The Indians had received their land from the town of Dorchester with the distinct understanding that they were not to sell it The colony had passed a statute in 1633, making null and void all sales and conveyances of land from the Indians. The substance of this Act was re-enacted by the General Court in 1701, which declared that whereas "sundry persons for lucre have presumed to make purchases of land, all such sales, leases, etc., shall be null and void, and the purchaser thereof shall be punished with fine or imprisonment unless the approbation of the General Court has been first obtained." In spite of this Act, the early settlers of our town squatted on the Indian land. The Indians began to give, and the English, "who had thrust themselves among them," to receive leases, on long terms, of the land lying in the Ponkapoag Plantation. These transactions coming to the knowledge of the General Court, it declared that such of the inhabitants as claimed to hold by leases from the Indians since 1700 were illegal and unjust intruders ; that divers indigent, profligate persons had "insinuated" themselves upon the Indians, and obtained their leases and grants by fraud, without the knowledge and approbation of the government, and contrary to law and order. It ordered that they forthwith should be ejected, unless within sixty days they submitted their leases for the inspection of the Governor and Council, who might grant new leases of equal extent and value outside the reservation, the money to be applied for the support of the Indians. A committee was appointed to make inquiry into the alleged encroachments, and report. John Leverett, Inspector, in his report, said that in the plantation at Ponkapoag there were a number of English settlements upon leases taken from the Indians. He informed the Governor that, about three years before, he went to Ponkapoag, and sent for the most considerable English inhabitants, and demanded by what right they had built upon and improved the lands in that plantation. Then they showed him their leases; upon which he asked them if they were ignorant of [ the law of the colony of 1633. They pleaded their ignorance of such law, and prayed that they might not be ruined through their want of knowledge. It would appear from the diary of Judge Sewall that he was present at Deacon Swift's, at Milton, when Mr. Leverett, on April 9, 1706, "discoursed " about the intruders at Ponkapoag.

The settlers, it seems, were not much terrified by Mr. Leverett's visit, for they sent no word to him, nor did they apply to him for a proper remedy; but undoubtedly considering that their title was not to be questioned, they went on improving the land, and inviting others to join them. Mr. Leverett, hearing of this, went, with Mr. Swift, and desired the English inhabitants to meet him at Pecunit, and told them that if within six weeks he did not hear from them, they should hear from him in a manner little agreeable to them. This tone and language produced the desired effect; and the settlers prayed that they might not be severely dealt with, after they had built houses and redeemed the land from the wilderness. 

The holders of these leases, some of whom were the first settlers of Canton, were summoned to appear before the Continental Court, to be holden in Boston on the 18th of August, 1706.

The following are their names, - Jonathan Badcock, Henry Bailey, John Davenport, Gilbert Endicott, Benjamin Esty, John Esty, Moses Gill, Abraham How, John Jordan, Thomas Kelton, Nathaniel Lyon, Peter Lyon, Elias Monk, Samuel Pitcher, Capt. Robert Spurr, Joseph Tucker, John Wentworth, John Wentworth, Jr., James Worth.

The court did not deal harshly with the lessees. They postponed the matter until the fall session, directing the English tenants to make no improvements in the mean time, either by cultivating the soil or by erecting buildings.

The court again appointed a committee to examine into the alleged encroachments, and report. A petition from the Indians themselves was received, begging that their English neighbors - who had been very kind to them, and to whom they had leased their land - might not be disturbed in the quiet possession of it. The Indians represented that they had enjoyed their land under the protection of Dorchester for about fifty years; that in time of war the town had assisted them by sending soldiers to protect them, and otherwise interested itself in their welfare and comfort. They also stated that they had hired out some of their land to their English neighbors, because they had more than they or their children could or would improve, and that these leases were given by the consent of the town of Dorchester, and the advice of "the Hon. Mr. Stoton." They prayed that they might still hold their land from Dorchester as formerly, and that their English neighbors might continue undisturbed with them.

Nov. 20, 1706, the House of Representatives, finding that the tribe of Indians at "Puncapaog" derived their title from Dorchester, and having been informed that the town had voted to allow them the liberty of their leases taken from the Indians so long as the Indians lived upon the said lands, ordered "that the leases be allowed, but that no more be made without the consent of Dorchester; and in case the tribe become extinct, the land should revert to the town of Dorchester."

All parties agreeing that Dorchester was to manage the matter, the town voted in 1706 to appoint a committee to attend to affairs at Ponkapoag, and decide all matters of difference that might arise between the English and the Indians; and they were empowered to go to law upon any question that could not be settled amicably, if they saw fit. It is probable that their duties were more arduous than would at first appear; for undoubtedly the trouble was that some of the English inhabitants not only occupied the lands belonging to the Indians, of which they held leases, but that they claimed more than was ever leased to them. Others, again, promptly refused to pay the rent that had been agreed upon ; and some, indeed, suffered from the imputation of having obtained their leases in the first place by fraud and deceit. The Indians faithfully promised the town that they would not let or lease any more of their lands; neither would they allow any saw-mills, or mills of any kind, to be set up on any of their streams, nor sell their timber without the consent of the committee appointed by the town; and in 1708 they renewed their promise, at the same time thanking the town for its care of them and their interests, in settling the boundaries between them and their white neighbors.

The list of lessees before mentioned does not contain the names of all who held leases from the Indians. Certain it is that Charles Redman was a lessee of the Indian land, and probably had erected a house before his daughter Thankful was born. He "cut and mowed the grass in the meadow belonging to him" as early as 1703. His lease is dated March 1, 1704-5. The land was set down at one hundred acres, but in all probability exceeded that amount. It was bounded southerly by Ponkapoag Brook, easterly by the Braintree line, northerly by the Ponkapoag line, and westerly by the highway that passes through Ponkapoag. For this land he paid a yearly rent of £3 1s., money of New England. This lease was transferred to John Harcey, of Milton, on the 11th of May, 1715, and again transferred to Redman, Dec. 19, 1720. Robert Redman, of Dorchester, who died in 1678, was the father of Charles, who was born Aug. 16, 1666. He was a soldier in Capt. John Withington's company, that marched to Canada in 1690; he married, Feb. 10, 1688, Martha Hill, and left sons, Robert and John, and daughters, Mary, Martha, Mercy, and Thankful. His house stood about eighteen rods northwest of the present residence of Henry L. Pierce. For the subsequent history of this farm, the reader is referred to "The History of the Redman Farm," compiled by Ellis Ames, and published in 1870.

The following is, as far as I have been able to collate, an account of those first settlers who held leases from the Indians.

Jonathan Badcock was born in Dorchester in 1652. His lease from the Indians is dated Feb. 27, 1705. He received service of a writ at Ponkapoag, Aug. 18, 1706, and is presumed to have removed to Connecticut in 1709.

Henry Bailey seems to have assigned his lease on Nov. 24, 1703; it was to run one hundred and ninety-eight years. The names of his parents are unknown ; but he had a brother Edward, who resided in the town of Ringwood, County of Hampshire, England, where he pursued the calling of a clothier, and died about 1706, leaving children, Richard, Henry, and Frances.

The first-mentioned Henry, one of the first settlers, died Nov. 12, 1717. His will was proved Nov. 25, 1717. He is styled weaver ; his will provides - "a comfortable support out of my estate for my wife, while she shall remain my widow; my son Edward, sole executor, to enjoy the land and buildings I have already given him. I give to him all my movable estate, my. cattle, horses, swine, and all my tools ; also if my cousin Henry Bailey don't come over and live here and carry on the farm according to my honest intent and expectation, then I give that land on the southeast side of Beaver Brook to my son Edward. I also order my son Edward to give my cousin Henry Bailey two good cows, when he shall be ready to settle on his land, which I have formerly deeded, and a house or the use of an house, till he can get one of his own. I also give the half of the land to the eastward to my son Edward Bailey, and all my other estate not mentioned in this will; and all my common rights in land I give to my son Edward.

"I give to my daughter, Elizabeth Wentworth, the one half of my land at the eastward of her, and twenty shillings in money, which shall be paid to her within one year and a day after my decease, which shall be in full because she hath already received her portion.

"Furthermore, if my cousin Henry Bailey should come over and settle upon the land I have given him, and die without heirs, then the land shall fall to my son Edward and to his heirs ; and if both my son Edward and my cousin Henry shall die without heirs, then all my land which I have given to them shall fall to, and be settled upon, the first male person of my father Bailey's family that I sprang from in old England, that shall come over and abide and settle here, and behave himself.

"Sept. 3, 1716."

Joseph Esty and Joseph Esty, Jr., were the witnesses; and Joseph Esty, Joseph Hewins, and Isaac Stearns, were the appraisers.

The following is a copy of a letter written to Henry Bailey, of England, referred to in the will.

Dorchester, near Boston, Oct. 24, 1715.

To Henry Baily, living in the town of Ringwood, in Hampshire in old England:

Loving Cousin Henry Baily,— These lines are from your affectionate uncle. Henry Daily, who is, through the goodness and mercy of God, yet living in the town of Dorchester, near Boston, in New England ; and although the Providence of God hath cast me a great way off from my native country, yet I would not forget my native land nor my relations in old England. The Lord hath been very good and gracious to me, and hath taken care of me and my family, and we are all this present in tolerable health, — land my wife and my son Edward (though not married) and my daughter Elizebeth, who is married and hath three children ; and although the Lord hath spared my life hitherto, yet I now grow into years, and I think it time to set my house in order and to dispose of that estate which God hath given to me in this world, by will. I have therefore of late made my will ; and whereas I should be very glad to see you here in New England, so for your encouragement, if you see fit to come over and so settle here with us, I will bestow one-third part of my lands, and cattle and buildings upon you. If yourself cannot come over and settle with us. then I desire that your brother, Richard Baily, should come over and I will be helpful to him also. ... If you come over yourself, or Cousin Richard, and are not able to pay your passage. I will pay it, rather you or he should not come over.

                                                                                                                                Your loving and affectionate Uncle,

                                                                                                                                Henry Baily.

Before Henry died, he conveyed to his son Edward - who was born May 14, 1690, and died June 11, 1766, one of the original founders of the first church - his home farm that he purchased of Mr. Robinson. This was in the "Twelve Divisions;" it was bounded on the north by the Ponkapoag Reservation line : east and southeast, by Beaver Brook. A portion of the same farm is now owned by Frank M. Bird on Bolivar Street. The present stone house, built by Wales Withington, succeeds one torn down in 1833, which was the successor of the original house, burned in 1756.

The English Richard, referred to in the foregoing letter, came from the old home in Hampshire in 1716; he was the son of Edward and Mary, and was born about 1693. He married for his first wife Esther, daughter of James and Abigail (Newton) Puffer. He resided at Packeen, nearly opposite Pecunit Street. He was absent in the service in 1746. In 1758 he represented the town in the General Court. The gravestones of himself and first wife are still standing forty feet apart in the old cemetery, and bear the following inscriptions: —

        "In memory of Mr Richard Baily who died Nov 22^d 1777 in the 84 year of his age."

        ' In memory of Mrs Esther y^e wife of Mr Richard Baily who died Ocf ye 5'h 1745, in ye 46th year of her age.^"

John Davenport appears as a lessee on the Indian land, May 30, 1705, in connection with Peter Lyon. There is no evidence that he ever resided on his land. He was a Milton man, and lived in the old house in the rear of the mansion of Isaac Davenport, which was occupied by Samuel, father of Nance, until his death, Dec. 6, 1793. John died there in 1725. His son John was born in 1695, and purchased his estate from Jonathan Puffer in 1717. The house, situated down the lane running easterly on Cherry Hill, has ever since been owned and occupied by the Davenport family. Tradition asserts that the Indians greatly helped in the building of this house. It probably was erected about 1711, for that year Jonathan Puffer was "allowed liberty to get one load of clapboards and two loads of cedar bolts from the common swamps."

Gilbert Endicott, says Savage, was born in Dorchester in 1658. This is disputed by later antiquaries. He appears to have been in some military service for the colony of Massachusetts, July 24, 1676. His name afterward appears in 1677, when he received a grant of land in Maine upon condition that he should build a house within one year, and should not desert the place unless he leaves an occupant upon it. Again he is seen in 1681 at Kennebunk. In 1682 he is the owner of a mill at Cape Porpus. His name is found in Dorchester in 1690, and at Reading in 1696, where his son James was born. He undoubtedly came from Maine to avoid the trouble from the Indians; and he was a resident and had built a house in Canton in 1700. His lease is dated Feb. 27, 1704-5. He received one hundred acres of land, for which he agreed to pay yearly the value of £4 in pepper-corn; and the lease was to run for two hundred years. He was also possessed of land in Sharon, which was bounded easterly by Massapoag Brook, and westerly by the road leading to Billings' tavern. He seems to have obtained by mistake a plat of thirty-five acres, which the Indians had granted to Rev. Mr. Morse in 1710; and his son erected a house upon the land. It is probable that he retained the land, and that another piece was granted to Morse in 1726.

Gilbert Endicott left two sons, John and James. His widow Hannah was married to John Minot, Nov. 14, 1717. He was the first person buried in the Canton Cemetery, and his gravestone is the most ancient in town. It bears this inscription :

Here Lyes The

Body of

GILBURT INDICOTT

Aged 58 Years

Died Octo^{r ye}

18th 1716.

Abraham How was probably the son of Abraham How, of Dorchester. I have no reason to believe that he remained in Canton any length of time, although he was here in 1706. His lease was dated Dec. 3, 1703.

Benjamin Esty was probably the son of Joseph and Jane Esty, of Dorchester. He received his lease on March 23, 1704, for two hundred years, in connection with Moses Gill, who was his uncle. He was in Sharon in 1727, and probably died in 1750. He had a brother Joseph who obtained land belonging to the Indians, which he sold to his son Joseph, Jr., in 1712.

John Jordan appears to have remained on the land he had leased March 14, 1704. In 1716 he occupied a house on the York road, and was then designated as "the old man." In his will he ordered forty shillings to buy a vessel for " y^e Lords table" for the use of the church; and a flagon was in due time presented. He died March 9, 1728. The extent of the land covered by his lease was five hundred acres, and it was to run two hundred years.

Thomas Kelton died before the 18th of August, 1706. Elias Monk is first seen in Dorchester in 1690. That year a company of soldiers was raised to embark in the expedition to Canada, and in a list of those under Captain Withington appears Elias Moonke. He married for his first wife Hope; and on the town records of Dorchester appear the births of his children, — George, Christopher, Freelove, Abigail, and Elizabeth. Between the years 1696 and 1711 he must have had also a son Elias; and his daughter Mary, who married Deacon Joseph Mason, of Watertown, must have been born in 1691. Elias was one of the supervisors of highways in 1703. How early he came to this town we cannot say; but "Monk's Meadow" is mentioned before 1700. In 1704 he was residing in Canton, for Edward Pitcher says that "he saw Charles Redman and Elias Monk bring two loads of hay from Beaver Meadow, in Pecunit, about the time that Joseph Tucker lost his hay; that it was carried into Redman's yard and there unloaded." His lease is dated March 14, 1704-5. His land consisted of two hundred acres, for which he was to pay £6 a year for two hundred and nineteen years. He married for his second wife Abigail, widow of James Puffer. In 1726 he conveyed twenty acres of land to Elias, Jr., his son, which was sold by the latter to Samuel Spare in 1739. He also conveyed to Shubael Wentworth, who was here in 1719, twenty acres of land on Green Lodge Street. In 1727 Elias and his sons, Elias and George, were assessed. He sold one hundred and twenty acres of his property to Joseph Billings in 1729, and removed to Ponkapoag Village. He died May 29, 1743.

Samuel Pitcher was probably the son of Nathaniel Pitcher. He was a lame man and kept a tavern at Milton in 1712. He obtained his dismissal from Milton Church, with which he had been connected, and applied for admission to the church at Stoughton, 1717. "Our aged brother, Samuel Pitcher, was looked upon as one of the foundation of the church, but was not able to be present at the ordination." Before action could be taken upon admitting him as a member of Mr. Morse's church, he died, Nov. 23, 1717.

Capt. Robert Spurr was a Dorchester man. In 1726 he was appointed by that town with others " to take care of the land which, in common with other lands, was granted in y^e year 1637 to y^e Town of Dorchester,, and in ye year 1720 confirmed by ye General Court." During the trial of Rev. Joseph Morse in 1723 he appears to have been residing at Dorchester. He was not here in 1706, when he received his lease, and we have no evidence that he ever lived in Canton. He was a distinguished man in Dorchester, — the proprietor of a tavern on Spurr's, since known as Codman's, Hill, where he died in 1739. His son Thomas came to Canton.

Joseph Tucker, the son of Joseph Tucker, one of the garrison at the fort in Ponkapoag in 1675, was born at Milton, Jan. II, 1679. In 1703 he purchased land in the "Twelve Divisions," in what is now South Canton on Washington Street. He took from the Indians, on the northerly side, a lease of the land on the east side of Washington Street, extending from the Massapoag House to beyond the residence of Charles Endicott. He ran the old saw-mill, cultivated his farm, and kept an inn. As early as 1711 he was appointed surveyor of highways. With his first wife, Judith Clapp. to whom he was married May 27, 1701, he joined Mr. Morse's church, June 29, 1717. For his second wife he married, Nov. 3, 1730, Mary Jordan, who died Dec. 14, 1738, aged sixty-three. He was a prominent man in the affairs of church and town, holding at one time the office of deacon, and was the first town clerk of ancient Stoughton.

Deacon Tucker, like the rest of mankind, had his troubles. In 1742 the gossips declared that he had been "overcome and disguised with drink," and that this had happened in a very public manner, and that his associate and companion at the time was no less a person than Parson Dunbar. Of course, in those days such matters could only be settled by the church; and on the 10th of September Deacon Tucker made a speech to the church-members in which he strongly denied the charge. He attributed his behavior, which he owned was like that of a drunken man, to an injury he received by the stumbling of his horse; but after the witnesses had given their testimony, he confessed that the last time he went to Boston he took many "drams," besides some "mixed drinks," and he might have taken more than he was aware of. I he church continued him in communion, but deprived him of the office of deacon.

Sept. 20, 1742, he married for his third wife Susanna, daughter of Robert and Rebecca (Crehore) Pelton, who survived him, and married for her second husband Richard Stickney, who died May 24, 1769.

This woman was a connecting link between the first settlers and the present century. In 1801 the Widow Stickney stated that she was ninety-five years of age. She was then living in a poor and leaky house on. a site between the present Crane schoolhouse and the Vulcan engine-house. She only received annually ten bushels of corn and one ton of English hay, and had a right-to get firewood out of her wood-lot, and apples out of her orchard for family use, the whole of which would not equal fifty dollars a year. She had maintained an excellent character for many years. Jonathan Leonard thought it was a disgrace to any civilized society that one so aged and helpless should be suffering from cold and hunger, and did all in his power to alleviate her sufferings. She died March 11, 1803, in the ninety-seventh year of her age, just one hundred and twenty-seven years after her first husband was born.

Deacon Tucker passed from earth in due time. The following inscription on his gravestone in the old cemetery styles him "Deacon," but Mr. Dunbar's records read, "once a deacon of this church."

Here lie the remains of

DEACON JOSEPH TUCKER,

Who died September, y^{e 25th 1745,}

in y^{e 66th year of his age.}

John Wentworth, one of the first settlers of the town, appears to have been appointed constable in 1714, and died about 1716. His house was situated on Burr Lane. He was the ancestor of a numerous posterity, many of whom remain in town. He left York, in Maine, on account of difficulty with the Indians, sometime between 1690 and 1700.

It is a touching incident in our local history that the emigrants, driven from the place of their first settlement in the Province of Maine, should have named the new place of their residence "York," and that this name should have been applied to a part of our town from that time to the present.

Moses Gill received his lease from the Indians, March 23, 1705. His wife was an Esty, sister to Benjamin and Joseph. He in all probability died before 1716, as that year his farm was divided between his sons, Moses and Benjamin, - the latter taking all east of a certain line running parallel to Pleasant Street, and the former all west of the same line, with a right of way out. His dwelling-house was standing in 1716.

Benjamin Esty appears to have been a brother of Joseph. They were both signers of the original covenant at the formation of the church. He appears to have had some relations with Moses Gill, since the lease of two hundred acres was received by Moses Gill, Benjamin and John Esty. Of the latter I know nothing. Benjamin's first wife, Elizabeth, died July 18, 1713. He married Mary Holland, Dec. 13, 1716. He died March 18, 1752, aged eighty-two. He removed to Sharon before 1727.

The following names of some of the early settlers in Canton appear in a list entitled, "Residents of Dorchester who had reached the age of twenty-one years, up to 1700:" Henry Bailey, Henry Crane, Ebenezer Clapp, John Davenport, Gilbert Endicott, Abraham How, Timothy Jones, Peter Lyon, Nathaniel Lyon, Ebenezer Mosely, Robert Pelton, Joshua Pomeroy, Robert Redman, William Royall, Isaac Royall, John Tolman, Edward Wiatt. 

The ease with which the early settlers had acquired a foothold on the Indian land was the cause of ill-feeling among outsiders. In 1712, six years after the first settlers had seen, to their dismay, the sheriff ride among them with his summonses to court, it was said to be notoriously apparent that several persons and families of her Majesty's English subjects had entered upon and possessed themselves of' "the land , called Puncapaug," which for many years had been appropriated as an Indian village, and reserved by law for that purpose; and that "these persons are building fences and improving the land." We are not aware that any action was taken to restore the Indians to their just rights; but "the Honorable, the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel to the Indians in New England and parts adjacent in America," intimated that if the matter were taken in hand and pushed, I they would bear a portion of the expense. The town of Dorchester became alarmed, and appointed Robert Spurr, Thomas Tileston, and Samuel Paul, in 1719, to see that the articles with the Indians were kept, and in no way encroached upon. 

In 1723 the matter became so weighty-that the council desired a committee to examine and report upon it. In June Samuel Sewall made a report, and the council appointed a committee to repair to Ponkapoag and inquire into the nature and condition of the lands which the Indians had leased to the English. They were also instructed to make a report on the quantity and quality of the lands possessed by each person, and under what regulations and conditions it would be proper to confirm the leases, regard being had to the Indians' original right, and the improvements made by the English settlers. This committee went to Ponkapoag, and on Dec. 27, 1723, made the following report to the council: —

"1. That the tract of Land at Puncapaug Called by the name of the Indian Land, Altho said to be Six thousand Acres, Amounts to no more than five Thousand five hundred Acres, there being an Ancient Grant of five hundred Acres to one Fenno, which must be Subducted out of it.

"2. There may be About fifteen hundred Acres of Unimproved rough land Which is Unoccupied by the English & not Leased by the Indians.

"3. The other four thousand Acres, more or less, is What is or has been Leased by the Indians to the English & now under their Improvements. A schedule of the names of the Tenants, of the quantity of their Lands, the purchase money they gave for it, together with the Annual Rent or quit Rent, is hereunto Annexed. Upon the Whole, that which the Committee have agreed on as proper in their opinion to represent & report to this Honb'le Court is as follows : 1. That the said leases be all of them made or Reduced to Ninety Nine Years from this time, & for that Term of Years be confirmed to the Tenants by this Court. 2. That the Quit Rent or Annuity, to be paid by the English to the Indians for their Lands, be one penny Per Acre per Annum, & this to be collected by & paid Unto Some proper Person or persons, Who shall be Appointed by the Court as Trustees for the Indians, - The money from Time to Time to be carefully applied for the use of the Indians.

"4. The English Tenants, their Heirs or Assigns, at the Expiration of the said Term of Ninety Nine Years, to be allowed the Renewing their Respective Leases for Ninety Nine Years Longer, upon the payment of three pence per Acre as a fine for the Use of the Indians. Unless they should turn their Leases into Freeholds by taking Absolute Deeds of the Indians. Which they Shall be Allowed to do at any Time or Times hereafter upon paying to the Trustee or Trustees to the Indians Twenty Years Rent of such Land as they Hold & Enjoy by Vertue of Such Leases, which Twenty Years Purchase Money shall also be Let out for the Annual Profits & Advantage of the Indians by their Trustees.

"5. That the Indians be confirmed in their Privilege of fishing, fowling, and Hunting, So they Do no Damage to the English, & also of Such Apple Trees or Orcharding (particularly Some Orcharding Claimed by Charles Redman in his Lease) as they have Expressly Saved or excepted In their Leases.

"The Committee have also Anexed a memorial in Behalf of the English Tenants Which they have Received Since their being at Puncapaug.

"Question, — Whether the meadows, Orchards, & Old Fields & Clear Lands Hired of the Indians Should not pay a Greater Quit Rent than one penny per Acre.

"In Council Read & Ordered, that the first, second, & fourth Article of this Report be Accepted, And that Nath'l Hubbard & John Quincy, Esqrs., be Trustees for the Indians of Puncapaug : Sent Down for Concurrence."

In 1735 the following names appear in addition to those previously mentioned as having given bonds for the land they occupied, for the benefit of the Indians, — Philip Goodwin, Benjamin Jordan, John Kenney, Preserved Lyon, Benjamin Smith, John Smith, William Spear, Samuel Savels, Captain [George] Talbot, George Wadsworth. A few years later appear John Atherton, Nathaniel Stearns, Thomas Shepard, Ezekiel Fisher, and Paul Wentworth.