An Inheritance of Ghosts

Samuel Mattocks and Constance Fairbanks

Posted in Constance (Fairbanks) Mattocks, Constance Fairbanks, Samuel Mattocks by Gregg Mattocks on 31 January 2009

Samuel Mattocks [1024]

Father: James Mattocks [2048]

Mother: Mary [Spoore?] [2049]

Mattocks Family Heritage entry

Constance Fairbanks [1025]

Father: Richard Fairbanks [2050]

Mother: Elizabeth [Daulton?] [2051]

Mattocks Family Heritage entry


Samuel Mattocks [1024], according to the Mattocks Memorial Package (1989), was born about 1625 to 1630 in England.  John and Walter Mattocks (1885) erroneously reported that he was born at Boston, Suffolk County, Massachusetts.  Samuel was married, 30: 1: 53 [30 March 1653], at Boston, by Wm Hibbins, to Constance Fairbanks [1025].  Constance was baptized “10th day, 11th month, 1635” [10 January 1636], the daughter of Richard and Elizabeth ([Daulton?]) Fairbanks.

A confusing series of land transactions was recorded about the time of Samuel’s marriage.  On 25 April 1653, Samuel’s father James Mattocks is said to have purchased a house and land from Samuel Barnes, a solicitor who was returning to England.  James deeded this property over to his son Samuel Mattocks on 27 April 1653.  The property was allegedly deeded back to James on the same date.  “The reason for doing this is not certain but it is believed the former owner had specified a business restriction until the property had changed hands three times.”  Alfred W. Little, in his study on the Mattocks family, stated that, on 27 July 1653, James “was deeded from the Samuel Barnes estate a house, buildings, land, and a wharf facing the sea.”  The same day James deeded to son Samuel and his wife Constance “a house, buildings, land and wharf in Boston, with shop lately built, adjoining to the west land of said James Mattock; facing the sea.”  I have not had the opportunity to peruse the Suffolk County Deed Book where these transactions are said to have been recorded.  The similarity of transactions and of dates leads me to believe that the transactions have been confused.  It seems likely that Samuel’s father would have provided Samuel and his new bride with a home.  Constance’s parents may have even insisted upon the gift as a condition of the marriage.  Charles Henry Pope claimed that James gave this property to his son.  The description of the property sold by Samuel and Constance Mattocks in 1678 matches exactly with the tract described by Little as having been deeded to them in 1653.

An inventory of the estate of Mr. Elkanah Gladman of Suffolk County, Massachusetts, taken 23 November 1664, recorded from Elkanah’s “Book” that Samuel Mattox owed a debt to Elkanah.

Samuel was bequeathed 20 shillings in the will of his father James Mattocks, dated 21 January 1666 (with codicil of 28 January 1666) and proved 1 August 1667.  In his will, James stipulated that “Inasmuch as my Children respectively have had portions of my estate, if any or either of my Children Do make any Sute, Demand, to the trouble & vexation of my wife, for any part of my estate in land, goods or debts otherwise then according to this my Will, That then either of them so Doing shall clearly loose such legacy by me given, & that my bequeath to him or her shall be clearly void as if the same had never been to him or her given or made.”

Samuel followed his father in the occupation of cooper.  Appeals for regulation were made by the coopers of Massachusetts Bay colony on 27 May 1668.

In answer to the petition of seuerall coopers, inhabitants of Boston & Charls Toune, the Court, hauing considered this petition, & also pervsed the lawe about caske & coopers, and finding the lawes haue prouided for rectifying many of the evills here mentioned, see not reason to determine any thing further at present, but doe order & appoint Capt Wm Dauis, Capt Thomas Lake, Mr Jno Richards, Mr Laurenc Hammond, & Mr James Russell to be a comittee for the ends desired, or any three of them, whereof Capt Dauis to be one, & to appoint time & place, & call for any of the coopers to advise wth them, presenting their apphencons wt they judg meet to be donn to the next sessions of this Court.

In 1669, a Town Meeting appointed Samuel as one of two Culler of Staves.

On 19 May 1669, the Colony enacted further laws regulating the production of cooper’s pipestaves.

Whereas the law, title Pipe Staues, page 64, prouides only for pipe staues for tite cask, & that hogshead staues & barrell staues, both of white & red oake, as well as pipe staues, are frequently transported & traffiqued in payments, it is ordered by this Court & the authority thereof, that all hogshead staues shall bee in length three foote two ynches or vpwards, not exceeding three foote fowre ynches, & all barrell staues shall bee in length thirty one ynches, all well & euen hewed or dressed, sufficiently for vse, as for pipe staues is expressed, whether of white or red oake; and all headings for pipe staues, of any sort, to bee in length twenty eight ynches, & for hogsheads & barrells sutable to the cask to bee made thereof, & that it bee inserted in the oath appointed for uiewers of pipe staues, page 88, any thing in the aforesajd law to the contrary notwithstanding.

Know all men by these prsents that I John Andrews of Boston Cooper haue for the Consideracon of Six thousand Merchantable barrell timber sold Vnto thomas Summers of the Same place Marriner a certayne boat Now Lieing in the Mill Creeke in Boston with all the appurtenances to the Said boate in any wise appertayning which Said boat the Said Thomas Summers formerly Sould Vnto the Said John Andrews In Witness whereof I haue heerevnto Set to my hand & seale this Second Day of December 1670

Sealed & deliuered in the

presence of John Starr John  A  Andrews
His Marke
& a seale

Indorsed:  Know all whome these may Conserne that I Thomas Summers Sometymes resident in Boston marriner doe assigne make ouer & deliuer the boat heerein Mentioned to samuell Mattock of boston aforesaid for hee the Said Mattock to Vse possesse & Injoy the same for the propper vse & beehoofe of him & his heirs & Assignes as Wittnese my hand this fourth Day of January 1670

Wittnese Tho: Summers
Edw. Richmond Sworne before mee Richard
Samuell Browne Parker Comissionr 26. 6. 1671
Edward Richmond &
Samuell Browne
testifie to the truth of this.

Recorded & compared 1st: 7br: 7i p ffreeGrace Bendall Cler.

At a meeting of the Selectmen, Samuel was again appointed as a Culler of Staves for the years 1671/2 to 1691/2.  In 1672/3, a Town Meeting concurred in appointing Samuel as a Culler of Staves.

On 28 January 1672/3, the Suffolk County Court presented “Samuell Mattock . . . for Idleness & neglecting his Family of which hee was convict in Court.  The Court Sentenceth him to bee sent to the house of correction for an idle person & to pay Fees of Court.”

In 1675, Samuel’s name appeared as one of ninety petitioners to the General Court of Massachusetts asking for the removal of the Narragansett Indians from the Colony.

To the Right Honoble the Governor Depty Govr Magistrates & Deputyes now assembled in the Generall Court February ye 22 1675.

Honoured Srs we are not Ignorant of yor Ernest and Solicitous Endeavours to have prevented the sad providences that have befalne us by this present Warr: the great Loss that this poore Country have sustained both in the Lives and Estates of many worthy persons, but also in those that are in Captivity under the Heathen, which Doubtless doth Lye Heavy upon yor Spirits as well as ours: And will without the imediate hand of God worke for us: and some Speedy meanes be used by yorselves prove the ruine of us all: And therefore we (as part) freemen and other inhabitants being in the same Danger and Hazard doe presume now to propound to yor Honors these Consideracons following Leaveing you to ye guidance and direction of the All wise God begging of him that you may have supplyes of Wisdome from above: to conclude matters so as may be for the greatest peace & safety of this poore people in this day of our Callamity.

First. Whether it may not be convenient in this Juncture of time to nominate and appoint three or foure meet persons to give Commissions to all partyes that are or shall be sent out with power to give Comissions or Coppyes to such as the Councell of Warr in the field shall thinke meet: with power to act and doe in all things relateing to this present Warr according as the Emergency of the occasion shall require; without farther order.

2. That our Frontiere townes be sufficiently Garrisoned to defend them from the rage of the Enimie.

3. That there be a sufficient army speedyly sent forth and divided into two or three partyes with order to follow the Indians wheresoevr they can heare of them and be able to reach them.

4. That Due incouragemt be given to all such persons as shall be willing to adventure their Lives for the suppressing of the Enimye. And that this be accomplished with all Expedition: For if seed time and planting time be prevented or obstructed we shall be in great Hazard of a Famin.

5. That some Effectual and Speedy Course may be taken for the preventing of the Narragansets possessing their country or returning thither, in regard it is Judged they may have store of Corne there hidd in secret places which the English have not yet found: But if they had no corne there, that is such a place for shell fish and other as is not the like in all these parts: And if God by his providence doe not bring them Low before planting time, many of our men will unavoideably be destroyed & their Habitations Laid in Ashes:

6. That some speedy Course be taken for the removall of those Indians that dwell in and amongst our Plantations to some place farther remote from us.

7. That plowing and sowing be furthered by mutual agreemt of People in Each towneship togather and that they helpe Each other: and have a guard about them untill Each Lott be improved.

8. That unimproved Lands in perticular proprietyes that Lye freer from the danger of the Enimy be planted and sowne by those that are driven from their habitations for the supplye of them selves and Comon Benefitt.

We desire our Loveing friends to present these Consideracons to the Honoble Generall Court.

From 1676 to 1679, Constance Mattocks was recorded as an innkeeper and liquor-seller at Boston.  It appears that she had previously worked in this occupation, as a 1676 Suffolk County Court recorded that “Constance Mattox . . . had her licence renewed to keepe a Cookes Shop & sell beere & Sider by retaile . . . & her husband Samll Mattox gave in bond Sureties for her observance of the laws . . . & that Shee should not sell Sider for more than two pence a quart.”

In a 1678 suit against Samuel Mattock, the Suffolk County Court found that Samuel should pay the plaintiff “three pounds Sixteen Shillings & six pence to be paid in money and Six thite barrells.”

On 20 December 1678, Samuel and Constance deeded their Boston shop land and wharf to Edward Budd.

This Indenture made the twentieth day of December Anno. Domi. One thousand Six hundred Seventy and Eight And in the thyrtieth yeare of the Reign of King Charles the Second over England &c. Between Samuel Mattox of Boston in the Colony of the Massachusetts in New England Cooper & Constant his wife on the one part: And Edward Budd of Boston aforesđ. Carver on the other part Witnesseth that the sd. Samuel Mattox and Constant his wife for and in consideration of a valuable Sume of lawfull money of New England to them in hand pd. at & before the Ensealing hereof, wherewith they do hereby acknowledge themselves to bee fully Satisfied and paid Have demised granted Set and to ffarme lett, and by these presents doe demise grant Set and to ffarme lett unto the sd. Edward Budd his heires Execrs. Admrs. and Assignes all that theire Shop Land and wharfe scituate lying and being in Boston aforesd. neare unto the draw bridge, being butted and bounded Northerly by the Streete that Leads to the sd. draw Bridge, Easterly by the land of the Widdow Mattox, Southerly by the Sea, Westerly by the land now in the tenure and occupation of Katharin Naylor or her Assignes measuring in breadth at the front Eighteen foote and an halfe with the flatts that adjoin to and lye next before the sd. demised premisses to the Seaward or Low water marke, together with all profits priviledges rights & Appurtenances whatsoever to the sd. demised premisses belonging or in any wise Appertaining To Have and to hold the sd. Shop Land & wharfe and fflats with all other the abovedemised premisses and theire Appurtenances and every part and parcell unto the sd. Edward Budd his heires Execrs. Admrs. and Assignes from the Eight day of ffebruary next insuing the day of the date hereof for and during the full term of the naturall lives of the sd. Samuel Mattox and Constant his wife and the life of the Survivor. of them. And the sd. Samuel Mattox & Constant his wife do hereby Covenant promiss and grant to & with the sd. Edward Budd his Execrs. Admrs. and assignes in manner following (that is to Say) That the sd. Edward Budd his heires Execrs. Admrs. and assignes shall and may by virtue of these presents lawfully peaceably and quietly have hold use occupy possess and enjoy the above demised premisses with theire Appurtenances during the full term of the naturall lives of the sd. Samuel Mattox and Constant his wife and the life of the Survivor. of them without any manner of Lett Sute trouble molestation or disturbance of the sd. Samuel Mattox and Constant his wife or either of them or of any other person or persons whatsoever claiming by from or under them or by theire or either of theire meanes consent title or procurement. And also that what Wharfeing or houseing soever the sd. Edwd. Budd his heires Execrs. admrs. or assignes shall make erect Set down or build upon the sd. wharfe Land and fflatts (besides what is already buil’t) within the sd. term, that hee the sd. Edward Budd his heires Execrs. Admrs. and Assignes shall have liberty and hereby hath liberty to remove float and carry away the same for his and theire own proper use at the end and expiration of the aforesd. term. In Witness whereof the sd. Samuel Mattox and Constant his wife have hereunto Set theire hands and Seales the day and yeare first abovewritten.

Samuel Mattocke Constant Mattocke
& a Seale Appendt. & a Seale Appendt.
Signed Sealed & Deliud. in Samuel Mattock and Constant his wife
the presence of us. acknowledged this Instrumt. to bee
Isaac Cousens. theire act and deed: Januro. 22:
John Hayward Scr. 1678. Before me
Edward Tyng Asst.
Entred 24o: Januro. 1678. p. Isa: Addington Cler

In the will of his mother Mary Mattocks, dated 8 January 1680/1 and proved 11 April 1682, Samuel was bequeathed land for his life.  He was also named in the will as executor of his mother’s estate.

Samuel was mentioned in a County Court case held 27 June 1682.

Richard Knott, plt:, agst: Job Tookey, deft:, in an action etc. acco: to atachmt: dated 24 March 168½: withdrawne. The writ was issued by Moses Mavericke Esq. per curiam for the town of Marblehead and directed to the constable of Marblehead. The return on the back of the writ was made by Elias Henly, constable of Marblehead, who declared that for want of security he had delivered the body of Job Tookie to Benjamin Felton, Goale keeper of Salem. It seems that an agreement had been made between Knott and Tookey (the latter then of Boston) 21 February 1681, under which the defendant was bound to go in the service of the said Knott on a fishing account for seven months, in consideration of which time and service was to be paid the sum of forty shillings per month in fish as money and was to be found in meat, drink, washing and other necessaries for a fishing voyage, as lines, hooks, lead &c. And the said Knot agreed to pay Samuel Mattocks of Boston the sum of thirty-seven shillings and Mr. Wintworth of Great Island in Pascataqua river seven pounds per order and agreement with said Tookey.

From the evidence of Nicholas Puckett it would appear that when Tookie and he took some ballast aboard Dr. Knott’s Ketch the hatches being open “Tookie” ran to a hogshead of rum that stood in the Hold and tooke out the bounge, took the steme of an Indian tobaco pipe which was like a read and drank out of the bounge of the Hoggh soe terrible that in a short tyme hee was uncapeable for to doe any bisiness.

June the 23th: 82 Doctor Knott came to Goodm:Feltons house for a Coppy of ye Attachment I hearing his Tongue (may it please ye honored Court) callid unto him & desired him to send me my shirt & Drawers Whereupon he came to Goodm:ffeltons back Door rayling and reuiling at me most sadly calling of Rogue and Sirrah telling of me he had better at home to wipe his shoes then euer my father was for he said he was an Annybaptisticall Quakeing Rogue that for his maintainence went up & down England to delude soules for ye Diuell wch is no small Greife to me, to Thinke that he has not Onilye abused me in keeping of me in clos Prison almost this fourteen weekes but abuse him whom he neuer knew but was well knowne to be a religuous Godly man by seuerall good Godly people here in New England; likewise his Library wch I brought ouer to This Country Proues him (may it please ye honourd Court) not to be neither Quaker nor Anny baptist. Wch ye Reuerend Mr Madder of Boston & ye Worshipf Mr Danford of Cambridge are Sensible of besides a great many Scollers of Cambridge wch bought seuerall of ye Bookes pertaining to my fathers Library. . .

More about the mishaps of Job Tookie, and his relation to Dr.  Richard Knott, can be found in a petition made by Tookie to the Essex County, Massachusetts, Court.

May it please The Honourd Court

I beseech your honours To take this sad miserable and deplorable Condition I am now in; into your honours considerations: in considering in the first place of my Education & bringing up wch was to learning (my great grand father was a Doctor of Divinitye in London in Queen Elizabeths Tyme & Deceased there; my Grandfather was Minester of St Iues (well known by ye honoured Gouernr Broadstreet as his honour told me himselfe)  And likewise by Major Pembleton of Winter hauen* now Deceased)  My father (may it please ye honoured Court) and Mr William Bridge Preached Twelve yeares together in ye new Church of Great Yarmouth  I being his Eldest son he did Intend I should have been a minister  And in my Thirteenth yeare of Age sent me to Emanuel Collidge in Cambridge it being ye same Colledge he himselfe was brought up in:  But ye prouidence of God ordered it so The Tymes altering; I had been there but a fortnight before my father sent for me home and asked me if I was willing to goe to London to be an Apprentice;  My answer was That I was willing to Submitt to his pleasure whereupon he sent me to London & I was Bound an Apprentice to a Whole Sale Grocer in Cheapside; But I had nott been an Apprentice much aboue a yeare before ye Chiefest part of ye Citty was Burnt; my Master sustaining therby so great a Losse as he did by reason his Owne house he liued in & all his Goods and likewise seuerall other houses he had rented out in ye Citty Broke; and was not able to sett up his Trade againe; Wherupon I being uery young desired my father if he pleased That he would giue his Consent that I might goe to Sea; Which request of myne (may it please ye honourd Court) he Consented unto; And bound me an Apprentice for Three yeares to Capt Samll Scarlett of Boston to serue to ye Sea; Which Tyme I truly served as is well knowne by seuerall of Boston; now ye Debt (may it please ye honoured Court) wch Doctor Knott sayes he has Engaged to pay in my behalfe I did not owe it through any Extrauegance but Through ye Prouidence of God having been taken twice and cast away Once since I came out of England; And now lately I accidentally cutt all ye Sinews of my right hand: through wch means I was forced to lye lame upwards of six months not being able to use one of my fingers in six months Tyme; That what ye Doctor had for ye Cure of my hand ye Charges I was att for Washing Lodging & Diet it being in so deere a place as it was in Piscataqua River besides the Losse of my Tyme; brought me thus behinde hand; And Therfore I humbly desire your honours to Commiserate my pour & Distressed Condition I am now in; being a Stranger to your honours and likewise to this Towne hauing layn here almost fourteen Weekes in Close prison; The Lord knowing that there is no one knowes what here I haue suffered since I came in here hauing not now halfe ye strength I had when I came first in here; The Lord knows when I shall recouer my strength againe (but my trust I hope is still in him) besides ye Losse of my most pretious Tyme wch can neuer be recalled againe  In wch Tyme (may it please ye honoured Court) I might haue paid Mr Wentworth of Piscataqua his Debt but haue maliciousley been Debarred from it; & kept here by a Writched malicious man falsely wch I question not but your Honours plainlye sees it.

Your honours Poor and humble Declarant and Petionr Who prayes for yor honours health happinesse and Prosperitye in this Lyfe and in ye World to come lyfe Euerlasting

So prays Your honours humble Petitioner & Seruant


A list of inhabitants of Boston was made in a valuation compiled in 1687.  The list may well have been ordered from neighbor to neighbor, as it was originally written down.  Thus, we find:

  • Mary Lake, widow
  • Thomas Child (2)
  • Ralph Carter (2)
  • Robert Johnson
  • Samuel Nanney
  • Samuel Mattocks, Sen’r
  • Samuel Mattocks, Jun’r
  • Thomas Bishop
  • Ann Checkley, widow
  • Capt. William Wright (2)
  • John Coney, Sen’r (2)
  • Matthew Gross

It would seem from the above list that Samuel was living near his son Samuel and his brother-in-law Thomas Bishop.

Samuel was apparently living in 1691/2, as family historian Alfred Little reported that Samuel was a Culler of Staves in that year.  According to the Mattocks Memorial Package, Samuel died in 1695, probably at Boston.  Family historian Carl Mattocks wrote that Samuel died after 1695.  The Memorial Package speculated that Samuel was buried at Copps Ancient Burial Grounds in Boston, but published records do not support this assertion.

Constance did not appear on a 1714 list of “Inholders or Taverners and of the Retailers without Doors in Boston.”  A Thomas Webber was listed as an innholder, and he may have been the son-in-law of Samuel and Constance, and come into possession of their inn.

A will for a Constance Mattocks apparently is on file with Suffolk County.

Children of Samuel and Constance (Fairbanks) Mattocks:

+    1024.1.  Samuel [512], born 15 October 1659.

+    1024.2.  Elizabeth, born in 1661.

+    1024.3.  James, born 26 November [or perhaps 27 October] 1662.

+    1024.4.  Constance, born 17 September 1665.

+    1024.5.  Zaccheus, born in 1668.

+    1024.6.  John, born 24 September 1669.

+    1024.7.  Elizabeth, born 21 August 1670.

+    1024.8.  Mehitabel, born 7 or 17 November 1672.

+    1024.9.  Mary, born 13 November 1673.

+    1024.10.  Fairbanke, born 11 February 1675/6.