaries, was the grandson of Rev. Ralph Partridge, and occupied the homestead of his grandfather, which came to him through his mother, a daughter of Mr. Partridge. Here we see the homes of the first three ministers. Partridge, Holmes and Wiswall, almost beside tlie okl cemetery, between Hall's and Bayley's Corners; Partridge's was ad- joining the cemetery. CHAPTER III. Before proving conclusively the location of the first meeting-house and graveyard to have been at the present old cemetery north of Morton's Hole marsh, on the road between Hall's Corner and Bay ley 's Corner, we shall consider the theory advanced by some that the old meeting-house lay on the point of land lying west of Morion's Hole, on or near what is now the farm of Mrs. Thomas Chandler, and that Myles Standish was buried there. In order to reach this point or tongue of land stretching into the bay west of Mor- ton's Hole, you should have highways from the different parts of the town leading to this place. But in all the records of the town from the earliest times there is not a hint of a highway into this tongue of land. In fact it would be absurd to suppose that Standish and the founders of the town would have built their meeting-house, in such an out-of-the-way place. Standish, Brewster and those who lived in the Nook would have to come up to Hall's Corner and then pass westward in order to get around the marsh that lay all round Mor- ton's Hole, and then pass westward of the Goodwin (now Saunders) house to the south to reach the ineeting-housc, and this in all kinds of weather. To imagine such a thing when the roads were bad, and when the bay came farther north than it does at present, when the whole valley lying around Morton's Hole was swamp, and marsh, and bog, and when quite a large creek flowed down through the gorge be- side the first bridge on what is known as the New Road or Border Street — to imag- ine, I say, such a location for the meeting- liouse as on that tongue of land west of Morton's Hole, is to imagine that Stand- ish, Brewster, Alden, and the other pru- dent men who settled the town were doing their best to make church go- ing as hard and as difficult as possible for themselves and for all concerned. Then all the people in the north end of the town, in fact, in all the town, (we have already spoken of the Nook), would have to trudge their weary ways over bad roads and around swamps to the most southerly point of land in the town to reach their meeting- house. Would it not be more in accordance with reason to suppose that all the inhabi- tants of the town would vote to place the meeting-house in a central, accessible place? Why should they select the most inaccessible places and the most incon- venient '! • It has been said that the swamp or marsh around Morton's Hole did not in former times extend so far southwardly as at pres- ent; in other words, that the bay came in fartlier towards the north. Mr. Herbert Peterson, the present owner of the land in this marsh, says that he distinctly remem- bers when the marsh's edge was nearly one hundred feet farther north than it is at ])resent, and Mr. Peterson is a young man. This, too, is borne out by the fact that quite a large creek called Morton's Hole Creek ran into the bay at this point. The bed of the creek is still plainly visible and the waters of the bay went up the creek to ({uite a distance; just as at Eagle's Nest creek and Blue-fish river. That this was so is evidenced by the fact that in 1639 a. d., by order of the town a "wear" was to be set at Morton's Hole. This fact in itself proves that there was quite acreek.which wasknown as Morton's Hole Creek, flowing into the bay from the north, the head of which creek is still plainly traceable. Taking all these things into consideration, and the swampy, boggy nature of the land around the Hole even to this day, we know that the arable and pasture land must have been less than it is today in this vicinity, These facts will be of the greatest interest when we keep them in memory in connection with the grants of land and the boundaries of farms and highways at and near Morton's Hole. As has been said there was not a high- way leading into this tongue of land, now owned by Mrs. Thomas Chandler, from any part of the town. Had Mr. Winsor adverted to what he wrote on page 183, he could have saved a great deal of con- fusion, and if those who would locate the first meeting-house on Mrs. Chandler's farm would but attend to the geography of the town, and the records of highways, farms, and town's lands, they would be saved the mistake of trying to prove an impossible thing. We have already seen that the Rev. Mr. Holmes built his house on land bought of John Sprague, and we have seen the loca- tion of that land with reference to Morton's Hole and the road leading from the meet- ing-house into the Nook. A road leading from Chandler's farm to the Nook could not by any possibility be the boundary for a farm lying northeast of Morton's Hole marsh. The Chandler farm is west of Morton's Hole, and no highway ever ran to and from Chandler's place. How could a farm lying northeast of Morton's Hole be bounded on its eastern side by a sujiposed road running from a point west of Morton's Hole to a point of land due east of Mor- ton's Hole? It is well to bear in mind that Mr. Holmes came to Du.\bury in KiHS, and bought the land from Sprague and built his home thereon. The location of the Sprague farm will also prove that the road from the meeting- house into the Nook could not be a road running from the Chandler farm. The Sprague homestead and farm \&y between s ihe Nook and Powder iPoint. tn the deed which will be cited later this will be more evident. We cite the following from the "Memorial of the Sprague Family" by Richard Soule. Speaking of Francis Sprague, who was admitted a freeman in l(j:5T, Mr. Soule says: "Nothing is known in regard to the locality of his residence, e.vcept that it was somewhere on the shore I)ctween Captain's Hill and Bluelish River. In an interesting paper by the late Alden Bradford, entitled 'Notes on Duxbury', and published in the Massachusetts Histori- cal Collections, it is stated, as a matter of record, that a pathway was early laid out from Plymouth, over Jones' River, and crossing Island Creek, wound along near the shore of the bay to accommodate Standish, Brewster, Sprague, and others in the south and east part of the town, and then led over Blue river near the head of the salt water, and passing John Alden's settlement on the north side of this river was continued over Stony brook (Mill Brook) near Philip Delano, who had just begun a farm there by Duck Hill, to Careswell, the residence of Governor Winslow. "Standish and Brewster.it is well known, resided on the soutli eastern side of the peninsula, now called 'The Nook,' of whicii Captain's Hill forms a part. But whether Sprague, who is named with them in this extract, is to be classed with those who dwelt in the south, or with those liv- ing in the east part of the town, does not clearly appear. It is most probable, how- ever, that as the names of Standish and Brewster must have been intended to rep- resent the lirst localitj^ tliat of Sprague, was introduced as representing the last." Tills Francis Sprague was the father of John Sprague who sold the land for his homestead to Rev. John Holmes. From this we can see that the Sjn'ague land lay l)etween the Nook and the Alden farm and the eastern shore. The Spragues never owned land on Harden Hill, nor where the Chandler farm is, west of Morton's Hole. The road from the meeting-house to the Nook must have run through the Sprague farm, and in fact we shall see that it did. The part of the Sprague farm sold to 1 [olmes lay to the west of this road. The location, then, of the Sprague farm is of interest in this matter. All that has been suggested so far is borne out by a reference to the highways set forth in Duxbury by the jury of twelve impaneled in 1(>37 lor this purpose. Winsor in his History gives a good ac- count of these liighways on page seven- teen. His description is taken from the original documents. He says: "The roads through Duxbury l)cgan at the ferry at Jones river, and thence by Stephen Tracy's (the present Samuel Loring's) to the bridge Jit J'ohn Roger's tlience by Jonathan Brewster's cowyard, through a valley near the house of Mr. Prence,' thence by Christopher Wadsworth's whose; pallasadoe is to be removed, thence to Francis Sprague's and then fell into the way that leads from Morton's Hole to Ducksburrow Towne." Continuing the description of the high- ways Winsor says: "From this main path (that is, the one just described) there branched off one going to the Nook to ac- commodate Standish and Brewster, and returning by iVm. Bassett's and Francis Sprague's, through an ancient path joined again the highway." In these words we have again confirma- tion of the location of Sprague's land and therefore of the position of Wis wall's home in regard to the road leading from, the meeting-house into the Nook. We may also refer to the fact that in 1638, when Prince was governor, the Plymouth County Records say: "Whereas there was a highway laid forth through Captain Standish and Mr. Brewster's ground on the Duxburrow side, which is not of use for the country, and they do therefore re- fuse to repair the same, the said Captain Standish and Mr. Brewster do undertake to repair said way and it to be only for their own use." This road leading into the Nook was repaired and improved in 1715, and to this we shall again refer in quoting some records concerning the loca- tion of the Nook with regard to the meet- ing-house. To return to a description of the high- ways as set forth by the jury of twelve in 1637: "From Wadsworth's the path led through Sprague's and Bassett's orchards, thence through John Washl)urn's land to William Palmer's gate, thence through Peter Brown's land to the westward of Henry Howland's house, thence through a marsh to Mr. John Alden's, thence through a valley by the corner of Philip Delano's farm to Edward Bumpasse's and thence by Rowland Leyborne's house to Green's Harbor." Here again you will be helped to locate Sprague's land, and that of other early settlers. CHAPTER IV. We know now the general run of tlie highways, and the locations of some of the farms and their situation as regards Morton's Hole. The liighways were: (1) the one from Plymouth through Kingston to Bayley's Corner, and then going through the woods towards the north-east, coming out at a point a little south of the Soldiers' monu- ment near the Unitarian church, and bend- ing around to the south-east by the east- s> ern side of the old cemetery between Hall's and Bayley's Corners. The present direct road between these Corners was not made for many years after the settlement of the town. The Plymouth road, as already seen, came through Christopher Wads- worth's land into Sprague's, and from this place near Morton's Hole the second road was laid out: (3) the second road ran from the north of Morton's Hole to the west of John Alden's farm of 169 acres to Mill Brook, to Duck Hill, and to the home of Winslow at Careswell; (3) the third road ran from the junction of the otlier two, nortli of Morton's Hole to the homes of Stand ish and Brewster. A new road was made to the Nook in 1715 and this new road ran to the east of the old one made in 1(W7. These were the orignal roads of the town, and all other roads made in the town, as well as these, are found in the Old Colony Records, or in the records of Duxbury, and in the deeds about farms and public lands. These roads met at the old cemetery. It must be borne in mind that (1) the new road to Kingston, (2) the present road to the Nook from Hall's Cor- ner, (;5d) the road from Hall's to Bayley's Corner, (4th) the road from Hall's Corner to the South Duxbury station, and (5th) the road from Hall's Corner coming to the eastern shore and along the shore to Pow- der Point, were not in existence for very many years after the settlement of the town; not one of these five roads was in being before the year 1700 a. d. The road to Standish's was, as we have seen, kept private for a number of years, and this is the path partly followed by the road made in 1715, a. d., when we shall see that it was laid out as a highway through Wiswall's land up to the meet- ing-house. From all this it will be evident that no highway led down to the farm of Mrs. Thomas Chandler. All the paths and roads converged to a point near the farms of Wadsworth and Sprague lying north of Morton's Hole. Mrs. Chandler's farm lies to the west of Morton's Hole, and by no possibility could you conceive of a road leading from a supposed meeting-house on that farm into the Nook and bounding Wiswall's house lot of "five or eight acres" on the east. When to all this you add that there is not the slightest trace of a meeting-house, or of a public graveyard, or of any public roads on Mrs. Chandler's farm, the most skeptical must be satisfied tliat the sugges- tion of some as to the location of the first church and grave yard on that farm is al- together gratuitous. In this case there is no claim advanced that the sea washed away the dead, nor is there any effort made to explain the absence of all trace of some scores of graves on that piece of land. The old way from Mrs. Chandler's to the old road between Duxbury and Plym- outh was a path leading up from this southerly point of land to the main road. This was all the way to and from that point of land, and Mrs. Thomas Chandler remembers when there was no otlicr way. Now the path leads up to the new road called Border Street. When you go down Border street and pass the house of the late Mr. LeBaron Goodwin, you come to the lane that leads down to Mrs. Chand- ler's. There is a small piece of land on which there are four hills lying south of Border Street. On one of these hills on the south-east of this tongue of land Is the home of Mr. Ellis Peterson. Behind his house is another of these hills on the land of Mr. Goodwin (now Saunders.) On the south-west corner of the land is the home of Mrs. Thomas Chandler, and it is on a hill, the third one, while the fourth hill lies on Mrs. Chandler's farm a few rods to the north of her house. These four hills with the valleys are all the land that lies on this tongue. The marsh and swamp came up to Goodwin's house on the east and northeast of this little promontory with its four hills, and on the northwest, west, and south, the bay and the swamp came in almost to the cart road that leads to Mrs. Chandler's. The supposed meet- ing-house and graveyard lay to the north of Mrs. Chandler's dwelling house, or five or six rods north of her barn. The site is on the edge of the northwest hill on her farm, as it slopes to the west. This is a small piece of sloping land, and any person can at once see that it would be the height of folly for the first settlers of Duxbury to build their meeting-house and bury their dead there. There is not land enough for such a purpose. The site would be one of the most inconvenient in the town. It is simply a small piece of sandy soil with four small hills and their slopes. There would be no place for the stocks and the pound which were always near the meet- inghouse. The people would have to trudge through dreary swamps to reach this spot. No highways ran to it; none of the farms mentioned in the records as lying near the meeting-house were there. None of the land lying south of the meet- ing house could be there, for it is only a few rods to the water's edge on the south and west. What then of the farms men- tioned as lying south of the meeting- house, and west of the road leading from the meeting-house into the Nook? This place of four hills was evidently an Indian resort. Countless arrowheads, and Indian mortars for grinding corn, and heaps of clam-shells and of corn-stalks, have been ploughed up on these hills. Mrs. Chandler said the church and grave- yard were on the little sand hill on Mr. 10 Goodwin's farm. This would be an im- possibility. No graves were ever found there, no church was ever built there. After digging down to quite a depth, we found nothing but some modern brick and traces of burnt clam-shells, and some broken motlern crockery. Afterw'ards we were told that Mrs. Chandler pointed out the wrong place, and that the supposed site of the old church and graveyard was on the western slope of the hill a few rods north of her dwelling house. Of this site we heard the full history from some of the oldest persons in town. From what has been said it will be seen that there is not a record, not a trace of a meeting-house hav- ing ever been at or near Mrs. Chandler's farm. The only evidence ever produced to prove that there was a meeting-house on this promontory of sand hills was the fact that some bones were found on the western slope of the hill north of Mrs. Chandler's house. A few bones were found. The conclusion deduced was this — here was the first graveyard, and there- fore the first meeting-house, and therefore here Standish was buried. The wonder of it all is, that nobody can tell whether the bones were those of a whiteman or of an Indian. If the first burial ground were here, there should be at least about one hundred graves in the place, but there is no trace of such a thing. Mr. Frank Ryder, who is acquainted with all the tradition about this old hill- side, says that it was a home, or private, or family, burial place. That it could not have been anything more, if even that, is too plain; and then to imagine that Cap- tain Myles Standish would have buried his beloved children on the farm of a stranger, in a most forsaken and unseemly place, is the height of folly. This story about Mrs. Chandler's farm is the result of ignorance of the history of the town. The search at Mrs. Thomas Chandler's was conducted by Dr. Wilfred G. Brown of Duxbury and myself. Leaving Mrs. Chandler's we went to Mr. Frank Ryder's. Mr. Ryder lives in a house known as the Cushman house. Our reason for going to Mr. Ryder's was this: Mrs. Ziba Hunt, who lives near the almshouse, and is a very old woman, told me that her mother, Mrs. Diana Chandler, had an old lady spinning for her, who had just come from Mrs. Cu.shman's, and this old lady told Mrs. Diana Chandler that Mrs. Cushman liad pointed out to her the grave of Myles Standish from the window of Mrs. Cushman's house. Dr. Brown and I went to Mr. Ryder's to find out if we could see the supposed graveyard at Mrs. Thomas Ciiandler's from "the Cushman house." We found that it would be an absolute and physical impossibility to see tJic reported grave- yard from any part of Mr, Ryder's house. You could see the roof and part of Mrs. Thomas Chandler's house, but you could not see the ground at the back of her house, nor the lower slope on the western side of the hill which was the supposed graveyard. This is true even if all the trees intervening were removed. There are a few trees in the way, but the hill on which Mr. Ryder's house sits stretches so far to the south that it is impossible, ow- ing to this hill and to other intervening hills, to see the land at the back of Mrs. Thomas Chandler's. The evident con- clusion then is, that Mrs. Cushman could not have pointed out the supposed grave to the old lady who did the spinning for herself and Mrs. Diana Chandler. The house in which Mr. Ryder lives was partly built by Dr. John Wadsworth, who died in 1799. Since Dr. Wadsworth first built on that site, the house has been enlarged to three or four times its original size and extended several feet to the south. When built by Dr. Wadsworth, it was a small one story house. Originally it faced the east, or east by north, while now the main part of the house faces the south. Even as the house now stands, extending much farther to the south, it would be impossible for any one to point out from it the grave or to see any of the land around Mrs. Thomas Chandler's. CHAPTER V. The "Ryder house" called by some the "Cushman house" was built in IIG'S for Joshua Cushman, when he married Mercy Wadsworth, the daughter of Doctor John Wadsworth. This was the first house built in all that section of the town be- tween it and the bay. Seeing that it would be impossible for any one to point out the grave of Standish from any part of the Ryder or Cushman house, and, pursuing our investigations, we discovered several things of the great- est importance in this matter of the Cush- man tradition. First of all it was evident that the Cush- man tradition, of whatever value, de- pended on the authority of Doctor John Wadsworth, the father of Mercy, who married Joshua Cushman in 1703. Dr. Wadsworth built a home for them. Now, Doctor Wadsworth's authority is plain. He spoke of two remarkable, triangular, pyramidal stones as marking the burial place of Standish. His daughter had her tradition from him, and thus the Cush- man tradition in every form resolves itself into Dr. Wadsworth's statements. Besides the story of the spinning wo- man, who was a stranger in town, we have two other forms of the Cushman 11 tradition. Let us examine the spinning woman's story first of all. Other tradi- tions, doubtless derived from her story, make the same statement, that the grave of Myles Standish can be seen from the Cushman house. In testing this story we found that there were two Cushman houses and three Mrs. Cushmans. One Cushmun house is the present Ryder house, and the other is the Charlemagne Cushman house, built about the year l^OU A. D., and now owned bj^ Mrs. Captain Myrick. Mrs. Hunt, whose mother, Mrs. Diana Chandler, had heard the spinning woman's story, was unable to say which of the two Cushman houses was in question, and which of the three Mrs. Cuslunans, Mfg. Joshua Cushman, or her daughter-in- law, Mrs. Ezra Cushman, or Mrs. Charle- magne Cushman. With all this doubt hanging around the exact house and the exact Mrs. Cushman, and whether one Mrs. Cushman might not have been visit- ing at the home of another Mrs. Cushman, or living there for the time, we could ar- rive at no satisfactory conclusion but this: that a Mrs. Cushman pointed out from a Cushman house the grave of Myles Stan- dish to a spinning woman. This is the substantial evidence of the tradition. Now, from neither Cushman house could you see the reputed graveyard at Mrs. Thomas Chandler's. From Mrs. My- rick's, however, you can see the old ceme- tery between Hall's and Bay ley's Corners, and almost the very grave of Standish about the centre of the graveyard. Another form of the Cushman tradition is Luat Dr. John Wadsworth, when taking his occasional visitors to see the burial place of Standish always went to the south-east from his house. The conclu- sion would be that he went to the farm of Mrs. Thomas Chandler. This tradition is held by a very few people who can give no account of it, and who know nothing about where Doctor Wadsworth lived, nor the situation of his home with refer- ence to either Mrs. Thomas Chandler's place, or the old cemetery between Hall's and Bayley's Corners. This tradition is evidently the same as that of which Mr. Stephen M. Allen gives an account in his letter to the Boston Transcript of June 2, 1891. Mr. Allen says:— "The traditional account which was published in the Transcript some fifteen or eighteen years ago, herewitli tran- scribed, seems much more plausible than the recent claims set up. It is as follows: — 'The burial place of Standi.sh has not yet been found. It was not until 1872 that we had any probable clew to its location. At the laying of the corner-stone of the monu- ment to Standish there was an old lady present, Mrs. Lorlann Thomas Loring, now living at Charlestown, whose family formerly lived in Du.xbury, who gave some light on that subjctt wliich may lead to the discovery of his grave. She said that her mother, ]\Iary Cushman Thomas, who was a grandaughter of Dr. John Wadsworth, of Duxbury, who died in 1799, had many times informed her that when a uirl of fifteen or sixteen she used to pass much time with her grandfather, who lived on or near the westerly shore of the head of the bay, directly west of Cap- tain's hill and soutliwest of Morton's Hole, and on the west side of what is now the new road from Hall's Corner to Kingston, in a house still standing and occupied by Mr. George F. Ryder; that Dr. Wadsworth often had distinguished guests to dine with him when she was present, and that after dinner in such cases it was almost his invariaV)le custom to invite them to visit the grave of Standish near tlie shore; that she had many times seen her grand- father start from the south side of the house and go in a sovitheasterly direction to the shore with such guests to a small hill in two parts, now owned by Thomas Chandler, and lying almost down to the water's edge. In such cases on their re- turn she had heard them converse about the grave and she had no doubt it was there. _ The old lady died February 27, 1859, in Charlestown and but a year be- fore her death, she reiterated her state- ment to Mrs. Loring. On examination we have found that at the time specified there was a road on the south side of Dr. Wadsworth's house which ran down toward the shore, but that it had long since been discontinued; also that upon one of the points on the rise of land, so men- tioned, the first rude church of Duxbury is supposed to have been built. It is ([uite likely that the adjoining knoll sliould have been used for their first burying ground. It has been assigned as tlie rea- son for building the first church upon the shore, that it was for safety against any attack from the Indians, leaving a means of escape by boats across to Plymouth. The early records mention an examination near Morton's Hole for a church. Cap- tain Standish, in his will said he desired to be buried beside his daughter and daughter-in law. The daughter-in-law was the wife of Lieutenant Josiah Stand- ish, who afterward married the daughter of Samuel Allen of Bridgewater. It is to be hoped that, although there is at pres- ent no sign of graves on the spot men- tioned, if there they may yet be discov- ered, that the remains may be placed at the base of the Standish monument.' " It is necessary to examine the story told by Mr. Allen. First of all he speaks of "the traditional accoiuit" as if the obscure hint o'f a tradi- tion to which he refers were tlie sum and 12 substance of all reliable traditions on this matter. Then he says that it was only in 1872 that there was any probable clue to the location of the Standish grave. It was then Mr. Allen first heard what he calls a "probable clew," but if he had inquired faithfully he would have found that many of the people knew of the burying place of Standish long before 1872. Mr. Allen quotes Mrs. Loriann Thomas Loring as authority for his version of the traditional account. Mrs. Loring was the daughter of Mary Cushman Thomas, who was born in 1768 and was the daughter of Mercy Wadsworth (the daughter of Dr. John) who in 1763 married Joshua Cush- man. The important points in Mrs. Lor- ing's account are, that Dr. Wadsworth in going with his guests to the Standish burial place went to the southeast from his house and that his house is the one now occupied by George Frank Ryder. Mr. Allen in telling the public where George Frank Ryder's hou.se is says it is "on or near the westerly shore of the head of the bay, directly west of Captain's Hill and southwest of Morton's Hole, and on the west side of what is now the new road from Hall corner to Kingston." This story is entirely inaccurate. Mr. Ryder's house lies north of the bay; it is far more north than west of Captain's Hill; it is almost due north of Morton's Hole, instead of being south-west as Mr. Allen's account says; and it is due north to the new road from Hall's Corner to Kingston. Again, so far from Mr. Ryder's house having been the home of Dr. Wadsworth, the doctor built that house for his daugh- ter in 1763; he lived on the Fernando Wadsworth homestead west of Bayley's Corner. George Frank Ryder, who lives in the old Cushman house, to which Mr. Allen refers, says that Dr. Wadsworth (the great-great grand father of Mrs. Ryder) lived on the Fernando Wadsworth homestead. Justin Winsor in his history of Duxbury, on page 12, writes: "On one of the roads leading from the inland towns, was situated the house of Dr. John Wadsworth, who was noted as rather an eccentric individual, and concerning whom some anecdotes of an amusing nature are still current. By his door frequently i)assed the adventuresome sons of farmers of tlie interior, eager to ship themselves on beard some of the comparatively many fishing vessels, which were then often leaving Du.xbury at the proper season. At one time a party of these going by, asked the doctor tlu; distance to the village, and other (juestions concerning the prospects before tliem, who met them with the roi)ly. "Ah, you are going there, are you? That place is Sodom. 1 tell you it is going to be sunk, it is! Well, now, do you want me to make you a rhyme? Well, then The Swampineers avoid all fears, A fishing they will po. If they scape h— , it will be well, But that thev willn't I know. And with this most solemn warning he dismissed them." From this it will be seen that as Dr. Wadsworth lived on one of the roads lead- ing from the inland towns he could not have lived in the Ryder house. No public high- way ever ran by the Ryder house, and the Ryder house is not even now on a high- way, nor is it situated on the way from the inland towns to the shore. Those who know best say that Dr. Wadsworth lived beyond Bayley's Corner, on the Fernando Wadsworth place. Dr. Wadsworth was born in 1706 and died in 1799. The only ways open to hitn to reach the old cemetery between Hall's and Bayley's Corners, were either to go to the northeast and turning to the east by the old road before mentioned, (which was a little south of the Soldiers' monument) bend round to the southeast and so come to the old cemetery; or he could go to the southeast from his house by a path that led to the home of his daughter Mercy, Mrs. Joshua Cushman, and turning towards the east bend a little towards the northeast to the old cemetery. This latter was the shorter route on foot, and the more picturesque, lying within view of the bay, and Dr. Wadsworth would be traveling almost all the time through laud belonging to himself or his fanaily. In this way he would have gone in a southeasterly direction from his own house. But Mr. Allen says that the doctor went in a southeasterly direction from Mr. Ryder's house to the Chandler place. Now this is an absolute impossibility. The home of Mrs. Thomas Chandler lies in a southwesterly direction from the Ryder home, and the roadway or rather path of which Mr Allen says he found traces ran in a southwesterly direction. This is the path which Mrs. Thomas Chandler says was for the convenience of private persons not of the public. In Mrs. Loriann Thomas Loring's ac- , count we see that she does not say that her mother ever said that she went with Dr. Wadsworth and his guests to the burial place of Standish. Mrs. Loring's mother, Mrs. Cushman Thomas (daughter of Mercy Wadsworth) left Du.xbury when a yovmg woman, and, from the account we receive from her, it is plain that she did not live in the same house with her grandfather. Dr. John Wadsworth. She lived in her fatlier's house, the Joshua Cush- man house, where George Frank Ryder now lives. The whole story is so full of inac- curacies about places, dates, and directions, that its value amounts simply to this, tliat Dr. John Wadsworth was in the habit of taking his guests to see the burial place of 13 Myles Standish, and that this bmial place was in the southeastern part of Duxbury, near the l)ay and within easy walking distance of Dr. Wadsworth's home. Also we see that this burial place was beside the church. Hereafter we shall see that Dr. Wadsworth spoke of the two remark- able triangular pyramids of stone that marked the burial place. It it not neces- sary to dwell at greater length on this version of the Cushman tradition, except to say that its whole value depends on the authority of Dr. Wadsworth, and his more explicit testimony we shall see later. We must not omit to refer to Mr. Al- len's last argument to uphold the ground- less theory he advocates. He says: "It has been assigned as the reason for build- ing the first church upon the shore, that it was for safety against any attack from the Indians, leaving a means of escape by boats across to Plamouth." This is, per- haps, the strongest argument for this theory. According to this the Indians were to attack the town when the people, men, women, and children, were at the little meeting-house, or the people were all to rush there when attacked, all the boats were to be there, and the waters of Kingston Bay and of Plymouth Bay were to remain in the bays all the time! A third version of the Cushman tradi- tion is that Myles Standish was buried a few rods to the southeast of Mr. Ryder's house, on the farm now owned by Mr. Ryder. This shows that the belief of later generations of Cushmans in the Thomas Chandler farm theory was not very strong. Mr. Ryder points out the spot on his farm, which one of Mrs. Rj^der's ancestors be- lieved to be burial place of Standish, and which Mr. Cushman did not allow to be ploughed for a number of years. It is not necessary to say that the Mr. Cushman, who held this' absurd theory, had no grounds for holding it. The Ryder farm and all the land south to the shore, includ- ing Mrs. Myrick's, Ellis Peterson's, Mrs. Thomas Chandler's, George Torrey's, Henry Barstow's, Fernando Wadsworth's, etc., etc., all belonged to the farm of Christopher Wadsworth almost from the time he came to Duxbury with the first settlers. He bought Job Cole's land and John Starr's and other land, which, with the grants to himself, made an immense farm. There never was any town land on any part of this farm, whether at Mrs. Thomas Chandler's place or elsewhere. The Captain would not be buried on an- other man's farm, nor would he bury his children there. Christopher Wadsworth was alive in 1677. CHAPTER VI. It is certain that in 10:50, if not before that time, some of tlie chief pilgrims liad come to Duxbury. In the winter time they returned to Plymouth. The follow- ing document throws light on the point: "Ano 1032 } The names of those which Aprell 2 \ promise to remove their fam- [ilies] to live in the towue in the winter time, that they m[ay] the better repair to the worship of God. John Alden, Capt. Standish, Jonathan Brewster, Thomas Prence." The removal to Plymouth in the winter was not required a year or two later. "In the j'ear 1082, a number of the brethren inhabiting on the other side of the bay, at a place since called Duxborough, growing weary of attending the worship of God from such distance asked and were granted a dismission." All agree that about this time the people of Duxbury were released from the obligation of attending service in Plymouth. There was not a settled pastor in Duxbury until Rev. Ralph Partridge came in 1037. The first church was built in Duxbury between 1033 and 1638. This first meeting-house, Mr. Winsor says, stood for about seventy years, and in it ministered the first three pastors. But Mr. Winsor is not certain of its location, nor is he absolutely certain when the second was built. All agree there was but one church before the one built in the beginning of the eighteenth cen- tury. Tradition and history are at one in saying, that the church built at the old cemetery in the beginning of the eight- eenth century was the second church built in the town. From continual references to the meet- ing-house it will be seen that there was a meeting-house in the town as early as 103« A. D. In the year 1638 it was recorded that A. Sampson was presented to the court "for striking and abusing John Washburn, the younger, in the meetinghouse on the Lord's day." In 1641 there were eight churches in Ply- mouth colony and the Duxbury church was one of these. In lO.jl Nathaniel Uassett and Jo. Prior were fined twenty shillings each for dis- turbing the church. In l()o2 George Russell was fined for not attending church in "the liberties" of Dux- bury. In 1000 Edward Laud, John Cooper, and John ;Simmons were fined ten shillings each for "prophane and abusive carriages, each toward the other on Lord's day at the meeting-house." 14 In 1CG9 "it wiis enacted that any person or persons that shall be found smoking of tobacco on the Lord's day, going to or com- ing from the meetings witliin two miles of the meeting-house, shall pay twelve pence for every such default for the colony's use." In 1672 the meeting-house is mentioned in the bounds of Rev. Mr. Holmes' land. In 1084 on the 10th September Joseph Prior, Junr, was paid one shilling for mending the pulpit door. In 1686 Rhodolphus Thacher was paid ten shillings for sweeping the meeting- house. In 1690 Deacon Wadsworth received ten shillings for sweeping the meeting- house. In 1692 Mr. Wadsworth received ten shillings for sweeping the meeting-house. In 1692 Mr. Southworth's bill was balanced for repairing Mr. Wiswall's house and for glassing the meeting-house. In 1693 Mr. Wadsworth was paid fif- teen shillings for sweeping the meeting- house. In 1698 on the 23d May, the selectmen were ordered to have the gutters of the meeting-house repaired. In 1706 on Thursday, the 21st February the town gave liberty to Benjamin Prior to remove the fence between the meet- ing-house and his own house, up to the road. In 1705-6, the 20th March, the town- meeting was adjourned to the 3d April fol- lowing to consider some way to raise funds for repairing and enlarging their meeting- house. In 1706 on the 3d of April it was resolved to build a new meeting-house. All these evidences, and others might be added, prove that there was a meeting- house in the town from 1638 at least. Finally it became so out of repair and so unable to accommodate the people that they decided to consider how to repair and enlarge it, and finally sold it and built a new one. From what has been said it is clear that the meeting-house was north of Morton's Hole. The direction of the highways and the location of the farms already men- tioned place the meeting-house in that place. Now it makes no difference whether you assert there was only one, or whether there were two, or three, or more churches built before 170()-7. The deeds of farms and the records of the roads locate the meeting-house, whether it was the first, or second, or third, or any other number, north of Morton's Hole. Around it were the farms and homes of the minis- ters from the l)eginning as we shall now see. And finst of all as to Mr. Partridge. Mr. Partridge's land was granted to him around Morton's Hole. He was minister of the town, and it was right and natural that his land should be near the meeting- house, and this was so. In the Plymouth Colony records in the book of deeds, we find the following entry: ' ' We whose names are hereunder written , by order of Mr. Thomas Prince and Mr. William Collier assistant, have measured and layed out ten acres of arable land ly- ing on the head of Morton's Hole, viz., one acre in breadth and ten acres in length lying in a square, the south side butting upon the garden plot of Edward Hall, the west side running into Christopher Wadsworth's lot, the east side upon the highway and the north side upon the com- mon ground, which we allotted and have layed out for Mr. Ralph Partridge, the 30th of December, 1637. Jonathan Brewster, Stephen Tracye, Christopher Wadsworth." From this we know that Mr. Partridge's land was east of Christopher Wadsworth's, west of the road from the Nook to the Mill, and south of the common lands. The records of the town tell us that the common lands lay where the old burying ground is, between Hall's and Bayley's Corners. We know, too, that Mr. Part- ridge built his home there, for in the boundaries of the laud given to Rev. Mr. Wiswall, of which we spoke in the second chapter, tbere is mention of Ralph Thach- or's homestead as the north-western bound- ary of the land bounded on the north east by the house lot of Rev. John Hoi nu'", and on the south-west by Morton's Hole marsh. This Ralph Thacher was the grandson of Rev. Ralph Partridge. Mr. Thacher, having inherited his grand-fath- er's property in Duxbury, lived here for some time, but was afterward ordained minister in charge of a parish elsewhere. Mr. Partridge's homestead, then, was near the church and the churchyard at the head of Morton's Hole. Mr. Partridge bought several pieces of land around this plot of ten acres assigned to him by the town. In the Old Colony Records, Deeds, Volume 1, page 216, there is a record of land that Partridge bought of Job Cole in 1651. This land lay against Morton's Hole. Again on page 96 it is stated that he bought land of Christopher Wadsworth in 1643; this land laj' north of Job Cole's laod. Again on page 54 we are told that iii 1639 he bought twenty acres of land of William Latham. In the records of June 29, 1637, we are told that William Bassett and Francis Sprague both sold land to Ralph Partridge. The book of deeds says the above two parcels of land are bounded "to the land of the said Francis Sprague to the south; 15 to the land of the said Win. Bassett to the east; to the houselot of Mr. William Leve- rich now layed forth for him to the north ; toward th« land of Christopher Wads- worth to the west." On Sept. 7, 1(537, a deed says that Partridge obtained the above mentioned Leverich plot. These parcels of land we see were also near Hall's Corner, being a part of Sprague's and Bassett's land at that place. They lay quite near Morton's Hole. At Mr. Partridge's death he was owner of at least 150 acres. It is well to observe that the land given to Mr. Partridge by the town, and the land he bought of Sprague and Bassett, were bounded by Christopher Wadsworth's land on the west. The land of Job Cole having been refer- red to, it may be said that Job Cole lived beside Morton's Hole. We have seen that Partridge bought some land from him. Mr. Cole, having removed to Eastham, sold to Christopher Wadsworth on August 13, 1651, "a house and laud lying against a place called Morton's Hole," the meadow and fencing, etc. The land of Edward Hall mentioned as the southern boundary of the ten acres as- signed to Partridge, was sold to William Wetherell on January 24, 1638. Wetherell paid Hall twenty pounds for his house and garden of two acres "lying between Ralph Partridge and Nicholas Robbins." From all these deeds and farm bound- aries we can locate with considerable ac- curacy the relative position of the farms of Wadsworth, Sprague, Bassett, Robbins, Partridge, Hall, and the others mentioned in these deeds. We can locate Partridge's home better than any of the others. We have already seen where the Rev. John Holmes had his home, which was the house afterwards given by the town to Mr. Wiswall in 1694. There is a record that the town spent £21 repairing this house in 1693. This house was situat- ed, as we have seen, N. E. of Morton's Hole marsh, but west of the road leading from the meeting-house into the Nook. CHAPTER VII. We shall now quote a record for June 24, 1672, on page 224 of the small vellum- bound book of Duxbury records, which reads: "Whereas Mr. Constant South- worth, Phillip Dillano, Lawrence and Will Pabodie were ajipointed by the town to bound out more lands, we the above named have bounded out to Mr. John Holmes ten acres of land bounded on the south by land of Joseph Prior and on the east end by the path that goes from the meeting-house to the mill and two marked trees, on the north side one white oak tree wliicli stands about sixteen rods from the patii and a pine tree 6 [rods] in the woods." The words before the last three arc, 1 think, contractions for "six rods." The points to be observed in tliis record are; (1) that the meeting-house was in 1672 on a road passing to the mill; (2) that this road ran north and south, or else it could not have been the eastern boundary of the land given to Holmes. From this we easily conclude that the road referred to here is the road spoken of in 1637 as run- ning from "Morton's Hole to Ducksbur- row Towne." We know that the mill stood on Stony or Mill Brook, and that the road running north and soutli in 1672 to the mill from tlie meeting-house was the old road of 1637. Then the location of Joseph Prior's farm at this place deter- mines absolutely the location of Mr. Holmes' grant. Mr. Holmes died in 1675, three years after this reference to the meeting-house, and he was buried in the old graveyard at the meeting-house. Already we have seen that Mr. Wiswall lived near Morton's Hole. From all those facts concerning the lirst three ministers, we know that they all lived near Morton's Hole, near the old cemetery, and natur- ally we would expect that they were near the meeting-house. All the facts prove this to have been so. We know that Wis- wall was buried in the old cemetery, his tombstone being still well preserved. Holmes was buried in the old cemetery, Justin Winsor says. He says the same of Standish, Alden, and Partridge. _ Mr. Winsor being evidently wrong in his lo- cation of the first church, would without doubt, grant that Standish, Alden, Par- tridge, Holmes, and all the other im- portant men of the town, who were buried here, were buried in the cemetery, where- ever it was. He and all of us agree it was near the first church. From his own book we can prove that the first ch\irch was not at Harden Hill nor, on Mrs. Thomas Chandler's farm, but north of Morton's Hole. Therefore, Partridge was buried there. Mather in his Magnalia tells us that Partridge died in Duxbury, and we le!\rn the same from all sources. When searching in the old graveyard, I found a most remarkable grave. It was llagged or paved with large stones on top, and these stones were at least eight or nine inches under the surface of the graveyard when I found them. Tlie roots of a cherry tree growing at some distance had netted themselves around the stones. These roots were (piite large. All tlie signs show that the grave is very old, and that it is that of one of the most im- portant of the first men in the town. It may be the grave of Elder Brewster or of the Rev. Mr. Partridge. The grave is 16 unique 5n the town, and, I believe, in the Colony. The suppositions brought to prove that Brewster was buried in Ply- mouth are very far from being conclusive. The supposed proofs alleged in favor of Plymouth, as his resting place, are strong- er when applied to Duxbury. We shall quote from the record of a grant of land, which is recorded in the handwriting of Alexander Staudish the i7th day of February 1G99-700, and in which the meeting-house is mentioned. "Whereas formerly a tract of land was granted by the town of Duxburrow to Joseph Chandler, lying between the meet- ing house road and Plymouth road, and was laid out to him but now no record to be found of it, we ensigne John Trasie, Thomas Delano and Abraham Sampson, being desired by Joseph Chandler, have laved out unto him twenty acres of land more or less bounded on the east by the meeting-house path to a red oak tree marked on four sides, and from said tree by a west southwest line to a pine tree which is the corner mark of the town's land and from the pine tree by the same line a range of trees marked until we come to a cart road where we marked a red oak sappling and then bounded by said path unto Plymouth road and by said road to the land of said Joseph Chandler and so by Joseph Chandler's line to the meeting-house path, this 17th day of February, 1699-700. Alexander Standisii, Town Clerk. John Trasie, Thomas Delano, Abraham Sampson. The value of this record is to prove the location of the meeting-house on a road running north and south, and that this road was the eastern boundary for the land given to Joseph Chandler. This rec- ord, taken in connection with the location of Joseph Chandler's lotted land and the Plymouth road, will give us an idea of the situation of the land lying between "the meeting-house road and the Ply- mouth road." It is very plain then that the meeting-house path here mentioned could not have been one going to Harden Hill, nor one leading to the farm of Mrs. Thomas Chandler. This deed refers to a time before the second church or meeting- house was built. CHAPTER Vm. From all these different facts we could conclusively prove that the first meeting- house was, in fact all meeting-houses, if you suppose two or more to have been in existence before 1706-7, were, located at the old cemetery. But we have still stronger and greater evidence. On Thursday, tlie 7th of May, 18'91, 1 was examining old landmarks about the old cemetery m connection with the grave of Standish. I saw evident signs of two church sites on the ground. Following up this clue, and determined to prove whether I was right or wrong, I resolved to search all the old records of the town I coidd lay my hands on, and I followed this plan. I made up my mind that the settlers of the town would have built their meeting-house in a convenient place, as it served for all public purposes, and as the public pound and the stocks were usually near it. I concluded that the public high- ways would lead by it, and that in the boundaries of farms lying near the meet- ing house the meeting-house grounds would bo mentioned as a boundary line. From the foregoing results you can see how successful I was in proving what I suspected, that from the beginning the meeting-house was at the old cemetery be- tween Hall's and Bayley's Corners. I was not then so much surprised as pleased when I found the following entries in the old town records: — "At a town's meeting in Duxborough March, ye 20th 170 5-6 ye said meeting was adjourned to the third day of April next to consider of some way of raising of money to defray charges of repairing and enlarging their meeting-house either by selling some part of their common lands or by rate and also any other business that concerns said town." "April ye 3d anno 1706 at a town meet- ing in Duxborough, ye said town chose Mr. Seabury town treasurer, ye selectmen also appointed Mr. Seabury a viewer and gager of casks. At this town's meeting ye said town agreed and voted to build a new meeting- house forty foot long and thirty-three foot wide and seventeen foot high in ye walls and that the said meeting-house shall be set up within three or four rods of the old meeting-liouse now in being ye said town also ordered that some part of their comon lands should be sold to raise money to de- fray charges about building ye said meet- ing-house. These persons whose names are subscribed did protest against ye afore- said order of selling ye town's comon land for defraying ye charges about building ye said meeting-house. Lieut. Francis Barker, Robert Barker, Josiah Barker, Samuel Barker, Jabesh Barker, John Russel, Francis Barker, Junr." The meeting was adjourned from the 3rd April 1706 to the next Wednesday at 13 of the clock. This is the record of that meeting: 17 "April 10,1706 at a town's meeting in Duxborougli tlie said town voted to cluise two agents and cliose Cpt. Arnold and Mr. John Partridge to act for them ye said town on their account and at their charge In build - ing their new meeting house already voted to be built, that is to say to agree and bar- gain with a workman or workmen to build the said meeting-house and also to pro- vide whatsoever is necessary for the said building. The town also voted that the comon lands lying on the southeasterly side of the old Bay Rhoad yt goes from the North river to Mile Brook that runs into black- water and so down to ye heads of the lots and also the town lands on the easterly side of ye said Bay Road lying between Mile brook running into Pudding brook and Philips brook should be sold to defray the charges of building the new meeting- house that is to say so much of ye said comon lands as is needful. Ye said town also voted to chuse three agents to act for them in selling the said comon lands and chose Cpt. Arnold, John Partridge and Thomas Loring." "At a town's meeting in Duxborough Feb. 25, anno 170 6-7 Ye said town gave liberty to Benjamin Prior to remove his fence between ye meeting-house and his own house up to ye road and so for a time use that part of ye town comons pro- vided that he keeps up ye bounds where his former fence stood, ye said town also chose Capt. Arnold and John Partridge their agents to sell ye old meeting-house but not to deliver it before ye new meet- ing house is finished and excepting men's particular rights therein." "At a town's meeting in Duxborough upon the 16th of February anno dom. 170 7-8 at this town meeting ye said town voted to give Mrs. Wiswall the ten pounds in money due to ye said town from Benja- min Prior in part for the old meeting- house in payment for part of a years salary due to Mr. Wiswall deceased which was never rated for." That the land was sold for the purpose of meeting the expenses of building the new meeting-house is evident from the list of sales and of money received by the agents appointed by the town for this pur- pose. It is not necessary to quote all these records, but we might mention the follow- ing as purchasers of land sold to pay for the meeting-house, viz: Jo. Chandler, Abraham Booth, Benjamin Kein, Josiah Kein, John Bishop, Samuel Bradford, Thomas Loring, Elisha Wadsworth, Jona- than Brewster, Mathew Kein, Josiah Soule, Jonathan Peterson, George Williamson, James Boney, Isaac Pierce, and Eaton Soule. From the records quoted for February, March, and April 1706, we gather the fol- lowing: (1) That there was a church, an old church, one needing repairs and en- largement, standing next to Benjamin Prior's land; (2) That a new church was built within three or four rods of the old one; (3) That both churches were on the ground at the same time as the old one Was not to be delivered until the new one was ready for occupation; (4) That the rec- ords speak of the church sold to Benja- min Prior, as for sale in February 1706-7, and of its sale in February, 1707-8. The new meeting-house must have been built at this time and the following record proves this: "Reckoned with ye town agents Feb'y ye 25th anno 1707. Then received of said agents the sum of one hundred and eighty pounds in full for building ye meeting-house in Duxbury. I say received by me, Samuel Sprague." This building stood until June 7, 1785. These records prove how correct was my conclusion, that two churches were located at the old cemetery on different sites at some past time, and we see that there were two such churches within three or four rods of each other. So much be- ing proved disposes at once and forever of all suppositions of the first church or any church before 1706, having stood elsewhere than at the cemetery between Hall's and Bayley's Corners. Following out the boundaries of farms and the directions of the highways en- abled us to locate the old church beyond all dispute at the old cemetery. The full proofs brought to light in the records re- move all doubt if any could have remained. Here then from 1638 the meeting-house stood, and it is not necessary to go into any hypothesis about churchyards following churches, or churches follow- ing churchyards, in order to locate our old burial ground. Both were together as had always been the case. It will be borne in mind that when Plymouth and Duxbury, through the committees appointed from both towns, tried to agree on some site between both for the building of a church and town for greater strength and protection by the union of all, seven members of the joint committees voted to locate the church and town at Jones' river and two voted for Morton's Hole. These committees were appointed by the Old Colonv court on the 2nd of March, 1635-36, and on the 21st of March, 1635- 36, the committees met and voted as above. Morton's Hole was so called from a large hole in the flats to the west of Captain's Hill, almost behind Mr. Ira Chandler's house. The vicinity around this was the site intended for the new town. Morton's Hole Creek was there to supply them with water. Captain's Hill was there as a strougliold; and the people of 18 Duxbury undoubtedly built their church there, perhaps having in view the possi- bility of a later union with Plymouth at this very place. The nature of the lands about Harden Hill and Mrs. Thomas Chandler's farm, the direction of the highways, the boun- daries of the farms, the residences of the ministers, the conveniences of the worship- pers and of the voters, the traditions of the town, all tell plainly and forcibly that there never was a church at Harden Hill or at Mrs. Thomas Chandler's. Both these theories were based on false assump- tions of facts, which facts, even If conced- ed as such, could not lead to the conclu- sion that Standish was buried in either place in the face of the overwhelming testimony against such a conclusion. The upholders of the Chandler farm theory have had neither fact nor authority to sus- tain them. The upholders of the Harden Hill theory had not any facts, but they had the authority of Mr. Justin Winsor. Mr. Winsor's authority has been shaken, and his theory about Harden Hill falls to the ground. CHAPTER IX. We know now where the first meeting- house was, and where the old cemetery was located. We know that Standish died between the 7th March, 1655, the date of his will, and the 4th May, 1657, when his will was exhibited in the court at Plymouth and recorded. Captain James Cudworth was the witness to the will. We are told that Standish died on the 3d October, 1656. He could not have died before 1656, for he was appointed one of the assistants to the governor that year. At his death in 1656 Standish was the chief military officer. He was "a man full of years and honored by his genera- tion." Nathaniel Morton, the secretary of the Colony from 1645 to 1685, tells us of Standish: "He growing very ancient be- came sick of the stone or strangullion, whereof after his suffering of much flolorous pain, he fell asleep in the Lord and was honorably buried at Duxbury." Nathaniel Morton was the son of George Morton who came in the Ann in 1623; George had married the sister of Governor Bradford. Nathaniel was born in 1612 and died in 1685. He was secretary of the Colony for forty years. He was also sec- retary of the united colonies, the com- piler of valuable church records now in existence from the origin of the Leyden church, and author of the New England Memorial. In a copy of the Memorial in the library of the Massachusetts Historical society and which belonged to Prince, Mr. .Prince wrote in the margin the fol lowing note, from which we determine the day of Standish's death, which is not re- corded elsewhere. The portions in brack- ets are gone and are supplied from con- jecture. 'In ye list at ye e[nd] of Gour. Bradford's MSS Folio tis writ yt Capt. Standish died Oct. 3, 1655. But his son Wm's Table Book says Oct. 3, 1656 and Capt. Standish being chosen assist[ant] in 1656 showes that his death must [have oc- curred in this last year.]' In the Old Colony Records for October, 1656, Standish is cited as prosecutor for a case to be called on the 5th October. From this evidence, and from Standish's will, and Governor Prince's copy of the Memorial, we see that Standish died in 1656, and from Morton's evidence we see that he was honorably buried in Duxbury. That he was buried in Duxbury there can be no doubt, and there never has been any doubt. In his will he speaks of his burial place: "My will is that out of my whole estate my funeral charges to be taken out, and my body to be buried in a decent manner, and if I die in Duxburrow, my body to be laid as near as conveniently may be to my two dear daughters, Lora Standish, my daughter, and Mary Stan- dish, my daughter in law." History, written and traditional, records that Stan- dish was buried in Duxbury. That he was buried honorably is tes- tified by the words of Nathaniel Mor- ton, and by the position the Captain occupied at his death as the chief mil- itary oflacer of the colony. His life of devoted service to the interests of the colony and of the town in whicli he lived, would guarantee that he would be honorably buried. There was no secrecy about the funeral. If he were, as Morton says, honorably buried, he must have been buried with due public pomp and cere- mony and with manifestations of public sorrow. The notion that he was buried secretly on account of the Indians is the suggestion of those who believed that his grave could not be discovered. Tliere was no necessity for concealing his death from the Indians. When Standish died the Indians were on friendly terms with the colonists. From 1637 to 1675 there was peace between the Indians and the settlers. At Standish's death there was peace. The Indians must have known of iiis death. Many Indians resided in the town and we know that in 1656 there were many "praying" Indians, that is believers in Christianity. Before Stan- dish's death many of the settlers had died, and tliis must have been known to the In- dians. At Standish's death the colony was unite strong and confident of being able to protect itself. Several hundred im- migrants liad come since the first landing 19 at Plymouth, and it was not so necessary to conceal the few deaths that might take place from time to time, as it was to con ceal the deaths of almost half the settlers during the first year or so. especially when tlie small number of the passengers in the Mayllower is borne in mind. .Several towns were settled, and each town had its company of citizen soldiers ready to ilefend tlie colony. People so superstitious as the Indians would hardly be inclined to believe that Standish was dead, even if they heard the report. Their strange beliefs concerning the dead, and their supposed fear of the Captain, would have inclined them to be- lieve that the invincible Captain was even in death fighting against them. Above all it is absolutely certain that the Indi- ans, if they knew that Standish was dead, and knew where his grave was, would not dare to interfere with his remains. Their strange superstitious fears of the Captain in death would have protected his body from being disturbed by them. But even granting that Standish was buried secretly on account of the Indians how will this prove that the settlers them- selves, his brothers in arms, his friends, his neighbors, his children, did not know of his death and his last resting place? The conclusion drawn by some, that Stan- dish was secretly buried on account of the Indians, and therefore the colonists them- selves knew nothing of his burial place is without any foundation. Standish speaks in his will of the buri.il place of his children as a well known place. He asks to be buried with them. Without doubt he was buried with them, and he was buried with due pomp. His old soldiers must have come to his funeral. The old mothers of the colony must have spoken of his death. They could not for- get the brave man who so often risked his own life for theirs and their child- ren's. Does anyone think that Morton would have said that Standish was honorably buried, if Morton knew that he had been secretly buried? Would Morton not have mentioned that he was secretly buried when writing of the funeral? What would be the use of trying to keep the Captaios death a secret, seeing that his will was publicly exhibited in court in 1657? Another reason given by some to ac- count for the impossibility of locating the Captain's grave is, that he was a Roman Catholic, and that he refused to be buried in the town's graveyard with the Pilgrims who were Protestants. This is a very absurd explanation to afford for private inability to successfully locate Standish's grave. Standish had too frequently faced death with his fellow soldiers in the wars of Europe and New Kngland, to be scrupu- lous about being burled willi tliose who were not Komuii Catholics. Were he a lioman Catholic in the sense of tiiat term he would never have come to New Eng- land with the Pilgrims, never liave Ixjcn chosen their captam, their special friend, and representative; he would never have sworn fidelity to the constitution of the new colony, which constitution was and is essentially oi)posed to Roman Catholicism. Standish was a regular attendant at tlie services of the church of the Pilgrims. We have already quoted the document he signed, promising to return to Plymouth in the winter time that he might "the better repair to the worship of Ood." The document reads. "Ano 1G33 ) The names of those which Aprell 3 f promi.se to remove their fam[illes] to live in the town in the winter time, that they m[ay] the better repair to the worship of God. John Alden, Capt. Standish, Jonathan Brewster, Thomas Prence." Besides we know that he brought his family up in the town church and that his eldest surviving son, Alexander, was for many years a deacon in the churcli of Duxbury. The Pilgrims came here to pnjny liberty of conscience. It is IkikHv iikely that there were mmv Uuniuu Catholics among ikem. The whole genius of the Pilgrim movement was not only distinct from, but opposed to, the spirit of the Roman church. How the Pilgrim governor ordered the place called "Hue's Cross" to be known as "Hue's Folly"! Not much toleration for things Roman Catholic in that. Even if he were a Roman Catholic, how would that prove that the people who "honorably buried" him did not know where they buried him? How would it prove that his children and his neighbors did not know where he was buried? His will was that he should be buried in a well-known place near his daughter and his daughter-in law. There could not have been any secrecy about his funeral. In 1643 in the towns of Plymouth, Dux- bury, and Marshtield, a company, or mili- tary discipline, with Standish as r«i>tain was formed. The fourteenth article of the constitution of this company was: "That no one be admitted except he takes the oath of fidelity—" this was fidelity to the Colony. The thirteenth article reads, that upon the death of any member "tiie company upon warning shall come to- gether with their arms and inter his corpse as a soldier and according to his place and quallytye." We may be sure that the 20 soldiers of the Colony carried out this article at the funeral of their captain. It must not be forgotten that Standish was the military leader of the Colony during his life. Justin Winsor tells us that church mem- bership was a "necessary qualification" for a freeman of Duxbury until about 1GG4 (eight years after Standish's death), when the people became more tolerant of men who were not church members. This qualification was removed only in 1686. Why should Standish refuse to be buried with the Protestants, even if he was a Roman Catholic? There was no Roman Catholic burial place for him. Did we grant that he was a Roman Catholic, this would rather be an argument that he would wish to be buried with baptised men and women, his friends, rather than alone like an animal on the edge of a swamp, or on a corner of his farm. Standish was a man of too large instincts for such a narrow mindedness. He was buried publicly, with his chil- dren, and the men who buried him and his surviving relatives would know where he was buried. One last objection remains, that the grave of Standish was leveled that the Indians might not know of his death, or of his resting place, and therefore we can not tell where his grave Is. The men who buried him would know where he was buried, and his grave could not be leveled unless those who supposedly leveled it knew where it was. These suppositions are all without foundation and devoid of weight. CHAPTER X. There has always been a tradition in the town that the Standish burial place was marked by two peculiar stones lying due east and west about six feet apart. Mr. Justin Winsor in his History of Dux- bury, speaks of this tradition. He says: "There are, a short distance easterly from the site, (to what site Mr. Winsor refers it is not easy to see; perhaps the site of the Captain's home) two stones of con- siderable size, which are about six feet apart, and were thought to mark, per- chance, the grave of some one of the fam- ily. A few years ago Investigations were made, but without affording any founda- tion for the supposition." In a foot-note Mr. Winsor says: "Their peculiar shape (that is the peculiar shape of the two stones), though evidently in their rough state, and the fact tliat their position to each other was exactly east and west, in- duced some persons to dig between them in hopes of making a discovery. Excava- tions were accordingly made to the depth of eight feet, without, however, any suc- cess. In a biographical sketch of the author, appended to Capt. Samuel De- lano's Voyages, and written in 1817, it is stated in speaking of Capt. Standish, 'Here he died; and some aged people in the close of the last century pointed out the spot where he was buried.' Mr. Winsor then tells of an antiquarian friend who .commenced his researches in Duxbury about 1827, and who was unable to verify oral tradition, nor could he find any trace of such a tradition among the octoge- narians of that time. From these facts we gather that a few years before 1849 (when Mr. Winsor pub- lished his history) a search was made in a spot pointed out by two stones under the impression that Standish, or some of his family, might have been buried there. Earlier than that, In 1817. the author of Captain Delano's Voiages mentions the tradition about Captain Standish and says that some aged people in the close of the last century pointed out where Standish was buried. These traditions when prop- erly weighed and examined are of tlie greatest historic worth. Mr. Winsor's antiquarian friend, the Rev. Mr. Kent, who began his researches in 1827, or thereabouts, must have been misinformed, or else he did not come In contact with the right people. That the tradition has always been in the town Is too evident. The facts cited by Mr. Winsor attest the existence of the tradition. That his friend was unable to meet anyone to tell him of the tradition, is of no consequence In the face of the contrary facts, and the value of this friend's negative testimony would depend largely on the manner in which he investigated. From the evi- dence produced, from the records about the old meeting-house, it is clear that an- tiquarians in Duxbury have been very superficial In their searches and very easily satisfied with proofs. They seem to have been more successful in creating con- fusion and In spreading imaginary theories than in bringing to light any fact concern- ing the grave of Standish. CHAPTER XI. Mrs. Ruth Standish Hall, a descendant in the fifth generation from Standish, died in 1873 at the advanced age of 94 years. Mrs. Hall lived at Hall's Corner, being the wife of Captain Daniel Hall, and the mother of Miss Caroline B. Hall, who now lives in the Hall homestead at Hall's Corner, Duxbury. Mrs. Hall was a wo- man of remarkable brightness of mind until the time of her death, and her mem- ory was unfailing. Mrs. Hall often told her daughter, Miss Caroline B. Hall, and others that the burial place of Standish 21 was marked with two triangular pyra- midal stones. When she was a young girl she was visiting at the house of Doctor John Wadsworth (who was born in 170(J and died in 1799), and she heard him in- vite two gentlemen who were visiting him to go and see the grave of Myles Standish. After the gentlemen and the Doctor had re- turned to the Doctor's home, Mrs. Hall, at that time unmarried, beard the Doctor and his guests speak of the strange stones that marked the burial place, and heard the Doctor express his surprise that two such stones, triangular pyramids, could have been found for that purpose. This tradition Mrs. Hall frequently mentioned. Let us now examine the value of this tradition. If it were false, a proof could easily be supplied by digging in the place pointed out. If it were true, the graves would agree in their testimony with the testimony of the Captain's will. Dr. Wadsworth could have had no induce- ment to tell a lie about the matter. But what positive value has Doctor John Wadsworth's testimony';' His testi- mony is of value in proportion to his op- portunities of knowing the truth, and his power of remembering it and handing it down. That Doctor John Wadsworth was a capable and trustworthy witness, all ad- mit. He was considered one of the lead- ing men of the town in his time. His history shows a man of great power and originality. He was born in 1706 and died in 1799. He was the great grandson of Christopher Wadsworth, who was one of the most important of the first settlers. This Christopher was over and over again one of the chief officers of the town. His land included all the land now occupied by Ellis Peterson, Mrs. Thomas Chandler, Mrs. Myrick, George Frank Ryder. George Torrey' Fernando Wadsworth, and all the land of the farms lying inside these farms as well as much that lay outside these bounds. Christopher Wadsworth was alive in 1677, as his will then made, testi- fies. He lived twenty-one years after the death of Standish. He undoubtedly knew where Staijdish was buried. Christopher Wadsworth's wife, Grace, was alive in 1687. Christopher Wadsworth's eldest son Joseph, was alive in 1689. All these three would have known of the burial place of the Standlshes, and have told their children about it. Christopher's son. Deacon John Wads- worth, was born in 16;?8 and died in 1700. This John was 18 years of age when Standish was buried. Of his own knowl- edge, and from his father, mother, and others of the older people, he would most certainly have known the burial place of Standish. The wife of this Deacon John was Al)igail Andrews, who died in 1723. Tliis Deacon Joiin was the grandfather of Dr. John Wadswortli. So far then the Wadsworths liad every opportunity of knowing all about the last resting place of Captain Standish. The father of Doctor John Wadsworth, the son of the first Deacon Jobn, was Deacon John Wadswortli tlie second. He married Mercy Wiswall, the daugh ter of Kev. Ichabod Wiswall, who died in 1700, and who had been minister to the town from 1676 to 1700. Tins Deacon John died in 1700. He would have had the tradition in a direct line from his grandmother, his grandfather, his father, and other living witnesses of the Captain's funeral. When this second Deacon Wads- worth died, his son. Dr. John, was 44 years of age, and was capable of receiving the tradition, and of handing it down. When Doctor John's grandmother died, the Doctor was 17 years of age. We might add the evidence of Elisha Wads- worth, who was alive after 1714, and whose wife died 1741. This Elisha was the son of Joseph, the eldest son of Christopher, the founder of the family in Duxbury. We might also add the testi- mony of Captain Wait Wadsworth, the son of Elisha, who was alive as late as 1708. So much for Wadsworth evidence. But Doctor John could have learned of the burial place of the Captain from many others. Mrs. Alexander Standish, the wife of Standish's eldest son, was alive 1723. She would have known from her husband, who died in 1702, where the Captain was buried. And so of others. But the wife of Doctor John was Mary Alden, who was the daughter of Benjamin, the son of David, the son of John Alden. Now John Alden died in 1687, thirty -one years after the death of Standish. Alden would have known where Standish was buried. His son, David, was thirty years of age when Standish died. He, too, would have known where the Captain was buried. Mary Alden would thus have known through her grandfather, great-grand- father, and others, relatives and friends, where Standish and his daughters were buried. Thus Doctor Wadsworth wovdd have the very best evidence on his own side and on his wife's as to the burial place of Myles Standish. David Alden here mentioned was born in 1626 and was alive in 1679; his brother, Jonathan Alden, was born in 1627 and died in 1697, and Abigail, the wife of Jonathan, died in 172.J. Here are many other links con- necting the generation of Dr. Wadsworth with the generation alive in the time of Standish. The links could be multiplied many times over. 22 From this it will be seen that Doctor Wadsworth had the very best opportuni- ties for knowing about Standish's burial place, and from all we can learn the Doc- tor was a very reliable witness. His evi- dence was that Standish was buried in the south eastern part of the town, in a church grave-yard, and that two triangular pyra- mids of stone marked the burial place. This evidence of the stones can be found only in the grave-yard between Hall's and Bayley's Corners. All the traditions are verified there. The graves themselves speak in evidence. When Doctor AVads- worth died, Mrs. Ruth Hall was twenty years of age. She was a descendant of Standish, being the daughter of Olive, the daughter of David, the son of Thomas, the son of Alexander Standish. This last was the son of the Captain and died in 1702, his second wife dying in 1728. Mrs. Hall, being a direct descendant of Standish, would take a deeper interest in all traditions about him than most people, and she handed down to her daughter and others the testimony she received from Dr. John Wadsworth. Miss Caroline B. Hall, above mentioned, died in April, 1892; the writer attended her funeral. CHAPTER Xn. The second line of testimony trans- mitted through Mrs. Hall is that coming from the Prior family. The Priors lived around the first church. One of them, Benjamin Prior, bought the old church when it was sold in 1707. The Prior fam- ily always lived in that part of the town around the old graveyard between Hall's and Bayley's Corners. The Prior tradition is, that Myles Standish was buried in the old graveyard just mentioned, and that his burial place was marked by two trian- gular, pyramidal stones. The Priors would have known the Standishes, and the Wadsworths, and the Aldens, and the Brewsters, and all the other families. They all attended the same church, and the same town meetings in the church, and they would have frequently talked of the Captain and his burial place. There were then no newspapers, no great num- ber of books, to distract attention, and the families gathered around the log fires in the evenings would have talked over the first settlers and their lives and deaths. Thus the knowledge of Standish's grave would be general. Thus in every sense the evidence would be tested. The Prior tradition is clear and strong. Benjamin Prior, the last of the fa mily, Avho inherited the family place, was born in 177.5 and died in 1807. He told Mrs. Ruth Hall that Standish was buried be- tween Hall's and Bayley's Corners, in the old cemetery, and that two triangidar, pyramidal stones marked the place. Mrs. Hall wrote this testimony in her scrap- book where it is yet to be seen. Mr. Prior told Mrs. Hall that the Prior family al- ways held the above tradition, which came down from his great-grandfather, who was a boy of ten years of age when Standish died, and who handed down the tradition concerning the grave with the added circumstances that he, only a boy of ten years of age, remembered the fu- neral, which took place in the graveyard near his father's home. This evidence coming from young Prior (who, as he grew older, would have most abundant opportunities for having the independent testimony of the Standishes, the Aldens, the Wadsworths, the Brewsters, the Spragues, etc., etc.,) is of great value. The location of his father's home was such as to give the boy an opportunity of seeing the funeral, and week by week as he went to service, or as he went to the town's meetings in later life, he would have been reminded of the funeral scene he had seen when a boy. It must be borne in mind that we are not dependent on the evidence of the boy, Prior, simply as a boy, in this matter. His evidence, confirmed by his elders and handed down afterwards to his son, then to his grand- son, and finally to his great-grandson, comes to us with every mark of weight and authority. The last Benjamin Prior, who told the family tradition to Mrs. Hall, was born in 1775 and died in 1867. His father was born in 1740, his grandfather in 1699, and his great-grandfather in 1646. Each of these was named Benjamin. There could have been no inducement for any of the Priors to tell a lie about the burial place of Standish. The He could be easily detected by opening the graves. The graves were opened, and, as we shall see, everything proved the truth of the tradition here given. Another tradition is that of the Brews- ter family. The Brewsters lived near Standish, and they would have known of the Captain's burial place. Mr. Melzar Brewster (a direct descendant of the Elder) who lives to the east of the old cemetery near Hail's Corner, told the tradition of the family, received from his father and grandfather, that Standish was buried in the old cemetery between Hall's and Bay- ley's Corners. This, Mr. Melzar Brewster said, was the constant tradition in the Brewster family; and besides he said that all the old people of the town, whom he remembered, always said that this old cemetery was the onlv cemetery in the early town, and the oldest one in town. The tradition in the Faunce family is the same. The Faunces bought the farm 23 of Myles Standish within three years after the great-grandson of Myles had sold it For one hundred years at least the FaiinceR held this farm. Their tradition is, that the first church and churchyard were where the old cemetery now is near Hall's Corner, that Myles Standish was buried there, that there never was a church or churchyard in any other part of the town until 178B or 1784, and that the day on which Standish was buried was the storm- iest day the new town had felt from its foundation. This last circumstance would fix the minds of the people on the funer- al of the Captain. The traditions are all clear and well de- fined, having been cherished in the fami- lies that lived near Standish and around the graveyard. It is impossible to find a tradition of any antiquity or value assign- ing any other place as the burial place of Standish. The traditions about the Standish burial place exclude the notion that Standish was buried elsewhere than in the cemetery between Hall's and Bayley's Corners. CHAPTER Xni. Besides those already mentioned as hav- ing been alive at the time of the funeral of Standish and as being most likely to know all about it, we may also mention the following persons who lived in the town at the time. These persons would have known where Standish was buried, and would have served as witnesses to transmit the tradition. Robert Barker, who was admitted a free- man of Duxbury in 1654, and died be- tween 1689 and 1692, the dates of his will and of the inventory of his estate, Benjamin Bartlett, who was admitted in 1654, and married Sarah Brewster; he died in 1691. William Bassett, who died in 1669, and had land near the Nook, beside Sprague's land. Thomas Boney, the town shoemaker, admitted in 1640 and died about 169:5. Shoemakers heard all town news. Major William Bradford born in 1624 and died in 1703. Deacon William Brewster, (son of Love Brewster,) who died in 1723, being seventy- eight years of age. Wrestling Brewster, son of Love Brew- ster, died in 1607. Love Brewster, the father of Deacon William and of Wrest- ling, married in 1634, and he had Nathaniel William, Wrestling and Sarah. Sarah married Benjamin Bartlett in 1656, the year Standish died. There were several members of the Chandler family alive when Standish was buried and for many years afterwards. Thomas Clark, who arrived in 1623 and died in 1697, at the age of 97 years. Mr. William Collier died about 1671. Philip Delano admitted in 1632, died about 1681. His son Philip was born about 1635, and lived to be over eighty years of age; his son Thomas was born about 1636 or 1637, and was alive in 1099, when he married his second wife, his first wife having been a daughter of John Alden. John, the son of the first Philip, was born about or before 1640, and was alive in 1690. Samuel, another son, born a little after 1640, married Elizabeth, daughter of Alexander Standish, and was alive in 1686 and later. William Ford, who lived in Duxbury as early as 1643 and died in 1676, aged 82 years. Josiah Holmes married Hannah, daugh- ter of Henry Sampson, and he was alive in 1679. John Howland died in 1672, aged eighty years. His wife, Elizabeth Tilliedied 1687, aged eighty-one years. Henry Howland, of Duxbury in 1633, died in 1670. He was one of the substan- tial freemen of the town. John Pabodie, of Duxbury in 1637, died about 1666. His son William was born in 1620. -'A man much employed in public affairs and of much respectability." William married Elizabeth Alden in 1644 and died in 1707 aged 87 years. She died in 1717 in Little Compton, aged 93 years. William Pabodie lived near Stan- dish and Brewster, and had thirteen chil- dren, eleven being daughters. One daugh- ter, Priscilla, married Rev. Mr. Wiswall ; she died in 1720. George Partridge, a yeoman, in 1636. He married Sarah Tracy in 1638, and died about 1695. His daughter Lydia married Deacon William Brewster and died in 1743. His daughter Triephosa married Samuel West. Samuel died in 1689; Triephosa died in 1701. Another daughter married Rhodolphus Thacher. John Rogers, of Duxbury in 1634, was alive in 1660, the date of his will. His son John died about 1696; this son had married Elizabeth Pabodie in 1666; she was born in 1647. Henry Sampson, who came to Duxbury with Standish and lived near him, and whose son Caleb married Mercy, daughter of Alexander Standish, died in 1684. Henry's son, Stephen, lived in Duxbury and died in 1714. Abraham Sampson admitted a freeman in 1654. was alive in 168(i. He lived in Duxbury from 163S. His son Abraham married Sarah, daughter of Alexander Standish, and this son was alive long after 1690. Isaac Sampson, son of tl»e first Abraham married another daughter of Alexander Standish; he died in 1726. 24 Members of the Seabury, Simmons, and Soule families were also in town at Stan- dish's death, and lived many years after that event. Constant Southworth, born 1615, mar ried Elizabeth Collier in 1637; died in 1679. He was in town when Standish died. Francis Spraisrue, admitted in 1637, was alive in 1666. His son John, who married Ruth Bassett. was killed in 1676. Alexander Standish, the eldest surviving son of Myles, died in 1702, and his second wife in 1723. Captain Josiah, Standish son of Myles, lived in Duxburv where he was admitted a freeman in 1655. After a time he went to Bridgewater, but returned to Duxbury in 1663. Finally he left Duxbury in 1686 and went to Norwich, Conn. Myles Standish, son of Alexander, lived in Duxbury and died in 1739. His wife. Experience, died in 1743 or 1744. Ebenezer, a son of Alexander Standish, died in 1734, being 62 years of age. Myles Standish, the son of Myles, the the son of Alexander, the son of the Cap- tain, was born in 1714, inherited the home- stead, and in 1763 sold it to Samuel and Sylvanus Drew, who sold to Wait Wads- worth, who sold it to John Faunce. Rhodolphus Thacher. who married Ruth Partridge, was alive in 1686. From all these names, and many others might be added, it will be seen that very many witnesses would have been able to hand down the tradition of the funeral and burial place of Standish. Undoubted- ly these people often spoke of the brave Captain and told all of his life and death they knew. The chain of evidence could not be stronger. It is well to observe the dates and the intermarriages in the above list. CHAPTER XIV. We now come to the graves. For a great many years the old cemetery was neglected. There were no fences around it and roaming cattle strayed over it. The people seemed to neglect their dead ancestors. This was so for a great many years. People so careless of the graves o'f their dead would hardly have been the ones to care much for the traditions of the past concerning these dead. An end was ]iut to this worse than indilTer- ence by tlie Rural Society of Duxbury. The Society sent a man to repair the fences and to tit up the graveyard. Mr. Melzar Brewster did this, and did it well. When at work Mr. Brewster found two stones marking the burial place of Lora Standish; tliey were covered with sand. Mr. Brewster raised them to tlie surface in the exact pla( es where he found them. Everyone was struck by the remarkable appearance of the stones and the old traditions about the Standish burial place were again brought to light. The Duxbury Rural Society at last de- termined to test the tradition and obtained permission from the selectmen to dig in the place marked by the stones. Mr. Fredrick B. Knapp of Duxbury was presi- dent of the Rural Society and had charge of the searching party. In April 1889 the following were present at the first opening of any of the graves: Mr. F. B. Knapp, Mrs. Knapp, Miss Lucia Brad- ford, Mr. Lawrence Bradford, Miss Ford, Miss Caroline B. Hall of Duxbury, Mr. C. N. B. Wheeler, Mr. Sidney Lawrence, Mr. Rounseville of Powder Point school, Duxbury; Professor A. B. Hart of Hav- ard Mr. Charles M. Gaines, Duxbury; Mr. C. M. Doten of Old Colony Memorial Plymouth, and Dr. Jones of Kingston. The first grave opened was that marked by the two triangular pyramids of stone. The skeleton of a young woman was found; her teeth were all in the jaw bones, and were in a splendid state of preservation; her hair was a large coil of light color. From the fact that all the teeth were present, the young woman must have been nearly twenty years of age, and from the fact that they show very little sign of usage, she could not have been much over twenty years of age. The skeleton measured five feet two inches as it lay. All the indications pointed to a young woman about twenty or perhaps twenty-five. Those who saw the skeleton and were capable of forming a judgment of any value, all came to this conclusion: The formation of the skull was peculiar, so much so that all remarked it. The remains were placed in a coffin prepared on the spot and rcburied. Parts of the original coffin were in a fair state of preservation. The ground is a sand-hill, and the nature of the spot has a great pre- servative power. On the same day another grave was opened on the north side of the young woman's. Here a man's skeleton was found. The skeleton was nearly perfect. It was measured as it lay in the ground. It measured five feet seven inches. There was one tooth in the lower jaw. This tooth was very much worn. The cavities in the jaws where the teeth had been im- bedded were filled in with ossified matter. There was a quantity of hair on the skull. The hair seemed to be of a brownish red. The bones indicated a man of powerful build and strength. Dr. Wilfred G. Brown of Duxbury, who saw the remains when they were placed in a new coffin, when the grave was opened a second time, in 1891, said he had never seen a skeleton giving such indications of physical strength. The skull was, perhaps, the most remark- able part of the skeleton; it was in con- formation exactly like the skull of the young woman on his right hand side, and all present remarked their likeness to the formation of the head of Miss Caroline B. Hall, who was present, a descendant from the Captain. The Rural Society committee proceeded no further. Some believed that Standish was buried here; others denied it, or denied that any proofs of it were given. Some measurements of the Captain's skull were taken by Doctor Brown in 1891; the skull was 21 inches above occipital protuberance, it was 214 inches around, it was 14^ inches over the parietal bone from the bottom of the petrus portion of the parietal bone. For two years nothing more was done about the Captain's burial place. As yet no one had taken the trouble to make an exhaustive and valuable search for the graves, and a careful examination of the evidence. During the early part of the spring of 1891 Dr. Wilfred G. Brown of Duxbury and the writer, after some con- versations with Miss Caroline B. Hall, de- termined to test all the traditions to the utmost. Permission was obtained from selectmen to open more graves. The opening took place on Saturday, April 25, 1891. The following were present: Dr. Wilfred G. Brown, Duxbury; Prof. C. N. B. Wheeler, Duxbury; Logan Waller Page of Richmond, Va. ; Charles Bartlett, Duxbury; Rev. E. J. V. Huiginn, Dux- bury; Mrs. Frederick B. Knapp, Miss Ford, Miss Florence Ford, Miss Jacobs, Miss Loring, Miss Bartlett and Jliss Clara H. Sampson. Mr. C. M. Doten of the Old Colony Memorial came later in the afternoon. The gentlemen above named opened a deep and long trench south of the grave of the young woman (Lora Standish) whose grave is marked by the two stones. No trace of a grave was found; the soil was hard for its nature; the layers of sand seemed never to have been disturbed before. Turning their at- tention to the north side of the man's grave (Captain Standish's), the diggers found the grave of a woman. The skele- ton had a great coil of brown hair and a perfect set of most beautiful teeth. Not a tooth was missing; not a scratch, or a sign of much usage was on one of them. AH signs pointed to a young woman between eighteen and twenty or twenty-five years of age. Portions of the coffins had been found in all three graves, and also por- tions of the winding sheets. Night falling before the diggers could investigate all that was desirable, the^ postponed further investigation until May 12. On that day the following were present in the cemetery: Dr. Wilfred G. Brown, Duxbury; Frederick B. Knapp, Duxbury; Logan Waller Page, Richmond. Va.; Frederick Stout, Aul)urn, N. Y.; Hosmer K. Arnold, Portland, Oregon; Hammond Braman, Cohasset, Mass.; Rev. E. J. V. Huiginn, Duxbury; Mrs. Knapp, Mies Ford, Miss Clara H. Sampson, Miss Jacobs, Duxbury, and Aliss Ellen L. Sampson, Newton, Mass. The seven gentlemen named opened a trench north of the three graves already opened, and found two skeletons, one of a boy between nine and twelve years of age, and one of a child seemingly between three or four and five or six years of age. The child's skele- ton, as one would naturally expect, was the most decomposed. From the state of the teeth in the boy's head and from the size of the bones one could form a close estimate of his age; the second growth of teeth was coming in, crushing out the first growth; several of the new teeth were in place, and in places the two rows of teeth were present, one growing up and crushing out the other. The hair, cropped short, was on the head. All the signs showed that it was a boy's skeleton. All these graves lie in a row, and are evident- ly the graves of members of one family. CHAPTER XV. [Living possession of the evidence from the graves, let us see how this evidence corresponds with the facts about the Standish family. From Standish's will we know that he was to be buried beside his daughter, Lora, and his daughter-in-law. Mar}'. From the same source we conclude that his son, John, died young. But we can prove that Charles and John died yoimg even apart from the will. In the lists of the freemen of the town, in the lists of those sixteen years of age made at various times, and in the lists of those admitted to the freedom of the town, there is no mention of the names of Charles and John Standish. The list of those who were sixteen years of age in 1643 contains the name of Alexander Standish. This list may be seen in volume eight, page 190, of the Plymouth Colony Records. Mr. Justin Winsor gives the list on page 92 of his History of Duxbury, but omits the name of Alexander Standish. We know that Charles and John Standish were born be- fore the 22d, May 1627, and this list of persons between sixteen and sixty years of age capable of bearing arms was drawn up in Augu.st 1643. If Charles and John were then alive and capable of bearing arms they would have been mentioned. It is probable that they were dead before this time. Their names are mentioned only once in the old records and that is in 1627. These boys were alive in 1627 and 26 Very soon the Captain moved to Duxbury. All the probabilities are that these _ boys died in Duxbury, and were buried in the graveyard in Duxbury. It must be borne in mind that the burial place of these boys is not of direct importance, in the question about the Captain's grave. We are simply concerned to find an old man buried near two young women, and the traditions about the grave of Standish point out these graves. From the skeletons we see that the young women found in the traditional burying place were between eighteen and twenty- five years or so. Let us now examine the evidence about the ages of Lora Standish and Mary Dingley, the wife of Joslah Standish. Lora Standish was not born be- fore May 22d, 1637, or she would be men- tioned with the other children at that time. She died before her father in 1656, as he asked to be buried near her. At the outside then she could not have been twenty-nine years of age. Her father and mother were married after Aug. 1, 1623; three children were born before May 22d, 1627; Standish was in England for several months between these dates. After May, 1627, three chil- dren, Myles, Josiah, and Lora were born, and also a fourth, Charles. The skeleton of the young woman with the light colored hair, and the strikingly shaped head, would correspond with the age of Lora Standish. At to Mary Dingley, the wife of Josiah Standish, she must have died young. Jo- siah was born after 1627, and at his wife's death in 1654, or 1655, he could not have been more than twenty- eight years of age at the most. Likely he was not quite so old. His wife would very naturally be younger. She was the daughter of John Dingley, ad- mitted a freeman of Marshfield in 1644, but formerly of Lynn and Sandwich. She died in 1654, the year of her marriage. Others say she died on 1st July, 1655. She was buried in Duxbury near Lora Standish. Her age then could not have been far from twenty years. The skeleton found would correspond with her age. Portions of finger nails were found wrapped in the winding sheet. The Captain was about seventy-two years of age when he died. The ages of all the persons in question would bear out the tradition that the graves opened are those of Standish and his children. Before his own death two of his sons had died young, and his daughter, Lora, and his daughter-in-law, Mary. He had asked to be buried with his daughter and his daughter-in-law. He was buried between them. Tradition has always pointed out the place; the loca- tions of the homes of the first three minis- ters from 16:57 to 1700 were near the spot; the old roads all converged there; the farm boundaries all locate the church there from the beginning; the public land was there; the public stocks and the pound were near there; the foundations of the first two churches are there, the first one in the south-east corner of the old graveyard, and the second one on the eastern side of the old road that bounds the graveyard on the east. All these Dositive proofs show that in the first pub- lic graveyard Standish and his children were buried. In fact those who would bury him elsewhere, would bury him be- side the first church and nowhere else. We have found that he was buried beside the first church and nowhere else, and we have shown where the first church was. The notion that he was buried elsewhere is simply imaginary. Taking into account the few hundred people buried in that old cemetery, and that there would not be one chance out of many millions of finding such a combina- tion of graves as the above, exactly cor- responding to the first five deaths of the Standish family, it does not seem that there is any room for doubt. The grave- yard has not been used for over one hun- dred years. Taking all the evidence into account with the traditions, there is abso- lutely no room for doubt. CHAPTER XVI We now come to the objections made to the foregoing evidence. We have dealt with the objections about his religion, and about his having been secretly buried. One objector tells us that it cannot be shown that the graveyard where Standish was buried was in use before 1697 or thereabouts. The proof of this is that the oldest gravestone found is dated for that year. Even if we granted that there was no gravestone of earlier date than 1697, this would simply prove that Jonathan Alden, whose grave it marked, died in 1697; it would not prove that the stone was placed there in 1697; it would be no proof at all of the exact age of the graveyard. The oldest tombstone in Marshfield, in fact in the Colony, is marked 1651, but this will not prove that the grave -yard was not in use before that time. The oldest stone in Plymouth burying ground is dated 1681, but no one thinks of proving from this that the graveyard was not in use long before 1681. There is the very strongest and most positive evidence that the graveyard where Stan- dish lies buried is the first graveyard of the town, and remained in use until about 1783. when the site of the church was changed to the site of tlie present Unita- rian church, or near that site; then the present graveyard was first used, the 27 graveyard following the church. It must not be forgotten that the first settlers were too busy at work on the new country, and iu defending their lives from all dangers, to be able to spend much time and money on graveyards and gravestones. Only the richer people were able to have tomb- stones, and these were mostly imported. Another objection made is that the stones marked the grave of Lora and not of Myles. The two graves are along side each other. It is most likely that Myles marked his only daughter's grave; she was likely his favorite child. Afterwards when he was buried beside her, it would have been easy for people to transfer the connection between these remarkable stones and Lora's grave to the grave of her famous father. Before the Captain's death people would have said that Lora's grave was marked by the stones; after her father's death they would said that the Captain's grave was just beside these stones, or his burial place was marked by them. The two graves are very close to- gether. The stones are heavy, and could not have been easily displaced. If the stones had been placed at the Captain's grave, you can only suppose that in all these years some cause pushed the stones a foot or two out of place. The stones when found exactly marked the grave of Lora Standish, the Captain's daughter. Another objection is that the length of the man's skeleton was so great as to prove that it could not be Myles Standish. A French traveler, this objection stales, is the only eye witness who has left us an account of the Captain's size, and he says the Captain was a small man ; therefore it is concluded, the Captain's skeleton could not measure five feet seven inches in the grave. In the first place, the Frenchman is not the only one who has left us an ac- count of the Captain's size; in the second place, even if the Captain were small, De Rassiere does not say he was a dwarf; thirdly, a man five feet seven inches would be a small man; but what is more to the point is, that when a human body disin- tegrates in the grave, the bones fall apart and are crushed apart by the decayed cof- fin lid and the crushing earth, so that the skeleton in the grave is generally longer than the living man would be. A disar- ticulated skeleton measuring five feet sev- en inches would be a good deal longer than the Captain in life. It has been cause for wonder with some that no jewelry was found in any of the graves. It is very unlikely that Captain Standish, a soldier of fortune before he came here, would have any great quanity of jewelrv. Even if he had, the simple and religious notions of the people would have been opposed to burying jewelry with the dead. It was the custom of the Pilgrims to encourage simplicity of life and dress at all times and their dead were buried reverently, but with simplicity. Absence of jewelry is what we should e.\ pect. CHAPTER XVII. Mrs. Jane G. Austin is tlie one wlio makes the greatest number of objections to our conclusions and to our proofs. It is necessary to consider her objections one by one, that all sides of this question iiiay be seen, and all the proofs and objections fully considered. Her objections will be found in her let- ters to the Boston Transcript of June ~, 1891, and July 3, 1891, and in the Old Colony Memorial of Plymouth of June 18, 1892. 1. She says the five graves found are not of one family. Ans. This is assumed without a per- sonal examination of the graves, tlie skele- tons, and of the documentary and other proof on hand. Every candid observer admits that the graves are of one family. 2. "As for the five graves lying in a row it proves positively nothing at all." Ans. As for the five graves, so far from proving nothing, they prove that an old man was buried between two young women, and that a boy and a child were buried in the same row. They prove that the skull of the man is vcn like the skull of the young woman on his right hand side, and iliat these skulls are very like the skull of one of the direct descendants of Standish, recently living in Duxbury; all these heads have a peculiar shajie or conformation. The graves were found with skeletons corresponding to the lirst five deaths in the Captain's fanuly, and with the skeletons bearing out the historical testimony as to age and sex, and also as to the positions of the graves of the old man and the two young women. These graves were found in what tradition and history point out as the first graveyard, and the two famous triangular pyramids of stone were marking the place. 3. The two boys, Charles and John dieil of plague in Plymouth in 1032 3:1. There- fore they are buried in Plymouth. Ans. This is gratuitous assumption. Nobody can prove that the boys died in Plymouth, or died of the plague, or died at the same time. The evidence is op posed to all these assumptions. The graves deny that the bovs died at the s.ime time and we are justified in maintaining that the graves of the boy and of the chi d are those of Charles and John Standish, as long as we can prove that tlieir father and his daughter and daughtcrin law are buried iu the same place. The evidence 28 will prove that the Standish family was living in Duxbury during the plague and not in Plymouth. The plague was in the hot season but Standish then lived in Dux- bury. We have already quoted that docu- ment signed by him and others in April, 1682, promising to return to Plymouth in the winter season. They must have been in Duxbury in the summer of 1632, and during each summer afterwards. In fact there is nothing to prove that the men who signed that document did return to Plymouth in the winter; the churches divided in 1682, and there are other signs that the document was never enforced. Even if Standish were in Plymouth when the plague broke out, would it not be most reasonable to suppose that he would at once remove his family to Duxbury V Were we to grant that the Standish boys died in Plymouth, which we do not admit, would not their father bring their bodies to be buried in Duxbury, where he intended to make his home for the remainder of his life? Mrs. Austin suggests that Standish would not have removed his children to Duxbury when they were sick of the plague. She writes: "But if Standish's two sons died of the sickness in 1633, it was highly improbable that their father carried them away from the vicinity of Dr. Fuller then in Plymouth and who was the only physician of the colony." Here Mrs. Austin assumes that the boys died in 1633, of the plague, in Plymouth, and were buried there. These are all fan- cies without one bit of evidence. Then she assumes that it had been proved, or suggested, that Standish removed the plague-stricken boys during their illness from the care of Dr. Fuller! No one ever thought of such a want of common sense in the Captain. Even if his children did live in Duxbury, the settlers in Duxbury would all have to call upon Dr. Fuller in their illness until they secured a physician nearer home. Everyone knows that Dr. Fuller did go to Marshfield, and to greater distances than Duxbury, to attend sick people. Mrs Austin, in her novels, which are supposed to be more or less historical, sends the doctors on longer journeys than that from Plymouth to Duxbury; by wa- ter that journey would be twice as short as by land. However it must be borne in mind that the graves of the boy and child are not of importance in locating the grave of the Captain from the evidence of his own will. 4. Speaking of the Captain's will, Mrs. Austin says: "If he had also two sons in the same burial spot would not he have spoken of them as well as of his daughter- in-law? And if the two young women had been buried in such fashion as to leave a space for the father between would not he have alluded to such an arrangement?" Ans. The plain answer to both these questions is No. He would not have been so likely to mention the boys who died in youth, as his daughter-in-law. who died only a short time before himself. As he was not giving a history of the burial place of his family in his will, it is not likely that he would have mentioned that a burial place was left between the two graves for his own grave. In his will he plainly refers to the fact that he was to be buried near his daughter and daughter-in- law, in their well known burial place. He mentioned the place in which he wished to be buried, and in describing that place it was necessary to refer to his daughter and his daughter in law but not to the boys. 5. "These five graves have no dated stones, no parish record, no valid tradi- tion." Ans. In the Plymouth graveyard the oldest dated stone is for 1681; this will not prove that certain graves of earlier date are not known. We have never heard of graves having a "parish record." There is no "parish record" of any grave in the country. That these graves have "no valid tra- dition" is not correct; the strongest possi- ble traditions are attached to these graves in that graveyard. To assume the con- trary is a simple begging of the question. In her second letter to the Transcript Mrs. Austin changes her language and says: "My saying that their graves had 'no dated stones' and the deaths no 'parish record,' did not mean as Mr. H. seems to believe, that in this they differed from other ascertained graves of the same day." Here she changes her language and attri- butes to me a belief I never held as to her meaning. No grave in the Colony had or has a parish record, in the sense of the term "parish record." 6. She says: "I should suppose that any student of our earliest burying- grounds would have learned that burial lots are a modern invention. In the early days the ground belonged to the town, that is to say to the church, for the inter- ests were identical, and persons were bur- ied where the survivors pleased. Burying hill in Plymouth is the oldest and best instance of an ancient New England ceme- tery, and there one frequently finds the headstone of an alien intruded upon a family group, and 'those who know' as- sure us that the ground is full of nameless bones above which other bodies have been laid. So the 'burial lot' must be set aside as an anachronism." This is from the let- ter to the Transcript of June 2, 1891. In her letter to the same paper of July 3, 18'J1, she says: "As for my statement that the phrase burial lots is an anachron- ism, as connected with the earliest bury- Ing-grounds of our country, I reassert it. 29 A burial place means a place allotted and divided off for the use of a purchaser or donee. This usage did not obtain in our early burying grounds and although fami- lies were naturally laid as near together as convenient, there were no rights of jtos- session given to any individual or family." Ans. In all this there is nothing to the purpose, because if we granted that fami- lies had no special places for burial in the graveyards, and if they were buried one here and one there, still in the case of Captain Standish we know that he was buried near his daughter and daughter-in- law. Mrs. Austin puts a private and strained meaning upon family "burial lot" which no one will admit. The "burial lot" does not in law or in common lan- guage mean exclusively a lot owned by purchase or by gift. There were places where families buried by themselves in all the old graveyards. Plymouth Burying Hill is itself a proof of this. Nor was the sanctity of family burial place, burial lot, or burial plot, or whatever you may call it, invaded except in very exceptional cases. The graveyard in Marshlield is proof of this; also the Granary graveyard in Boston, and all the old graveyards in the Colony. The graveyards of England, at the time of which we speak, show that family burial places were respected. Ply- month burying hill might be said to be rather a unique burying ground than "the best instance of an ancient New England cemetery." The people of New England respected, as English Christians have always done, the sacredness of the family burial place. As a rule families do not intrude on fami- lies. Here the graveyards were owned by the town, and the people had permission to bury their dead in certain parts of the graveyard. Fathers desired to be buried with their families, to have their families buried together, and as the fathers were the voters who controlled all these mat- ters, we may be sure they agreed to re- spect, as their forefathers had always done, the sacredness of the family bur- ial lots. 7, Mrs. Austin says: "The three- corner stone theory took its rise in the summer of 1887." Ans. This is not so. Mrs. Austin then first heard of it; that is all. Mrs. Austin undoubtedly wrote what she believed to be correct when she gave her version of the Prior tradition, but her version so con- tradicts itself, is so impossible in itself, and so contradicts facts that there is little hesitation in rejecting it. For instance she says the grandfather of the last Ben- jamin Prior was the boy of ten years of age who witnessed the Captain's funeral. The last Benjamin was borH in 1775, and the boy who witnessed the funeral was born 1(540. These dates would make it highly imi>robable that it was the grand- father of the last Benj. Prior, who as a boy of ten years, witnessed the funeral of Captain Standish. Tlie Prior history con- tradicts it too; it was the gre"»tgrand- father who Siiw the Standish funeral. This we have already discussed. CHAPTER XVI H. 8. In Mrs. Austin's version Mrs. Ruth Hall is made to visit Benjamin Prior athig request at the poor house. Ans. Mrs. Hall never visited Prior at the poor house, nor did he request her to do so. 9. The lady who Informed Mrs. Austin of Dr. Wadsworth's testimony in the pres- ence of Mrs. Ruth Hall about the two re- markable stones, is said to have stated that she did not know where Dr. Wadsworth took his guests, whether to Harden Hill or to the old burying ground at Hall's Cor ner. Ans. The lady mentioned is not a wit- ness in the case. Her evidence Is of no value on this point. That she knew nothing of the precise place to which Dr. Wadsworth took his guests is of no more value as evi- dence than if we were to say that the Queen of England knows nothing of where Dr. Wadsworth took his guests. The facts remain about the two remarkable, pyramid- al stones, and that Mrs. Ruth Hall handed down her testimony about them, and that no such stones have been found elsewhere than in the old cemetery, and that all his- tory, and tradition, and evidence from the graves, support what we have said. 10. Mrs. Austin confuses the history of the two stones. She gives four different ac- counts of them. In her letter to the Tran- script of June 2nd, she says: "Having heard the story I at once visited the grave, and at the first glance thought such very ordinary looking pieces of stone could not be those described as such unmistakable landmarks. Laying my hand upon one I found it very loose, and easily lifted It out of the earth, which it penetrated some five or six inches." In her second letter to the Transcript of July 3d, she says: "The ori- gin of this theory was that when the three- cornered stones (one of which, by the way, is four-sided)." In her letter to the Old Col- ony Memorial she calls them "two little triangular stones," marking the grave, as slie thinks, of "Alexander Standish." who died in 1703, or Josias Standish. In her "Standish of Standish" page 4U», she says that the grave of Captain Standish lav across the valley from the Captain's Hill, and Is "marked head and foot with a great three-cornered stone." Thus we see she calls them "two ordln- 30 ary looking pieces of stone." "two little triangular stones," "two great three-cor- nered stones," and finally says that one of them is a "four-sided stone." Then she puts them, (1) at Captain Standish's grave, (2) at Alexander's grave, and (3) at the grave of Josias Standish. Alexander died in 1702, and at one time she makes the Prior boy see his funeral, and another time the Captain's in 1656, at another time that of Josias who moved to Connecticut in 1686, died, and was buried there. Again she makes tlie boy, tlie same boy, ten years of age in 16o6, and the same age in 1702, and the same age at the funeral of Josias, who was not buried in Duxbury at all. Speaking of the stones she says she mov- ed theeastern one, "easily lifting" it out of the ground which it penetrated but five or six inches. Mr. Melr.ar Brewster, who was employed by the Rural Society to put the old graveyard in order, distinctly told me that the stones were in the same position from the time he discovered them, before 1887, until May, 1891. The weather marks on the stones, and the moss lines, etc., plainly showed how deep the stones were in the earth. The stone at the eastern end, or foot of the grave, measures two feet seven in direct altitude, and weighs seventy-nine pounds. Seventeen inches of its altitude were in the earth, and from the shape of the stone it would be impossible for the strongest man in Duxbury to easily lift the stone even with his two hands. The stone was in that position, Mr. Brewster says, before 1887, when Mrs. Austin first saw it. The stones were not removed at any time by those digging there. The diggers have told me so. The lateral altitudes of the faces of the stone at the foot of the grave were 17, 15, and 13 * inches. The bases of the trian- gular faces were 9, 9, and 7 i inches. These measurements were made before the stone was removed from the position it oc- cupied from the time Mr. Brewster discov- ered it until it was removed to be weighed. The other stone at the head of the grave weighs one hundred and nine pounds, and is thirty inches in direct altitude. It was buried in the ground to a depth of nearly eighteen inches. The lateral altitudes of the triangular faces 12 i, 13, and 11 finch- es; the bases of the same faces measured 8, 6 J and 11 inches. All these measure- ments were taken before the stones were removed, and also after they had been taken up to be photo-graphed and weiglicd. All those who have seen the stones admit that for all purposes of description in a general letter on the evidence the stones would be rightly called "triangular pyra- mids." Mrs. Austin lierself having seen the stones so described them in her "Standish of Standish" and in lier lutters to tlie Old Colony Memorial of Plymouth, and to the Transcript. That she afterwards called one of them a "four-sided one" may be account- ed for by the fact that one of the edges of this seventy-nine pound stone, which she easily lifted, was broken off, or sliced off. This edge is thicker than the other edges, and you can see at once that it was sliced off for about eight or ten inches of its length, as the edge still remains on the lower part of the stone. We are speaking of the stones as they are visible, just as in describing the external appearance of a house or of a tree we would speak of what was above the earth. What Mrs. Austin at one time calls a fourth side would be more aptly described as a thick edge Those who are interested can see the stones for themselves. 11. Mrs. Austin admits that the argu ments drawn from the public highways of the early town to locate the church are good from 1650. Standish was buried in 1656. Therefore, even she should admit the possibility that he was buried at Hall's Corner graveyard. If the arguments from the roads, etc., are good from 1650, they ought to be good from 1637 when the roads were surveyed, especially as they were the only roads for a great many years. 12. She says of the town or parish rec- ords that "all such records previous to 1665 were destroyed by fire." This is not so. Many of the records of the town are to be found in the Old Colony Records, in the records of other towns at one time part of Duxbury, and in the present records of Duxbury. Some of the records were re-written after the fire had destroyed them. The records themselves witness this. 13. She says that the most important of the first settlers, witli the exception oi John Alden, settled in the Nook besidt Captain Standish, and therefore the first church was built, not at Hall's Corner, but at Harden's Hill for the sake of con venience. Ans. Anyone who examines the grounc will at once see that a church on Harder Hill would be far more inaccessible anc inconvenient for Standish and all his sup posed neighbors than one at Hall's Corner Again, the most Important of the firs settlers did not all, Alden accepted, live ii the Nook and near the Captain. Th most important of the settlers, after Stan dish and Brewster, were Stephen Tracy Jonathan Brewster, Thomas Prince Christopher Wadsworth, William Basset Francis Sprague, the HowJands, South worths. Browns, Bumpuses, Soules Delanos, Pollards, Ililliers and others These men lived on towards Kingston along the eastern shore towards Powde Point, and around the mill at Mill Broot and towards Duck Hill in Marshfield 31 The notion, then, that the church was luiir Standish for the accommodation of luQiself and the chief settlers of the town is without foundation in fact. Every su( h argument would point to the place hrtween Hall's andBayley's Corners. 14. Elder Brewster "was their minis- fir " for some years "though never or- dained." Ans. Elder Brewster was never the minister of the church In Duxbury, and ri( ver was called such by any historian. lie was not even minister in Plymouth liming the years when they had no min- ister. The most ever said of him in this matter is that he may have conducted . service at times or led in prayer. There is no proof that he was ever connected with the Duxbury church. All historians, including Mr. Justin Winsor, call Rev. Ralph Partridge the first minister of Dux- bury, Rev. John Holmes the second, and Rev. Ichabod Wiswall the third. 1.1. "A little house, probably no more than a cabin, was built for purposes of worship, and surely this would be in the vicinity of the Captain's and Elder's homes." "The first church in Plymouth was built in 1648 and was replaced by another in 1683, a period of thirty-five years, and probably the first church edifice in the little settlement gathered about Captain's Hill was even shorter lived." " 'Constant tradition' places this church on Harden Hill just north of the Brewster farm, and I am inclined to consider this tradition as very likely to be an historical fact." ^ ^ Ans. Mrs. Austin", when reminded that in her "Standish of Standish" she buried Myles in the old graveyard near Hall's Corner, said she buried him there as a "picturesque possibility." In all this Mrs. Austin begs all her positions and proves nothing. No comment is neces- sary other than her own words in the Transcript of June 2, 1891: "One great stumbling block in the path of historical research is the proneness of the human mind to believe what it wants to believe, and to accept as proven that which is only tradition or fancy." 16. The graves of the early settlers were likely to be hidden "especially af- ter the beginning of the Pequot war." Ans. Even if the graves were hidden, the men who buried Standish would know where they had buried him, and his daughter's grave was known, as we see from the Captain's will. What connec- tion was there between Standish's grave and the Pcciuot war which was ended nineteen years before the Captain died? 17. Mrs. Austin says that perhaps the Captain was buried on Harden Hill, per- haps in the vicinity of his own home, but she feels "very sure not in the tlall's Cor- ner graveyard," and she hopes his grave may never be discovered. Ans. Her prepossession against the discovery of liis grave unfits her for forming a fair and just judgment, as her rejection of all evidence further shows. 18. She says the conditions for the franchise in Duxbury were never enforced in the case of Standish. Ans. She says this in speaking of Stan- dish's religion, a matter of Irrelevance from her standpoint. I felt obliged to speak of his religion, because some said he was a Roman Catholic, and therefore not buried with the pilgrims. In the as- sumption she makes she would have Stan- dish, one of the founders of the town, de- manding from others conditions for the freedom of the town, whicli he would not and did not demand from himself. Stan- dish on this point was ruled by the towns- men, and they were not in the habit of making laws simply to set them aside. 19. Mrs. Austin, speaking of the old burying-eround at Hall's Corner, calls it the "Second Burying Ground, "using capi- tal letters, and so as to insinuate to out- siders that it was known by that name. Again she says; "Now if in 1675 the Second Burying Ground was a new one as the Duxbury argument claims." Ans. As I am the one responsible for the "Duxbury Argument" I most em- phatically say that our argument always contended, and contends, that the old cemetery near Hall's Corner, called by Mrs. Austin the "Second Burying Ground" was the first burying ground, and is known in Duxbury and the records of Duxbury as the old cemetery, not as the "Second Burying Ground." 20. Mrs, Austin cites some authorities in her letters to sustain her views. Those of them who can must answer for them- selves. As to me no man's authority, as merely his, is of any use in matters of his- tory. , , . ^ The only things of weight in history are evidence and applied common sense. The location of the grave of Myles Standish ia a matter of historic research. We have tried to follow out the lines of historic evidence. The public will be judge. In the treatnient of the question it has been deemed advis- able to examine all evidence brought against us. and to examine it exhaustively, so as to preclude the necessity of saying more. It has been my desire to so treat all traditions, proofs, and objections, that from my side this (juestion may be deemed closed. One of the authorities whom Mrs. Austin cites, and on whom she lays very great stress as to his importance, was so devoted a collector of Standish relics from the old Standish cellar that the young boys 32 of the time very often scattered in that place Standish relics for his benefit. Some of those boys, now old men, have told me with a chuckle, how they loved to play pranks on the venerable and guileless anti- quarian and how they enjoyed his delight in going over the same ground again and again and always with most remarkable success in finding modern Standish relics. It seems unnecessary to say more, but Mrs. Austin in her "Betty Alden" has thought it right to say about the burial place of Standish: — "In the absence of all proof in any such matter, tradition becomes important, and so far as I have been able to determine, the tradition that some of the earliest settlers were buried in the vicinity of a temporary meeting-house upon Harden Hill in Dux- bury is more reliable than the tradition that Standish was laid in an old burymg- ground at Hall's Corner, which, probably was not set aside as a burial place in 1G5G, the date of his death. That of Elder Brew- ster, concerning whose burial we have many particulars, is altogether unknown, except that it seems to have been upon Burying Hill. Perhaps that of Standish is there also, for when he says, "If I die in Duxbury I should like, etc., he may mean that if he dies in Duxbury he would fain be carried to Plymouth there to lie beside his daughters and his two little sons as well." In this attempt at an historical novel Mrs. Austin assumes all her history, and even contradicts herself, and misquotes historical documents. She assumes a meet- ing house on Harden Hill; she assumes that Standish was buried there; she as' sumes as likely that Brewster was buried in Plymouth; she says perhaps Standish is buried in Plymouth ; she assumes that his daughters are buried in Plymouth, and his two young sons. All these things she as- sumes as probable, or at least as possible. In her "Standish of Standish" she buries the Captain in Hall's Corner grave yard. She misquotes the Captain's will which reads: "And if I die att Duxborrow my body to be layed as neare as conveniently may bee to my two dear daughters, Lora Standish, my daughter, and Mary Standish, my daughter-in-law." This plainly tells whether his daughters were buried in Plymouth or not. The record of Nathaniel Morton (40 years secretary of the Colony), cited in one of the earlier chapters, states that Standish died in Duxburrow and was honorably buried in that town. Let the public judge of the value of Mrs. Austin's history. It hardly seems out of place to say that John Alden is undoubtedly buried in the same graveyard where Myles Standish lies. John Alden in his old age lived and died in the home of his son Jonathan. This son died in 1697, and his tombstone is the most perfect, as well as the oldest dated one of all the old tombstones in the old cemetery. Jonathan was without doubt buried beside his wife Abigail, who died August 17, 1725, and whose tombstone still stands in the old burying ground. The stone that marked Jonathan's grave is kept in one of the pri- vate houses in Duxbury. Now it seems al- most certain that Jonathan Alden was bur- ied near his father, who died according to some in September 1686, according to others in September 1687, and at the most only ten or eleven years before Jonathan died. John Alden, his wife Priscilla, and all the old settlers of the town lie buried in the old cemetery between Hall's and Bayley's Cor- ner's. This seems certain. Elder Brewster came to live in Duxbury and died here. Some say he is buried in Plymouth but there is no proof of this. The only argument to favor such a sup- position is that derived from the word "re- turned" where it is said in the old docu- ment that after Brewster's funeral his sons "returned" with the governor of the Col- ony to the governor's home. From this the conclusion is drawn : therefore Elder Brew- ster was buried in Plymouth because his sons and the governor after the funeral re- turned to the governor's house. There is no force in such a way of arguing. Besides, this argument forgets that the governor at that time, in 1644, had a home in Kingston, and that as the Elder died on April the 16th, it is likely Governor Bradford was at that time in his Kingston home. It would have been as appropriate to say that the two sons of Brewster, Love and Jonathan, together with Mr. Prence, Mr. Winslow, Captain Myles Standish, and Governor Bradford "returned" to the governor's house at Kingston as to his house in Ply- mouth .Jonathan Brewster at the time of his father's death lived in New London, Con- necticut. He had sold his Duxbury home to Comfort Starr in 1638, and we have seen that Starr afterwards sold it to Christopher Wadsworth. While searching in the old graveyard near Hall's Comer I discovered a grave which had been paved with ordinary stones. The stones around the edges of the siirface of the grave were placed on edge, and the inner portion paved with large and small stones. The grave had sunk so that the stones once on the surface were several inches under ground, and the roots of a cherry tree, long since cut down, had reached out ten or twelve feet and inter- netted themselves with the stones. The roots were quite large. All indications show that the grave is a very old one, one of the oldest in the graveyard. It lies between tlie Standish graves and the foundation of the first church. In so far as I can learn the 3a grave is iinifiue iu the old graveyards of Pl\ iiioiitli cokiiiy. Everything being taken into aeeount it is easily seen that the grave is that of one of the most prominent of the early settlers of the town, and is prohalily that of Elder IJrewster, or of the Mdv. Italph Partridge, the tlrbt minister, who died in 1G58. CtlAPTER XIX. It will be of interest to cite one deed in reference to the relative situation of the meeting-house in the old times. On pages 97. 98, etc., in the Book A of the Du.vbury Records, the following rec- ords are found: "We, the subscribers, selectmen of the town of Duxburough, have settled the bounds of several highways within said town as followeth, viz: Inprimis we be- gan in the Captain's Nook at the fence, which is the partition between the farms of Miles Standish and, Thomas Delano, Junr, near a red oak tree marked a little within the said Standish's land, thence running near north to two rocks about half a foot assunder near the range between Dea. Brewster and the said Delano thence on a straight line to the southerly corner of the fre>;b meadow lot of Benjamin Bartlett Junr, thence to the northwest corner of the said meadow lot, thence as the way now goes to the fence standing about fifteen feet to westward of the big- gest barn on the farm of Samuel Bartlit, Deed., thence straight to a heap of stones on a rising spot or knoll of land on the eastward side of the path that leads out of said nook, thence straight to a heap of stones nigh the corner of Israel Silvester's fence and the way now goeth up out of the nook opposite against a ditch or place L'ldled away by the rain down into Mrs. Wiswall's land, thence up to another stone pitched in the ground in sd Silvester's fence where he turns down to his house thence still upwards on a straight line to the south-westerly corner post of_ sd Sil- vester's leantoo adjoining to his barn thence on a straight line 1o a stone in his fence, viz still upward straight from the last mentioned stone still upward as sd Silvester's fence now goes till it comes to the land of Christopher Wadsworth, thence to a stone pitched in the ground which is the southeast corner V)etween the land of Christopher Wadsworth and Ben- jamin P- terson, thence on a straight line to the upward corner of the land of Chris- topher Wadsworth, viz., that corner of his land which is a little to the southward of the meeting-house." This highway was laid out 26 March, 1715, by Edward Southworth, John Simons, and John Paitrldge, selectmen. Several other highways were laid out in different parts of the town l)y the same men, and all the highways are spoken of with reference to the meeling-liouse. The Vidue of the a'jove record, and of all these records, is to show that the meeting-house of 171.") could not have been at Harden Mill nor could it have been at Mrs. Thomas Chandler's. We know where it was, but even had we not the very clear records we hive as to its site, we could determine it from these records of the highways. But the chtiirJt, the first churcli. (nhtit th/wn in 1707, and nolo to Jkiijtuiiiii Prior, irttn irith- in three or four roda of the one stamUiut in 1715. Many other records might be added but it is not necessary for our juirpose and we shall cfintcnt ourselves with giving a copy of the Captain's will. "The last will and testament of Capt. Myles Standish Gent, exhibited before the court held at Plymouth, the 4th of Maj' 1657, on the oath of Capt. James Cud- worth and ordered to be registered as fol- loweth : Given under my hand this March the 7th, 1655. Witnesseth these presents tiiat I, Myles Standish Senr., of Du.xburrow being in pfect memory yett deseased in my t)ody, and knowing the fraile estate of man ia his best estate, I do make this to bee my last will and testament in manner and form following: 1. My will is that out of my whole estate my funerall charges to be taken (tut and my body to be buried in decent maner and if I die att Duxburrow my body to be layed as neare as convenient!}- may bfc to my two dear daughters, Lora Standish. my daughter, and Mary Standish, my da'ugliter-inlaw. 2." My will is that out of the remaining pte of my whole estate tliat all my ju.st and lawful debts which I now owe or at the day of my death may owe bee paie°-i.^ -.1 -^^^^^ ; '^ 0^ "^0^ o « o - ,^^0'' ^^ 0^ ^.t... "^^ ,4> 1^ . X • "' '^ ^^^^^\ \../ .^»i^^ ^^..^^ -^s.^^ W^' ^Ao^ 'bV'' c° . ^^ --. '••* ^^ o ^* » V ^^-^^^ *^^ BOBBSBROS.'' ■ ° ' ^0 ^ LIBRARY BINDINO ST. AUGUSTINE V^^ - ;*. "": ^^y FLA. '^