PrefaceThe "Thomas Dymoke" section contains the text from "THE DIMICK FAMILY - THE DYMOKES OF ENGLAND AND SOME DESCENDANTS OF ELDER THOMAS DIMICK OF BARNSTABLE, PLYMOUTH COUNTY, compiled in 1989 by (8-25A-3) Robert S. Newton.
Though no information has been removed from Newton’s compilation, I have rearranged the presentation of the text for those who want to get right to the discussion of the emigrant Thomas Dymoke’s life in New England. The sub-headings in the text are an editorial addition to help categorize the text and do not appear in the original Newton writings.
|
IntroductionTHOMAS DEMICK, wife and family, embarked on the vessel Hopewell, at Weymouth England, 8 May 1635, destination "Mahachusulest Bay in New England", ship's master, John Driver. So show the Port Books, ref. 876/1. These records were made primarily to record export goods and duties paid. The names of passengers were not recorded unless exporting dutiable goods. (Peter Wilson Coldham, Genealogical Gleanings in England, 1618-1668, NGS Quarterly, Sept. 1983, 71:163, 164, 173, 174.) This is the earliest written record found of our immigrant ancestor. His father, Edward, has been found to be of Pinchbeck (Lincolnshire), England (Lucius B. Barbour, Family Record of Dimmock-Manley, typescript, Hartford CT State Library). By his early acceptance as a freeman and town official, and with an accompanying family, Thomas Dimick must have been a mature adult in 1635. His year of birth is estimated as about 1600.
The Tradition of Thomas Dymoke
"Now it so happens that tradition in England follows close upon tradition in America, for it has long been supposed on this side that a cadet of the Dymokes married into a Puritan family, where the ladies were usually distinguished by the names of the abstract virtues--Faith, Truth, Charity, and the like--and that either he or his son disappeared from England about the end of the 16th century, and became estranged from his family, who could not brook the puritanical proclivities of any one who bore the name of Dymoke. On the other hand, it may be contended that it would be impossible for a Dymoke at that time, when the family was closely connected with the English aristocracy, to suddenly disappear without leaving any clue to his identity. .if we can discover a good reason for designedly destroying all traces of identification, the objection loses half its force. And there, undoubtedly, was at the time a very substantial reason for such effacement. If Thomas Dymoke, who left England, as it is supposed, in company of the many bands of Puritans who sailed to America, there would have been the strongest inducement for secrecy and silence. ... in proportion to his earnestness (as a Puritan), he would be anxious to free himself for ever from the shackles that had hitherto confined his religious belief.
"Taking into consideration what has been said above, we can easily see why a man in the position of Thomas Dymoke, who was probably closely connected with the Champion of the time, should desire above all things to efface himself, and to begin his new life in his new home without the associations of his old belief and family connection... although the evidence of identity is not for the present absolute and incontrovertible, it goes far to support the contention that the descendants of the Barnstaple Elder, Thomas Dymoke, are through him connected with the family that for so many years has been settled at Scrivelsby."
In a footnote, Rev. Lodge added: "It has been conjectured that Arthur Dymoke, the youngest son of Sir Edward, had two sons, John, who is somewhat obtrusively styled his 'son and heir', and another son, Edward, whose name was purposely omitted from the family pedigree, and who was the father of the Thomas Dymoke who died at Barnstaple (MA)..." Absent another son, no purpose would have been served by the designation of John as "son and heir".
Thomas’s Reasons for EmigratingWith respect to the religious situation, Boston, a nearby English seaport in Lincolnshire, in 1607, was to be the port of embarkation for Holland of William Bradford and other Separatists (Pilgrims) fleeing religious persecution. The ship’s captain informed on them, and they were arrested and searched. Bradford because of his youth, and venerable pastor Richard Clifton, were released; but the rest of the party languished in jail for a month before being warned not to try again. (Caffey, The Mayflower 1974, p. 32.)
Thomas Dimick, our immigrant ancestor, had a specific ground for fear of religious persecution and his own freedom. He had been in London prior to 1632 a member of the First Congregational Church in that city. Rev. John Lothrop became the second pastor of that church in 1624. That church held its meetings privately in efforts to escape persecution. On 29 April 1632, however, the prosecutors discovered the church holding religious worship at the house of Humphrey Barnet. Forty-two members were apprehended,, and only eighteen escaped. Rev. Lothrop remained imprisoned until April 1634, and was then set at liberty on the condition that he depart from England. (Deane, HISTORY OF SCITUATE, MASSACHUSETTS, 1831.)
DorchesterMr. Dimocke was one of the nine selectmen chosen in Dorchester in 1635. (Blake, Dorchester, Mass. Annuals, 1846, p.13) Dorchester, MA Town Records prior to Jan. 1636 include the name of Mr. Thomas Dimocke. In early colonial days, "Mister" or "Mr." was a title of respect given only to those who held important civil office or were of gentle blood before coming to New England. "Goodman" and "goodwife" were titles applied to those who had the respect of their fellow colonists but who did not quite merit the titles "Mr." and "Mrs." (Doane, Searching for Your Ancestors, 1978, p.144). He appears to have been a man of some distinction. (Clapp, History of Dorchester, MA, 1859, pp.38, 50).
Dorchester Town Records contain the entry of 11th day of November 1635, "It is ordered that Mr. Nathaniel Duncan, Mr. Demicke, Thomas fford, and Mathew Graunt, or any two of them shall have power to lay out one hundred and fifty acres of medow to Mr. Israel Stoughton. likewise next there unto of an hundred acres of medow unto Mr. Thomas Newberry... On the 4th of January 1635 (sic), "it is ordered, that the p’tyes here under written, shall have great lotts at the bounds, betwixt Roxbury and Dorchester, betwixt the sayd bounds, and above the marsh as foll. not to enclose medows...Mr. Demicke 20 acres. [This should not be construed to mean Thomas Dimick was in Dorchester, MA prior to his arrival with his family after embarkation in England 8 May 1635.
Under the 0. S. calendar, New Years started 24 March, which means that in the calendar year 1635 0. S. the month of January followed the month of December 1635. In the N. S. calendar, Jan. 1635 would be Jan. 1636.] On 18 Feb. 1635[1636], among the names of those "which have medow graunted them", "in the fresh marsh neerest the Towne", under first marsh, Mr. Democke 2 acres. On 27 June 1636, he was named at a meeting of 12 men, "formerly chosen by the Plantation for ordering the affayres thereof". On the same date, or possibly later, "It is ordered that Mr. Demicke shall have 2 acres in the marsh next to Good-man Grenwayes." (Dorchester Town Records, NER QUARTERLY, Oct. 1867, 21:333-338, 22:48).
Thomas Dimock was among the settlers in Hingham, MA, in 1637. Joseph Hull, who will be mentioned later, had settled there in 1636. (Solomon Lincoln, History of the Town of Hingham, MA, 1827, pp. 44, 45.)
ScituateFrom Hingham, Thomas Dimick removed to Scituate in 1638 or 1639. Little is known of his stay there. Rev. Lothrop and his congregation were in Scituate, where Lothrop experienced differences between individuals, and some members of his church were excommunicated. These factors, along with the desire for more and better farming land, caused Lothrop to decide to leave Scituate for Barnstable, MA. Barnstable was then called by its Indian name, Mattakeese, variously translated as "old fields", tiplanted fields", and "worn out fields". Its stretches of salt marsh offered hay impossible to procure from forest-covered country, and essential in raising cattle. Probably Dimick went to Scituate, working in cooperation with the Plymouth authorities, for the sole purpose of promoting the move from Scituate to Barnstable.3
BarnstableThe records of the Plymouth Colony Court indicate on 1 April 1639 there were a number of settlers in Mattakeese under a grant made earlier to a Mr. Collicut of Dorchester. Under the term of the Collicut grant, Collicut was required to settle in Mattakeese. The Court on 6 May 1639, ordered "that if Mr. Collicut do come in his own person to inhabit at Mattakeeset before the General Court in June next ensuing; that then the grant shall remain firm unto them; but, if he fail to come within the time prefixed, that then their grant be made void, and the lands be otherwise disposed of." Mr. Collicut remained in Dor chester. The Court on 4 June 1639, made void the grant to him; but not to his associates who had then settled in Barnstable. Having lived in Dorchester, probably Dimick was one of the original associates of Collicut. Joseph Hull, a minister, farmer, and business man of Weymouth, MA, and Thomas Dimick appear to have been the leaders of the earliest settlers, for it was to them that a grant was made when Collicut forfeited his option. The Court on 5 Mar. 1638/9, authorized Dimick to exercise men in arms at "Barnstable", apparently the first use of this name.
Dimick is believed to have built at Barnstable in March 1639. Hull preached his last sermon at Weymouth 5 May 1639. Rev. Lothrop and his flock came later, some by land, a hard journey of 60 miles from Scituate driving live stock, and some by water; all by mid-October.2,3
Rev. Joseph Hull came to Barnstable in May 1635. Nearly all the town offices were conferred upon him and Thomas Dimick. They were the land committee, the duties of which were arduous and responsible, and required the exercise of sound judgment and discretion. No appeal from their decision was ever taken to the Colony Court. Hull built a house on a site marked by a 1939 Tercentenary tablet, where early worship and the first town meeting were held. He welcomed Rev. Lothrop and his church to Barnstable. Hull’s popularity soon waned. On 1 May 1641, he was excommunicated from the Barnstable church, for joining a group in Yarmouth, MA, as their pastor. He was received back into fellowship 10 Aug. 1643. He soon removed to Oyster River, ME, and from there to the Isle of Shoals in 1662.2 Further data on the Hull Family will be included in Part 3, Allied Families.
Dimick was admitted a freeman in Plymouth Colony 3 Dec. 1639. The Plymouth Colony Court then asked Barnstable to send two deputies. Hull and Dimick were sent. Dimick was deputy to the General Court in 1640, 1641, 1642, 1648, 1649, and 1650. In June 1640, he with Mr. Freeman of Sandwich, were constituted a court, the first established in Barnstable County, to "hear and determine all causes and controversies within the three townships, not exceeding 20s." In June 1644, Dimick was reappointed a magistrate or assistant to Mr. Freeman, the Chief Justice of the inferior court and assistant associate of the higher court.2
Barnstable Life in the 1600sEven though Barnstable had many natural factors in its favor, early life there was hard. Fishing was always an industry. Most of the settlers were farmers, and went on the water only to secure thatch and salt hay, or fish with which to fertilize their land. All able bodied persons, including women and children, labored clearing the land, raising crops, making hay and caring for stock. Frequently a wife died young, and the husband married a second and third wife. For many years, the family raised its own food, did its own carpentry and masonry, and made its shoes and clothing out of skins and wool of its own cattle and sheep. Money was short so payments were by barter, the exchange of services or commodities. Possessions, and even life, depended on the crops, which in turn were dependent on the weather. Rev. Lothrop records show a meeting on 14 June 1652, "wch should have beene a day of humiliation for want of Raine, but the Lord giveing us in mercye on the day before raine, itt was turned into a day of Thanksgiving."3
"The first settlers of Barnstable had an abundance of nutritious foods, were comfortably clothed and lodged", according to Amos Otis. Food included pork, poultry, venison,, fish, rye, barley, wheat, and Indian corn, some of which had been planted by the early comers and some brought from Scituate. Many of the men, farmers by necessity, also had a trade including tanning and shoemaking. The houses were probably hastily built before winter. Some were of the "pallizadoe" type. Samuel P. May, in his The Descendants of Richard Sares (Sears), 1890, quotes, original source not given, "such houses were built by placing sills directly upon the ground, in these, two parallel rows of holes were bored, some six inches apart, for the insertion of poles, the space between being filled in with stones and clay, openings being left for a door and windows. The roof was thatched with the long sedge-grass found in the meadows, and as a substitute for glass in the windows, oiled paper was used. The chimney was built of sticks, laid up cob-house fashion, and well daubed with clay, or mortar made from shells. A southerly slope for the house was preferred, and the back of the chimney then hallowed out of the hill-side, thus saving some labor in building. The fireplace was of stone, some eight feet wide and four feet deep, and the mantel laid so high that a tall person could walk under it by stooping a little. The oven was often built upon the outside of the house with the mouth opening in one corner, on the back side of the fireplace. The fire was built in the center, and on cold winter evenings a seat in the chimney-corner was a luxury unknown in modern times. Straw or sedge-grass served for a floor and carpet ...". They might have only one room, corresponding to the log cabins built in more heavily timbered country.
The ChurchThe church was the center of all community activities, religious, political, and social. Town meetings were held in the church buildings. Church buildings were planned large enough to seat everybody, and locations were controversial. Until a meeting house had been built, meetings were held out of doors; or, if indoors, were of necessity limited to church members. Tradition places the first meeting at "Sacrament Brook", probably conducted by Rev. Hull. Later meetings were held "att Mr. Hulls house" and at "ye end of Mr. Bursley’s", which was the same thing for the two men lived in the same house. After 1644, meetings were frequently held at Rev. Lothrop’s second house, built that year and now the front part of the Sturgis Memorial Library.
Rev. Lothrop recorded a day of thanksgiving: "Decemb 11, 1639, att Mr. Hulls house, for Gods exceeding mercye in bringing us hither Safely keeping us healthy & well in our weake beginnings & and in our church Estate. The day being very cold or praises to God in publique being ended, wee divided into 3 companies to feast together, some att Mr. Hulls, some at Mr. Maos, some att Brother Lumberds senior."3
Within the church two groups existed. The inner group, church members who had agreed to the covenant, called the minister. The larger group, the congregation including non-church members, was the society which controlled the property and the purse. The two groups had their differences.
The church records show the excommunication 4 June 1649: "Goodye Shelley (mother of Hannah) though absent for shee would not come, setting att naught ye messengers of the church sent to her, principally for slaundering of 2 systers, Syster Wells and Syster Dimmick saying syster Dimmick was proud--... The beginning of this was because uppon some occasion shee was not called to a christian meeting which some of the Systters had appointed among themselves ... "
The first church building was opposite Mr. Hull’s, just west of what became the burial ground, with the second Sabbath meeting held in the building on 1 June 1646. Presumably it was a frame building, with thatched roof, big enough to accommodate 200 or more persons.
Land OwnershipTitle to land in Barnstable, as elsewhere, was complicated. The land, granted by the King of England and his Parliament to the English company, had in turn been granted by the company to the colony. The colony then owned it, subject to its business contracts and to possible Indian rights. When the Plymouth Colony granted Mattakeese to the Barnstable settlers, the latter became its owners or "proprietors." The land remained a common possession until allotted to individuals. Records of the first division, in 1640, have been lost. Later divisions, based on proprietary rights, citizenship, and house ownership, were divided into shares, each representing a fraction of a lot, all lots theoretically of equal value. Persons or groups having the required number of shares, drew for order of choice. Land remaining common could be used by all citizens, who let their cattle and other animals roam over it.3
The Plymouth grant to Hull, Dimick and associates included lands along the Barnstable harbor and the Great Marshes. The Indians had remained the nominal owners. Soon the residents wanted more land, southward to "ye South Sea" (Nantucket Sound). In four major and several minor purchases from the Indians, substantially all the land of the present Barnstable was acquired. The total payments to the Indians was about: four coats, two small breeches, three axes, three brass kettles, a broad hoe, a day’s plowing, one dwelling house, and twenty pounds money. Ownership of the land did not mean much to the Indians, provided they could retain hunting and fishing rights, and hold small plots for their corn. These rights were reserved to them in the deeds. In the deed of the first purchase 26 Aug. 1644, ".. .Serunk Indian now Dwelling at South Sea do sell and Make Over unto ye Town of Barnstable all ye sd Lands and Meddows Lying betwixt ye bounds of Sandwich and ye bounds of Prexit another Indian in Consideration of four Coats and three axes..." Thomas Dimock was one of the witnesses to the Mark of Serunk. In the second purchase, 7 March 1647/8, Mr. Thomas Dimocke and Isaac Robinson acted in behalf of the Town.
Some fear of Indians was natural, but generally on Cape Cod without basis. Rumors of planned Indian attacks came in 1642. A council of war was chosen, headed by Gov. Bradford of Plymouth, and including Thomas Dimmock of Barnstable. Dimmock had been elected 10 Oct. 1642 lieutenant, the highest rank, of the Barnstable militia.1 He was later charged "for neglecting to exercise Barnstable men in arms"; but after hearing the Court dischared the complaint. In July 1646, he was again reelected lieutenant.2 In October 1643, a rising of the Indians against the English and Dutch raised fresh alarms. The Court then ordered Barnstable to fortify "a place or places for the defense of themselves, their wives and children, against a suddaine assault." Deacon Thomas Dimmock was included in the committee to enforce this order. The three deacons of the church, Dimmock, Cobb, and William Crocker, with the help of their neighbors, built fortification houses. The fortification house of Dimmock was on the east side of the hill just east of the present (1939) home of Mrs. E. A. Handy. The houses were about 25’ x20', a lower story of stone, and an upper story of wood overhanging the lower one, with loop holes for shooting.
The town records of 1654 describe "Imp. a grant of a great lot to Mr. Dimmock, with meadow adjoining, at a Little Running Brook at ye East End of the plantation, toward Yarmouth, which Lands is in the present possession of George Lewis, Sen'r, let and farmed out to him for some certain years by the said Mr. Dimmock." Otis pointed out that in subsequent records a tract of land between Mr. Lothrop’s great lot on the west, and Barnard Lumbert’s on the east, (now Dimmock's Lane) and bounded north by the County road, is called "Mr. Dimmock's Great Lot". On the first lot, the upland soil was fertile, and the meadows productive.1
On 7 August 1650, Thomas Dimmock was ordained Elder of the Church of Barnstable.1 Pope, in his Pioneers of MA said, p.139, Dimmock was ordained "teaching elder" on the date given.
The records do not show that Elder Thomas Dimmock held any public office after 1650. He had leased his farm in 1654, and from then until his death in 1658, probably was in poor health.
His oral will, recorded on page 75 of the Plymouth Colony Wills and Inventories: "The Last Will... Nuncupative of Mr. Thomas Dimacke of Barnstable late deceased... Anthony Annable and John Smith being with him the last Summer some smale space of time after hee ... was taken sicke they advised him to sett his house in order to which he answared that little that God had given him hee would leave to his wife for they were her Children as well as his In witnesse whereof wee have heerunto sett our hands this 4th of June 1658 The marke of Anthony Annable John Smith." (Mayflower Descendant Magazine, 1912, Vol. 14, p. 230.)
Of him Amos Otis said, in part: "Few of the settlers lived a purer life than Elder Thomas Dimmock. He came over, not to amass wealth, or acquire honor; but that he might worship his God according to the dictates of his own conscience; and that he and his posterity might here enjoy the blessings of civil and religious liberty. His duties to his God, to his country, and to his neighbor, he never forgot, never knowingly violated. In the tolerant views of his beloved pastor, the Rev. John Lothrop, he entirely coincided. If his neighbor was an Ana-Baptist or a Quaker, he did not judge him, because he held, that to be a perogative of Deity, which man had no right to assume. A man who holds to such principles, whose first and only inquiry is what does duty demand, and performs it, will rarely stray far from the Christian fold. His posterity will never ask to what sect he belonged, they will call him blessed, and only regret that their lives are not like his.
Thomas’s and Anne’s ChildrenChildren of Elder Thomas and Ann ( ) Dimick:
In a dedicatory address delivered in 1939 at the unveiling of the tablet to Elder Thomas Dimmock, Henry B. L. Dimmock stated Thomas Dimmick had nine children,, six boys and three girls. Unfortunately the speaker did not give the names of the children. (Report of Proceedings of the Tercentenary Anniversary of the Town of Barnstable, Ma., 1940, p. 50). The children of whom information has been found are:
i. Susanna, probably, married Robert Shelly.6
ii. Elizabeth, probably, who, married Knyvet Sears of Yar mouth, MA, son of Richard and Dorothy (Thacher) Sears, born 1635, died in England 1686. Knyvet is said to have gone to England as a young man in an unsuccessful attempt to recover the English possessions of the family. He made a second voyage in 1686, and died in England before he had the opportunity to present his additional proof. They had two children, Daniel and Richard Sears, who were adopted by their uncle, Paul Sears, and brought up as his children. A monument of the Sears Family in the graveyards of Yarmouth and Chatham, on the Yarmouth side, is inscribed, in part, "Sacred to the Memory of KNYVET SEARS, Eldest son of Richard Sears of Yarmouth, Born in 1635, married Elizabeth Dymoke, and died in England in 1686." (Searstan Family, 1857, Notices of the Sears Family, pp.12, 13, 18.) [Samuel P. May, in his Descendants of Richard Sares (Sears), 1890, stated he did not believe Richard Sears ever had a son Knyvet, pointing out that Richard Sears in his will referred to his elder son Paul Sares.] iii and iv. Thomas and John, twins, bur. 18 Mar. 1640/41. (Brownson, Genealogical Notes of Cape Cod Families, 1965, ms. Sturgis Mem. Lib., Barnstable, p. 211; Cutter, MA Families, 1910, vol.4, p. 2598.) iv. Timothy, bp. 12 Jan. 1639/40 Barnstable, MA., died young, buried 17 June 1640, "Timothy Sonn of Mr. Dimmick in the lower syde of the Calves pasture.", the first burial in Lothrop's records in Barnstable. v. Mehitable, bp. 18 Apr. 1642, Barnstable, MA, "daught. of Maister Dimmick." She married 30 Mar. 1662 Richard Child of Watertown, MA, and died 18 Aug. 1676. They had children: (a) Richard Child, b. 30 Mar. 1663; (b) Ephraim Child, b. 9 Oct. 1664; (c) Shubael Child, b. 19 Dec. 1665, died insane; (d) Mehitable Child; (e) Experience Child, b. 26 Feb. 1669/70; (f) Abigail Child, b. 16 June 1672, m. Joseph Lathrop of Barnstable; (g) Ebenezer, b. 10 Nov. 1674; and (h) Hannah (twin) b. 10 Nov. 1674, m. Joseph Blish of Barnstable.1,3,5 2 vi. Shubael, bp. 15 Sept. 1644, Barnstable.5
Sources:
1. Henry R. Stiles, History of Ancient Wethersfield, CT, vol.2, pp. 291-293 2 C. W. Swift, Amos Otis Papers, Genealogical Notes of Barnstable Families, rev. 188, vol. 1, pp. 328-338. 3 Donald G. Trayser, Barnstable, Three Centuries of a Cape Cod Town, printed by F. B. & F. P. Goss, Hyannis, MA, 1939, pp. 7-17, 104, 172, 173. 4. Seven Villages of Barnstable, c. 1976, Village of Barnstable, pp. 4-7, 28,29. 5. Amos Otis, Rev. Lothrop's Records of the Beginning of the Churches of Scituate and Barnstable, NER 9:279-283; 10:37-41. 6 Denise M. Milke, CT Nutmegger, 1988, pp. 359-362. |