The Untold Story of Mary Ayer Parker: Gossip and Confusion in 1692" Written by Jacqueline Kelly (copyright, 2005> History 209, An Undergraduate Course, Cornell University Spring Semester, 2003 Revised for presentation at the Berkshire Conference, June, 2005
In September1692, Mary Ayer Parker of Andover came to trial in Salem Massachusetts, suspected of witchcraft. During her examination she was asked, "How long have ye been in the snare of the devil?" She responded, "I know nothing of it." Many people confessed under the pressure of the court of Oyer and Terminer, but she asserted they had the wrong woman. "There is another woman of the same name in Andover,"1 she proclaimed. At the time, no one paid much attention. Mary Ayer Parker was convicted and hanged by the end of the month. Modern historians have let her claim fall to the wayside as well, but what if she told the truth? Was there another Mary Parker in Andover? Could it be possible that the wrong Mary Parker was executed? We know little about the Mary Parker of 1692. Other scholars presumed her case was unimportant-but perhaps that assumption was wrong. The end of her story is recorded for every generation to see, but the identity of this woman remained shrouded in mystery for over three centuries. We still don't know why she was accused in 1692. Puritan women were not particularly noteworthy to contemporary writers and record-keepers. They appeared occasionally in the court records as witnesses and plaintiffs but their roles were restricted to the house and family. Mary Parker was a typical Puritan wife. She appeared in the records only in birth notices and the records associated with the will of her late husband Nathan Parker. Notably, the records included no legal trouble at all, for witchcraft or anything else.
John and Hannah Ayer gave birth to their daughter Mary sometime in the early to mid 1600's. Mary and her siblings may have been born in England, and later moved to North America with their parents. The Ayers moved several times during the early stages of their settlement in America but resettled for the last time in 1647 in Haverhill.2
The family was apparently of some prominence. Tax records from 1646 showed that John Ayer possessed at least one hundred and sixty pounds, making him one of the wealthiest settlers in Haverhill.
Mary Ayer married Nathan Parker sometime before her father's death in 1657. Although no marriage record survived in the hometowns of either Nathan or Mary, the wording of her father John Ayer's will made it obvious that she was married with children when it was written.3 Nathan married his first wife Susanna Short on November 20, 1648.4 Within the next three years, the couple relocated to Andover, where she soon after died on August 26, 1651.5 Andover's Vital Records listed the birth of Nathan and Mary Parker's first son John in 1653.6 Nathan could have remarried and had children within the two years after the death of his first wife.
Mary and Nathan marriage was not documented but we do know Nathan and his brother Joseph settled in Newbury, Massachusetts sometime in the early 1630's. They settled in Andover where they were amongst its first settlers.7 Nathan came over from England as an indentured servant8, but eventually he became rather wealthy in Andover. The original size of his house lot was four acres but the Parker's landholdings improved significantly over the years to 213.5 acres.9 His brother Joseph, a founding member of the Church, possessed even more land than his brother, increasing his wealth as a tanner.10 By 1660, there were forty household lots in Andover, and no more were created. The early settlers, including the Parkers, would be those of importance. By 1650, Nathan began serving as a constable in Andover.11 By the time he married Mary Ayer, his status was on the rise. It continued to do so during the early years of their marriage as he acquired more land.
Mary and Nathan continued to have children for over twenty years after the birth of John Parker in 1653. Mary bore four more sons: James in 1655, Robert in 1665, Peter in 1676, and a son Joseph.12 She and Nathan also had four daughters: Mary, born in 1660 (or 1657)13, Hannah in 1659, Elizabeth in 1663, and Sara in 1670. James died on June 29, 1677, killed in an Indian skirmish at Black Point.14 Robert died in 1688 at the age of 23. Hannah married John Tyler in 1682.15 Nathan and Mary's daughter Elizabeth married John Farnum in 1684.
When Nathan died on June 25, 1685, he left an ample estate to his wife and children.16 Mary Ayer Parker brought an inventory of the estate to court in September of the same year, totaling 463 pounds and 4 shillings. The court awarded her one-third of the house and lands, equal shares to Robert, Joseph, Peter, Hannah, Elizabeth, and Sarah, and a double share to John.17 Mary Parker widow obtained an estate of over 154 pounds-a good amount of money in the late seventeenth century.
Mary Parker did not appear in Essex County records after September 29, 1685 when she brought the inventory to court. We know little about her interaction with her neighbors and the community after her husband's death. The Parkers were a respectable family that continued to root itself in the community. So why, less than a decade after her husband's death, was Mary accused as a witch? There was no documented friction with any of her neighbors, any no prior accusations. The closest tie Mary had with witchcraft was a distant cousin on her father's side, William Ayers whose his wife Judith was accused of witchcraft in 1662.18 But this was not enough to justify Mary's accusation. What really happened in 1692 to Mary Ayer Parker?
The Salem crisis had spread to Andover when William Barker Jr. named her in his confession on September 1, 1692.19 He testified that "goode Parker went w'th him last Night to Afflict Martha Sprague." He elaborated that Goody Parker "rod upon a pole & was baptized at 5 Mile pond," a common reference to a union made with the devil. The examination of Mary Parker occurred the next day. At the examination, afflicted girls from both Salem and Andover fell into fits when her name was spoken. The girls included Mary Warren, Sarah Churchill, Hannah Post, Sara Bridges, and Mercy Wardwell. The records state that when Mary came before the justices, the girls were cured of their fits by her touch-the satisfactory result of the commonly used "touch test," signifying a witch's guilt. When Mary denied being the witch they were after Martha Sprague, one of her accusers, quickly responded that is was for certain this Mary Parker, who had afflicted her. Sprague and Mary Lacy effectively fell into fits. Historian Mary Beth Norton discovered that Mary Parker was related to Sprague; she was Sprague's step-great-aunt.21 Mary Parker's son-in-law John Tyler's father Moses Tyler had married Martha's mother.22 Martha also lived in Andover, and the Tylers and the Parkers were friendly for sometime before their families were joined in marriage.23 Still, it was a distant relation and Martha was only sixteen years old at the time of the trial, so it is doubtful she knew Mary Parker personally. Nevertheless, Mary Parker's defense was ignored, both by the courtroom, and most historians until now. However, Mary Ayer Parker told the truth: there was another Mary Parker living in Andover. In fact there were not one, but three other Mary Parkers in Andover. One was Mary Ayer's sister-in-law, Mary Stevens Parker, wife of Nathan's brother Joseph. The second was Joseph and Mary's daughter Mary. The third was the wife of Mary and Joseph's son, Stephen. Mary Marstone Parker married Stephen in 1680.24 To complicate things even further, there was yet another Mary Parker living nearby in Salem Towne. Confusion could easily have arisen from the multitude of Mary Parkers abound in Essex County. However, similarities between Mary Ayer Parker and her sister-in-law may have instigated confusion in even her accusers. The two Mary's married the Parker brothers by the late 1640's, and began having children in the early 1650's. They had children of the same name including sons named Joseph and daughters Mary and Sara (Mary, daughter of Nathan and Mary may have died soon after her father 25). Nathan and Mary Parker's son James, born in 1655, and Joseph and Mary Parker's son John born in 1656, died on June 29, 1677, killed by the Indians at Black Point.26 In 1692, both Mary Parker Sr.'s were reasonably wealthy widows. Joseph's wife received their house and ample land from his will, dated November 4, 1678.27 The two women shared almost fifty years of family ties. But in September of 1692, it was only Nathan Parker's wife who was accused, tried, and found guilty of witchcraft. Why was Mary Ayer brought to trial? On the surface, the two Mary Parkers seemed almost interchangeable but the will of Joseph Parker revealed something important about his branch of the Parker family.
More at: http://salem.lib.virginia.edu/people?group.num=all&mbio.num=mb42
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~ayergenealogy/salemwitchcraft.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Parker
In September1692, Mary Ayer Parker of Andover came to trial in Salem Massachusetts, suspected of witchcraft. During her examination she was asked, "How long have ye been in the snare of the devil?" She responded, "I know nothing of it." Many people confessed under the pressure of the court of Oyer and Terminer, but she asserted they had the wrong woman. "There is another woman of the same name in Andover,"1 she proclaimed. At the time, no one paid much attention. Mary Ayer Parker was convicted and hanged by the end of the month. Modern historians have let her claim fall to the wayside as well, but what if she told the truth? Was there another Mary Parker in Andover? Could it be possible that the wrong Mary Parker was executed? We know little about the Mary Parker of 1692. Other scholars presumed her case was unimportant-but perhaps that assumption was wrong. The end of her story is recorded for every generation to see, but the identity of this woman remained shrouded in mystery for over three centuries. We still don't know why she was accused in 1692. Puritan women were not particularly noteworthy to contemporary writers and record-keepers. They appeared occasionally in the court records as witnesses and plaintiffs but their roles were restricted to the house and family. Mary Parker was a typical Puritan wife. She appeared in the records only in birth notices and the records associated with the will of her late husband Nathan Parker. Notably, the records included no legal trouble at all, for witchcraft or anything else.
John and Hannah Ayer gave birth to their daughter Mary sometime in the early to mid 1600's. Mary and her siblings may have been born in England, and later moved to North America with their parents. The Ayers moved several times during the early stages of their settlement in America but resettled for the last time in 1647 in Haverhill.2
The family was apparently of some prominence. Tax records from 1646 showed that John Ayer possessed at least one hundred and sixty pounds, making him one of the wealthiest settlers in Haverhill.
Mary Ayer married Nathan Parker sometime before her father's death in 1657. Although no marriage record survived in the hometowns of either Nathan or Mary, the wording of her father John Ayer's will made it obvious that she was married with children when it was written.3 Nathan married his first wife Susanna Short on November 20, 1648.4 Within the next three years, the couple relocated to Andover, where she soon after died on August 26, 1651.5 Andover's Vital Records listed the birth of Nathan and Mary Parker's first son John in 1653.6 Nathan could have remarried and had children within the two years after the death of his first wife.
Mary and Nathan marriage was not documented but we do know Nathan and his brother Joseph settled in Newbury, Massachusetts sometime in the early 1630's. They settled in Andover where they were amongst its first settlers.7 Nathan came over from England as an indentured servant8, but eventually he became rather wealthy in Andover. The original size of his house lot was four acres but the Parker's landholdings improved significantly over the years to 213.5 acres.9 His brother Joseph, a founding member of the Church, possessed even more land than his brother, increasing his wealth as a tanner.10 By 1660, there were forty household lots in Andover, and no more were created. The early settlers, including the Parkers, would be those of importance. By 1650, Nathan began serving as a constable in Andover.11 By the time he married Mary Ayer, his status was on the rise. It continued to do so during the early years of their marriage as he acquired more land.
Mary and Nathan continued to have children for over twenty years after the birth of John Parker in 1653. Mary bore four more sons: James in 1655, Robert in 1665, Peter in 1676, and a son Joseph.12 She and Nathan also had four daughters: Mary, born in 1660 (or 1657)13, Hannah in 1659, Elizabeth in 1663, and Sara in 1670. James died on June 29, 1677, killed in an Indian skirmish at Black Point.14 Robert died in 1688 at the age of 23. Hannah married John Tyler in 1682.15 Nathan and Mary's daughter Elizabeth married John Farnum in 1684.
When Nathan died on June 25, 1685, he left an ample estate to his wife and children.16 Mary Ayer Parker brought an inventory of the estate to court in September of the same year, totaling 463 pounds and 4 shillings. The court awarded her one-third of the house and lands, equal shares to Robert, Joseph, Peter, Hannah, Elizabeth, and Sarah, and a double share to John.17 Mary Parker widow obtained an estate of over 154 pounds-a good amount of money in the late seventeenth century.
Mary Parker did not appear in Essex County records after September 29, 1685 when she brought the inventory to court. We know little about her interaction with her neighbors and the community after her husband's death. The Parkers were a respectable family that continued to root itself in the community. So why, less than a decade after her husband's death, was Mary accused as a witch? There was no documented friction with any of her neighbors, any no prior accusations. The closest tie Mary had with witchcraft was a distant cousin on her father's side, William Ayers whose his wife Judith was accused of witchcraft in 1662.18 But this was not enough to justify Mary's accusation. What really happened in 1692 to Mary Ayer Parker?
The Salem crisis had spread to Andover when William Barker Jr. named her in his confession on September 1, 1692.19 He testified that "goode Parker went w'th him last Night to Afflict Martha Sprague." He elaborated that Goody Parker "rod upon a pole & was baptized at 5 Mile pond," a common reference to a union made with the devil. The examination of Mary Parker occurred the next day. At the examination, afflicted girls from both Salem and Andover fell into fits when her name was spoken. The girls included Mary Warren, Sarah Churchill, Hannah Post, Sara Bridges, and Mercy Wardwell. The records state that when Mary came before the justices, the girls were cured of their fits by her touch-the satisfactory result of the commonly used "touch test," signifying a witch's guilt. When Mary denied being the witch they were after Martha Sprague, one of her accusers, quickly responded that is was for certain this Mary Parker, who had afflicted her. Sprague and Mary Lacy effectively fell into fits. Historian Mary Beth Norton discovered that Mary Parker was related to Sprague; she was Sprague's step-great-aunt.21 Mary Parker's son-in-law John Tyler's father Moses Tyler had married Martha's mother.22 Martha also lived in Andover, and the Tylers and the Parkers were friendly for sometime before their families were joined in marriage.23 Still, it was a distant relation and Martha was only sixteen years old at the time of the trial, so it is doubtful she knew Mary Parker personally. Nevertheless, Mary Parker's defense was ignored, both by the courtroom, and most historians until now. However, Mary Ayer Parker told the truth: there was another Mary Parker living in Andover. In fact there were not one, but three other Mary Parkers in Andover. One was Mary Ayer's sister-in-law, Mary Stevens Parker, wife of Nathan's brother Joseph. The second was Joseph and Mary's daughter Mary. The third was the wife of Mary and Joseph's son, Stephen. Mary Marstone Parker married Stephen in 1680.24 To complicate things even further, there was yet another Mary Parker living nearby in Salem Towne. Confusion could easily have arisen from the multitude of Mary Parkers abound in Essex County. However, similarities between Mary Ayer Parker and her sister-in-law may have instigated confusion in even her accusers. The two Mary's married the Parker brothers by the late 1640's, and began having children in the early 1650's. They had children of the same name including sons named Joseph and daughters Mary and Sara (Mary, daughter of Nathan and Mary may have died soon after her father 25). Nathan and Mary Parker's son James, born in 1655, and Joseph and Mary Parker's son John born in 1656, died on June 29, 1677, killed by the Indians at Black Point.26 In 1692, both Mary Parker Sr.'s were reasonably wealthy widows. Joseph's wife received their house and ample land from his will, dated November 4, 1678.27 The two women shared almost fifty years of family ties. But in September of 1692, it was only Nathan Parker's wife who was accused, tried, and found guilty of witchcraft. Why was Mary Ayer brought to trial? On the surface, the two Mary Parkers seemed almost interchangeable but the will of Joseph Parker revealed something important about his branch of the Parker family.
More at: http://salem.lib.virginia.edu/people?group.num=all&mbio.num=mb42
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~ayergenealogy/salemwitchcraft.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Parker
"FROM WHERE AND WHENCE THEY
CAME....."
Salem Witches
The Salem Witch Trials of 1692 have been a subject of fascination and conjecture for a long time.
Theories abound as to what could have caused this hysteria. Everything from bad grain, an unstated
conflict between the original settlers and those that followed and even the Indian skirmishes of the
time have been blamed to varying degrees. It is not my intent here to advocate any particular theory.
But rather, I'd like to share with you my family's connection to these events, and perhaps point you
to some resources that you might find interesting.
Before I get into that, however, it is interesting to note that even though we refer to these events as
the Salem Witch Trials, most of those accused of witchcraft were, in fact, not from Salem, MA.
The judicial body that oversaw the trials, The Court of Oyer (to Hear) and Terminor (to
Determine), was seated in Salem and this is where the trials took place.But more people from
Andover, MA were accused of witchcraft than from any other town. In fact, nearly 80% of
Andover families in 1692 would eventually be touched by the hysteria in some fashion.
The Frye family was no different. We can connect ourselves to two of those accused; one of whom
was hanged. What follows is a synopsis of their cases:
Eunice (Potter) Frye
Eunice Potter Frye was the wife of John Frye. John was one of the sons of the original settler, John
2/15/2014 The Salem Witch Trials Connection
http://masonroots.com/salemwitch.html 2/5
Ffrie. Technically, this makes Eunice Potter Frye the wife of my 7th great granduncle (boy, this
stuff gets confusing!). She was 51 years old in 1692 when she was accused. The transcript of her
case reads as follows:
Eunice frie wife of John frie of Andov'r in the County of Essex being Indicted by the Jurors of our Soveraigne
Lord and Lady the King and Queen upon their oathes by Two Severall Indictm'ts That is to Say 1'st For that
shee the said Eunice frie the wife of John frie of Andov'r in the County of Essex aforesaid about two yeares agoe
in the towne of Andover afores'd wickedly felloniously & Malitiously, A Covenant with the Devill did make, and
Signed the Devills book and gave up her Selfe Soul and body to the Devil and by him was baptized and
renounced her former baptizme & God & Jesus Christ By which wicked and diabolicall Coven't with the Devil
made by her Eunice frie she is become a Damnable Witch against the peace of our Sover'n Lord & Lady the
King & Queen their Crowne & dignity and the laws in that case made and provided.
2'dly For that she the s'd Enice frie the wife of John frie of Andov'r in the County of Essex, On or about the
begining of September last in the year 1692 aforesaid and Divers other dayes and times as well #[well] before
and after Certaine Detestable arts called witchcrafts and Sorceries wickedly Malitiously and feloniously hath
used practised and Exercised at & in the Towne of Salem in the County of Essex afores'd upon and against one
Martha Sprague alias Martha Tyler by w'ch wicked Arts the said Martha Sprague alias Tyler the day and yeare
afores'd & divers other dayes and tymes as well before as after was & is Tortured af licted Tormented
Consumed pined and wasted against the peace of our Soveraign Lord & Lady the King & Queen their Crowne
and Dignity and against the Lawes in that case made and provided.
Upon the aforesaid Indictm'ts and each of them the said Eunice frie was then and there before the justices of our
Lord & Lady the King and Queen afores'd Arraigned and upon her Arraignm't She did then and there the day
and year abovesaid plead to them and each of them not Guilty and put her Selfe upon triall by God and her
Countrey. A Jury being called Tho: Burnam foreman and accordingly Sworne no exception being made by the
prisoner the said Indictm'ts and each of them being read together with Evidences & Examinations and the
prisoners defence being heard the jury went out to agree on their verdict who returning did then and there in
open Court deliver their verdict That the said Eunice frie was not Guilty of the fellony by Witchcraft for which
she stood Indicted in & by the said Indictm'ts and each of them
The Court Ordered Enice frie aforesaid To be Discharged Paying her fees
But, even though Eunice Potter Frye was found Not Guilty, it wasn't until after she had spent 15
weeks in jail and her freedom came with a price. In those days, families had to pay costs associated
with jailing. In many cases, this meant having to give up land or other goods in order to gain the
freedom of relatives, even after they were found Not Guilty. It cost John Frye 100 pounds to have
his wife released from jail on December 20, 1692. Her Not Guilty verdict was not handed down
until May of 1693
Mary (Ayer)Parker
Q: How long have ye been in the snare of the devil?
A: I know nothing of it
The second connection we have to the Salem Witch hysteria is the case of Mary Ayer Parker. She
2/15/2014 The Salem Witch Trials Connection
http://masonroots.com/salemwitch.html 3/5
was the mother in law of Benjamin Frye, another son of the original settler, John Ffrie. Mary was
directly accused by Mercy Wardwell, Samuel Wardwell's daughter, and by William Barker of
"having joined in torturing a certain Timothy Swan with iron spindles, pins, and other instruments,
thus causing his death on February 2, 1692."
Timothy Swan apparently was resposnible for charging many of his neighbors with witchcraft. His
gravestone is the only known grave of anyone who was an 'accuser' during this time. The stone is in
the Old Burying Ground In North Andover, MA.
The inscription reads,
"Timothy Swan
Died February ye 2 1692/3
& in ye 30 year of His Age."
Much of the evidence in these trials was 'spectral evience', meaning there was no tangible,
physical evidence of wrongdoing. Rather the actions and reactions of "the afflicted ones" was
often enough to seal the fate of an accussed witch.
One of the most diabolical schemes of the witch trials was the Andover Touch test, held on
September 7, 1692. Several of those accused of witchcraft were forced to touch the "afflicted"
ones. Among the afflicted ones were young girls who would writhe and cry out claiming they
were under the curse of a witch. Mary Parker was one of those accused of witchcraft that was
led into the trap of the touch test. She "came before the justices, she recovered all of the
afflicted out of their fits by the touch of her hand."
Mary Parker was found guilty of witchcraft on September 9, 1692. On September 22, she was
hanged on Gallows Hill in Salem, along with seven others. This was the last time anyone was
killed for witchcraft in Salem.
It was about two weeks later that Massachusetts governor Phips ordered that spectral
evidence no longer be used in the proceedings. After Mary Parker's execution, an officer was
sent by the sheriff to seize her property to meet the cost of her imprisonment and hanging.
When her sons protested that she had no assets, the officer carried off their cattle, corn, and
hay; and they were obliged to make a trip to Salem and spend a considerable sum in order to
2/15/2014 The Salem Witch Trials Connection
http://masonroots.com/salemwitch.html 4/5
keep their own household effects from being sold. Her sons, John and Joseph petitioned the
governor for relief from having to pay to have their property returned. The transcript of this
petition is an interesting look into the past. These men had agreed to a sun om six pounds to
have their property returned out of fear of losing their estate completely, and now were
asking the governor if the agreed upon sum might have been too high:
To his Excellency the Governor, and Councill and Representatives; now sitting in Boston
the humble Petition of John Parker, & Joseph Parker of Andover sheweth,
That whereas our mother mary Parker of Andover, was apprehended upon suspition of witchcraft, and being
brought to a tryall at Salem Court, was condemned: since her death the sherrif of Essex sent an of icer to
seise on her estate. The said of icer required us in their majestyes name to give him an Account of our
mothers estate, pretending it was forfeited to the King; we told him that our mother left no estate; (which we
are able to make appear) notwithstanding which, he seised upon our cattell, Corn & hay, to a considerable
value; and ordered us to go down to Salem and make an agreement with the sherrife, otherwise the estate
would be exposed to sale. We not knowing what advantage the Law might give him against us, and fearing
we should sustain greater Damage by the loss of our Estate, went to the sherrif accordingly, who told us he
might take away all that was seised. if he pleased, but was willing to do us a kindness by giveing us an
oppertunity to redeem it. He at first demanded ten pounds of us, but at length was willing to take Six pounds,
which he has obliged us by Bill to pay him within a moneth. Now if our Mother had left any Estate, we know
not of any Law in force in this Province, by which it should be forfeited upon her condemnation; much less
can we understand that there is any Justice or reason, for the sherrif to seise upon our Estate And tho it is
true our own act has obliged us to pay him a Summ of money, yet we declare that we were drawn to it partly
by the of icers great pretences of Law for what he did, partly to prevent the loss of our estate which we feard
would be immediately sold.
How we humbly pray this Hon'red Court to consider our case, and if it be judged that so much money ought
not to have been demanded of us, upon the forementioned account: we pray that we may be discharged from
that obligation, which the sherrif , taking advantage of our ignorance hath brough us under And yo'r
Petition'rs as in duty bound shall ever pray &c --
Dated at Andov'r 7'th Novemb'r 1692
John Parker
Joseph Parker
Today, there is a memorial in Salem to those that were killed in the witch hysteria of 1692.
And while, personally, I find most of the "attractions" in Salem to be hokey and extremely
commercialized, this memorial and the adjacent burial ground are fascinating. The memorial
consists of a small walkway surrounded by a stone wall. Built in to the stone wall are stone
benches, each carved with the name of one of those killed along with the date of their death.
Here is a photo of the bench for Mary Parker:
2/15/2014 The Salem Witch Trials Connection
http://masonroots.com/salemwitch.html 5/5
There is a bevy of significant research that has been done on the Salem Witch Trials and
there is a good bit of it online. Here are some links that you might find interesting:
17th Century Colonial New England - This site is run by Margo Burns and contains a ton of
information on the 17th century. And in a unique twist, it was Margo's parents that
introduced my parents to each other!
The University of Virginia has a good collection of original documents and transcriptions
online relating to the Salem Witch Trials
E-mail me
https://familysearch.org/photos/documents/12511539?returnLabel=Mary%20Ayer%20(LHQT-JCM)&returnUrl=https%3A%2F%2Ffamilysearch.org%2Ftree%2F%23view%3Dancestor%26person%3DLHQT-JCM%26section%3Dmemories
Salem Witchcraft Trials
The Ayers were involved with one of the greatest tragedies / mistakes in early New England - The Salem Witchcraft Trials."From June through September of 1692, nineteen men and women, all having been convicted of witchcraft, were carted to Gallows Hill, a barren slope near Salem Village, for hanging. Another man of over eighty years was pressed to death under heavy stones for refusing to submit to a trial on witchcraft charges. Hundreds of others faced accusations of witchcraft. Dozens languished in jail for months without trials. Then, almost as soon as it had begun, the hysteria that swept through Puritan Massachusetts ended.Why did this travesty of justice occur? Why did it occur in Salem? Nothing about this tragedy was inevitable. Only an unfortunate combination of an ongoing frontier war, economic conditions, congregational strife, teenage boredom, and personal jealousies can account for the spiraling accusations, trials, and executions that occurred in the spring and summer of 1692."The first member of the Ayer family to discsus is Mary Ayer, daughter to John and Hannah, married Nathanial Parker. Mary (Ayer) Parker was accused of witchcraft in 1692. Mary Parker refused to confess during the witchcraft trials saying, "I know nothing of it, there is another woman of the same name in Andover." She was refering to her sister-in-law, Mary Parker, the aged and senile widow of Joseph Parker" [ref Woodward, Records of Salem Witchcraft, 2:163-154]On September 17, 1692 Margaret Scott, Wilmott Redd, Samuel Wardwell, Mary Parker, Abigail Faulkner, Rebecca Eames, Mary Lacy, Ann Foster, and Abigail Hobbs were tried and condemned.On September 22, 1692 Martha Corey, Margaret Scott, Mary Easty, Alice Parker, Ann Pudeator, Wilmott Redd, Samuel Wardwell, and Mary Parker were hanged.Mary (Ayer) Parker was buried in an unmarked grave, somewhere in Salem Massachusetts.Mary (Ayer) Parker memorial stone at the Salem Witchcraft Trials Memorial in Salem MAAnother member of the Ayer Family (by marriage) was Francis Hutchins - mother-in-law to Thomas Ayer (son of John and Hannah). Thomas married Elizabeth Hutchins (daughter of John and Francis Hutchins) in 1656.Francis Hutchins was arrested on the 19th August 1692 as a result of a witchcraft complaint filed by Timothy Swan, Ann Putnam, Jr., and Mary Walcott. She was imprisoned until the 21st December 1692 when she was released on bond. No trial records were found. Samuel Hutchins and John Kingsbury posted the bond.Warrant for Arrest of Frances Hutchins and Ruth Wilford"Essex/ To the Constable of Haverhill
Complaint being made to me this day, by Timothy Swan of Andover: & Mary Wallcott & Anna Putnam of Salem Village, Against Mrs: frances Hutchins & Ruth Willford, of Haverhill that the s'd frances Hutchins & Ruth Willford, hath sorely afflicted them, the s'd Timothy Swan Mary Walcott & Anna Putnam in their bodies, by witchcraft Severall times Contrary to the Peace of o'r: Sovereigne Lord & Lady King William & Queen Mary, of England &c: & to their Majests Law in that Case provided: & s'd Timothy Swan having according to Law, given sufficient bond, to Prosecute s'd Complaint, before Their Majests: justices of Peace att Salem the 19th: or 20th Instant. These therefore require you in their Majests. names to Apprehend & sease the bodies of the afores'd frances Hutchins & Ruth Willford, upon sight hereof, & them safely Convey to [to] Salem afores'd, to their Majests: justices of the Peace there, to be examined & proceeded with according to law: for which this shall be yo'r warrant: Given under my hand & seal this eighteenth day of August Anno Domini 1692: In the 4th year of their Majests. Reigne. &c
*Dudley Bradstreet
Justice of Peace(Reverse) according to this warrant I have seesed and brought don mrs frances huchins: but sought with Diligenc for Ruth Wilford and she cannot be found
August 19: 1692
by Me Wilum Strlin Constbl for haverihill"(Note: Ruth Wilford was taken into custody on August 20, 1692.)In a seperate case, Francis was in court in 1653. Around 1650 the General Court had passed a law prohibiting the display of finery by persons "of meane condition" defined as persons whose property was valued under £200. Francis was arrested on 17 September 1653 for wearing a silk hood, as was her friend, Mrs. Joseph Swett. Francis Hutchins was acquitted because she had been brought up above the ordinary rank, while Mrs. Swett was found guilty and had to pay ten shillings.The record does include a deed registered by Francis Hutchins in 1686:"To all christian people to whom these presents may come, on the north side of Merrimack in the county of Essex sendeth greetings":"Know ye that I above said Francis Huthcins as well for and in consideration of the natural love that I do owe and bear to my beloved son Joseph Hutchins of Haverhill abovesaid as also in consideration of divers articles hereafter mentioned to be done and truly performed unto me during my natural life, etc." - confirms to Joseph "all my land that is lying between the land of Thomas Ayers of Haverhill and a creek commonly known by the name of Merries Creek with all my houseing barn and outhouseing except 20 acres already laid out to my son Benjamin excepting also about three acres given to my son Samuel by the Rivers side adjoining to said Creek" reserves ten acres for her own use the east side of the dwelling house and the cellar under it and the chamber over it, also the benefit of the orchard.
She gives him the Spickett meadow and three acres in Policy meadow - - is to receive ten pounds per annum, in the first week in December, in wheat rye and Indian corn, one third each, and firewood winter and summer.Dated 21st november 1686 in the 2nd year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord, James ye second.Signed Francis Huthcins
mark & seal
Witnesses
Robert Ford
Mary Ford"Francis Hutchins deeded 10 acres to Johannah (Corliss) Hutchins on 25 December 1686, she died on 5 April 1694.Will of Francis Hutchins is as follows:"The last will and testament of Francis Hutchins of Haverhill in perfect memory and understanding but sensable of my drawing nigh the day of my death:Do in the first place bequeath my soul to God and my body to decent burial and after my just debts being paid to will my estate as followeth and in the - -First place I do will to my son William Hutchins one common right having his portion sufficient already this being in full.2ndly I do will to my two daughters Elizabeth and Love my wearing apparel both lining and woolen.3dly I do will to my daughter in law Johannah Hutchins my mortar and pestal.4thly I do will to my son Benjamin the great brass kettle and one common right.5thly I do will to my son Samuel the table board and the frame and great cubbard.6thly I do will to my son joseph, his children viz: John, Francis, Mary, Samuel, Joseph twelve acres of land adjoining to the land which I have given to their mother at the west end of my land adjoining to the land of Samuel Hutchins.7thly I do will to my son Joseph Hutchins deceased his children one common right.8thly I do will to my daughters Elizabeth and Love and to my two sons Samuel and Benjamin all the rest of my estate of what nature and kind soever to be equally divided amongst them all that is to say the said four.9thly If any of my above children shall lay any claim to any of my husband's lands or other estate of my husbands or mine by verture of any former promise not given under hand in writing shall forfeit their right unto what is bequeathed and willed unto him or them except five shillings which I do will to any such person and no more provided he or they shall endeavor to make out any such claim by law.To this will I do constitute and appoint my son samuel Hutchins and my son in law Samuel Sherburn executors - the words common right was interlined as to my son Benjamin, before assinging and hearunto I have set my hand this fourth day in March in the year of our Lord, one thousand six hundred and ninety-four.Francis Hutchins
Robert Ford
Josiah Gage
Before Honorable Bartholemew Gedney, Exquire, May 16, 1694.Robert Ford and Josiah Gage made oath that they were present and saw Mrs. Francis Hutchins sign this Instrument and heard her declare it to be her last will and testament and that she was then of a disposing mind to my best deserning.
Stephan Sewall (Registrar)"** I am aware of "typos" in the quoted sections. These have been transcribed from the original sources**Thanks to Willis Brown of whom contributed the Will and Warrant trascriptions, as well as his great research and insite!
Email me at jansona@hotmail.com for further information, questions, or data requests
She's one of my ancestors!
ReplyDeleteI just found out today that she is one of my ancestors too. I also have several other connections, through the Fryes, the Nurses, and the Clarks.
ReplyDeleteShe is my 8x Great Grandmother.
ReplyDelete