OLD DARTMOUTH HISTORICAL SKETCH
Being the proceedings of the Old Dartmouth Historical Society, Water Street, New Bedford, Massachusetts, on December 29, 1910.
ARTHUR HATHAWAY AND HIS IMMEDIATE DESCENDANTS
by Caroline W. Hathaway
[Note.—The “Old Dartmouth Historical Sketches ” will be published by the Society quarterly and may be purchased for ten cents each on application to the Secretary and also at Hutchinson’s Book Store.]
New Bedford, Massachusetts
December 29, 1910
President Edmund Wood addressed the members concerning a recent publication by Anne and Walton Ricketson.
“A book has been published this month in New Bedford which should receive honorable mention at the meeting of this society, Daniel Ricketson—Autobiographic and Miscellaneous. This historical work has been compiled and edited by two of our members, Anna and Walton Ricketson, authors of Daniel Ricketson and His Friends, and New Bedford of the Past. The book is noteworthy because it supplies in permanent form additional material from the pen of Old Dartmouth’s chief historian.
“Daniel Ricketson will always be a name cherished by this historical society, because he was perhaps the very first to realize that his own time was full of unrecorded treasures of biographical knowledge, historical facts, and family traditions, which were in great danger of being lost to the future.
“He does not seem to have had in mind the writing of a complete history of this township, but rather, as he himself states, the assembling of this vast treasure of fugitive local fact and tradition,—the recording of material of inestimable value for the use of future historians and antiquarians.
“As a matter of fact he did group them into a satisfactory form, and published a work which was for a generation our only history.
“The greatest services that the establishment of this society performed in this community was to arouse our inhabitants to a realization of the value of the relics of the past which still surrounded us, and the records which, unappreciated and unexamined in many households, were in danger of oblivion. It formed a nucleus for collection, and a devoted working force for study and research.
“But incidentally this society performed a noteworthy service in its earliest existence. It brought Daniel Ricketson into his own. It awakened many to see for the first time the real value of the material he had gathered and recorded, and to confess in public manner the debt that this generation owed to his sagacious foresight and loving labor.
“It had been the fashion for many years to magnify the occasional errors in statement and to dwell upon the desultory and unskillful form in which he had left his researches. But with the formation of this society came a fuller realization of what he had really accomplished. It is impossible now to read the earliest proceedings of this society as well as the earlier exercises connected with the Bartholomew Gosnold memorial at Cuttyhunk, without acknowledging that our historian, Daniel Ricketson, is of blessed memory, and one whom this society will always delight to honor.
“The work which has just been published by his daughter and son, Anna and Walton Ricketson, contains some historical material but has its chief value in the glimpses which it reveals to us of the man himself, of his ambition, of his devotedness, of his lofty ideals, and of his full realization of his own limitations and shortcomings. He associated intimately with some of the largest minds in the land. He corresponded and exchanged literary efforts with some of our greatest thinkers and most successful writers. His conversation, his fund of close observations of nature, and his intellectual hospitality attracted them and made his home quite a center for high thinking and philosophical speculation. His own literary work was placed in an almost unfair competition, for here it was put exactly alongside of that of Emerson and Thoreau and Alcott and Curtis and Whittier.
“The perusal of the delightful letters in this volume emphasizes again the extraordinary change which is now often commented on in the popular education of adults. Now it is largely accomplished through the eye—the reading of the daily newspapers—and the play, and in the few and much adulterated kernels of information which may occasionally be found in the modern vaudeville.
“A generation and a half ago this hall would have been crowded to hear the essayist of the evening. It was the era of the Lyceum Bureau. Our largest halls were filled, without the attractions of orchestras and stereopticon slides, to hear the leaders of thought and action in that day, discourse on philosophy and on the problems involved in current events.
“It seems to us now, as we look back, that ‘there were giants in those days.’ Then was the climax of popular oratory when vast audiences sat thrilled by the skill of the speaker, and were swayed as a mass by a magnetic address.
“New Bedford heard the best that appeared on the lecture platform, and Daniel Ricketson entertained some of the best.
“Then were the days of one-night stands, as the theatre managers would now call it. A popular speaker would swing around the circle, with a night in New Bedford and then a night in Boston, with perhaps a night or two intervening.
“Emerson and Thoreau and George William Curtis were favorites here, and year after year they, and many others, sojourned before or after the lecture with Daniel Ricketson at his delightful home at Brooklawn on Acushnet Avenue. Here during the late evening, around the blazing fire in the rustic study called ‘The Shanty,’ sat our hospitable fellow citizen and his distinguished guest, and discoursed of nature and poetry and art, and brought in with that old-time appropriateness those resounding quotations from the poets, both Latin and English.
“The book reveals a beautiful picture of an unusual life.”
President Wood stated that a very praiseworthy and popular suggestion of our secretary has developed into quite a success. It was that brass tablets be placed in the panels of our doorways, to commemorate the names of the earliest settlers and that these panels be provided by some one of their descendants who is a member of the society.
President Wood read the inscriptions upon the new tablets, as follows:
From a Descendant—Thomas S. Hathaway.
From a Descendant—Harry B. Russell.
First Baptist Church
in Old Dartmouth.
From a Descendant—Frank A. Mosher.
President Wood said that it had also been suggested that the society should in the same manner record the names of citizens distinguished in the less remote history of the city, and that tablets to their memory might be placed in the panels of the archway in the meeting room. He added that one such tablet had already been placed. The tablet is inscribed as follows:
In Memory of
WILLIAM GUSHING WHITRIDGE,
“The Beloved Physician.”
Born in Tiverton, Rhode Island,
NOV. 25, 1784.
Died in New Bedford. Mass.,
DEC. 28, 1857.
From His Grand-daughter
Bertha Whitridge Smith.
Arthur Hathaway and his Immediate Descendants
by Caroline W. Hathaway
In searching for reliable information of the first settlers of Dartmouth, nearly three hundred years ago, many items of interest and value are brought to light, giving an insight into their aims and accomplishments. As time is counted, it is only a few years since the forefathers laid the foundation for the physical and social life of this territory. Among the number was Arthur Hathaway.
The name of Hathaway is local in Wales, and is derived from Port Heathway. It must be local as well in Gloucestershire and Wiltshire, for in the latter at one time there were eighteen Hathaways to every ten thousand inhabitants. The counties of Wales that border on the River Severn, are as much English as those on the opposite side, in the United Kingdom. Although it has not been possible to trace the subject of this article back to either of the above localities, it is fair to suppose that he or his might have emigrated from thereabouts. In Hallens London City Church Registers, it is recorded that “Richard Hathaway of St. Lawrence, Old Jewry, gent, and Anne (Amy) Moddox, spinster of the City of London were married at St. Bartholomew Exchange Nov. 20, 1582 B., and another reads, London, St. Botolph, Bishopsgate, 1652, Thomas Hathaway is married to Eliabeth Harper.” Arthur Hathaway named his first son John, and his second son Thomas, and his son John named one of his sons Richard, he, Arthur might or might not have come from London. The records reveal a variety of spelling, the most common forms are Hathaway, Hatheway, Hathway, Hadaway, Hauthaway; they probably belong to the same original family, and they should be spelled one way. The Hathaways of Dartmouth trace their ancestry back to Arthur, who married Sarah, daughter of John Cooke. The tradition is, that the Hathaways in personal appearance were tall, loosely built, walked with a swinging motion and were of florid complexion, fair hair and blue eyes. This type appears in almost every generation.
There is no detailed documentary information before 1652, thereby much confusion exists. The year of 1651, one Arthur Hathaway was reported as owning in lot 26 in Puncka-teest, now Tiverton. In 1643 a resident of Marshfield of the same name was capable of bearing arms, and was at town meeting at Plymouth in 1646. The Colonial Records state that Arthur Hathaway had a share in lands in that part of Plymouth called Kingston. The records do not settle the question of whether these individuals were one person. Elisha C. Leonard thought they were, while some investigators assert that there were two Arthurs, father and son. Then one John Hathaway Jr., kept an ordinary at Freetown, presumably at Assonet. John Hathaway at Barnstable, was fined in 1663 for breach of peace, and in 1668 for drunkenness. It was thought at one time that all of these events related to the same John, but this is now doubted; whether either John was a relative of Arthur is a question. John D. Baldwin, a scholarly gentleman residing in Worcester, and the only writer who makes the statement, wrote to the Historical and Genealogical Register: “I have found by investigation that John and Arthur Hathaway, (brothers probably) came to America in 1638 from one of the Welsh counties of Great Britain. John was in Barnstable, but afterward settled in that part of Taunton now Berkley, where he owned land in 1638. Arthur settled in Plymouth and his son married Sarah Cooke.” Very little weight can be given to this statement as no authority is given. Gen. E. W. Peirce wrote to the same register that he had discovered a record which proved that the Taunton John Hathaway was not the same individual who was in Barnstable. Owing to the absence of documentary information, it will not now be possible to state when and where Arthur Hathaway was born; who were his parents and relatives; and when he came to Plymouth Colony. This narrative must commence with his marriage to the daughter of John Cooke, November 20, 1652, the same year that the colony granted the territory on Buzzards Bay to the thirty-six purchasers of whom Cooke was one. In the first census of New Bedford town in 1790, there were thirty-eight male Hathaways. During the past century there may have been a few Hathaway families that became residents of New Bedford who belonged to the Taunton or Barnstable branches. But so far as known, all who resided within the limits of Old Dartmouth before 1800, were descendants of Arthur Hathaway. By marriage he was connected with important families of Plymouth Colony. John Cooke at the age of ten years came in the Mayflower with his father Francis, and he married Sarah Warren, daughter of Richard, who also came in the Mayflower, and were always prominent at Plymouth. John Cooke held Anabaptist views, and was not in accord with the Pilgrim church, and it is suggested that they were entirely willing he should remove his home to Buzzards Bay. How soon after the grant of Cushena, any of the purchasers removed to Buzzards Bay has not been determined, but not more than seven made their home in Dartmouth.
The name was applied to this region in a tax levy as early as 1632, although the town of Dartmouth was not constituted until 1664. But as early as 1660 Arthur Hathaway and “Segeant” Shaw were residing here, because an order was given to Captain Willet to collect their taxes. In 1656 Hathaway was a member of the grand jury, but probably not from an unincorporated place like Cushena. He did not leave Plymouth until after Feb. 28, 1655, and so must have taken up his abode at Dartmouth between 1655 and 1660.
Robert Hicks was one of the “old comers” to whom Dartmouth was granted, but by some mistake his name was omitted and the name of his son, Samuel, was substituted. When Robert died his heirs brought a petition to have this error rectified, and it was proposed that Samuel should consider the Dartmouth lands as belonging to his father and take only his share therein, but he refused, so in 1662 the matter was submitted to Samuel Jenny, James Shaw, and Arthur Hathaway to decide his proportion. The result has not been preserved. Samuel it appears retained possession of the Dartmouth lands. Arthur Hathaway purchased from Samuel Cuthbert in 1661, one-half share of land which was one-sixty-eighth of the entire territory of Dartmouth. This gave him a standing as a proprietor independent of his wife’s father. The lack of records of this period seriously impair all investigation. There was a book kept by the land owners, which was burned in the house of Thomas Hathaway in 1725. Possibly it contained transactions of the town as a separate corporation, but the existing records of the town do not begin until 1673. After annual elections there were sent to Plymouth a list of the officials chosen at town meetings. Dartmouth chose a constable in 1664, but no selectmen are reported until 1667 and then Arthur Hathaway was one of the board.
The duties of a constable at that time were manifold and must have been taxing. In 1633 it was found necessary to appoint a constable, and Joshua Pratt was chosen for Plymouth. Previous to that time Captain Miles Standish had performed the duties which belonged to that office by virtue of his captaincy. Until 1638, the constable for Plymouth was messenger of the court, the prototype of the sergeant at arms of the Massachusetts legislature. His duty was to attend general court and court of assistants, to act as keeper of the jail, to execute punishment, to give warnings to such marriages as shall be approved by authority, to seal weights and measures and to measure out such land as shall be ordered by the governor or government. During the first twenty years after the town was established, Arthur Hathaway was eight terms “celect”-man. In 1674 with Henry Tucker and Peleg Tripp he was empowered to lay out every homestead. In 1671 he was appointed a magistrate.
The official career of Arthur Hathaway ends abruptly in 1684 and with the exception of two deeds, and a will he disappears from all recorded history. Twelve years later in 1696 he decided to divide his lands. He owned on the east side of the Acushnet River, north of Dahl’s corner. The south half he gave to his son, Jonathan, and the north to his son Thomas. The deeds were executed later and were not recorded until several years later, which would indicate that he was not ready to complete the transfer when it was first arranged. This was his farm where he lived. It included Captain Franklyn Howland’s, and the Laura Keene farm, and land north and south. Some lands also included are described as being near the tract which John Howard sold to James Samson, near Obshokqutut, the Indian name for Fort Phoenix. These deeds are executed by his written signature. Nothing further appears concerning Arthur Hathaway until the probate of his will, which was dated February, 1709-10, and presented to the court February, 1710-11. It was executed by his mark. The witnesses were John Cannon Jr., Isaac Howland and Jonathan Delano. It states that he “was very weak of body but of perfect mind and memory.” He gave to his wife Sarah the income of certain estate and a legacy of five shilling to each of his children: Thomas, Jonathan, Mary Hammond, Lydia Sisson, and Hannah Cadman. His real estate consisting of a half share of land in Dartmouth, he devised to his son John, whom he selected as executor. The sudden termination of his business and official career presents a curious problem that defies explanation. His name does not appear even as a witness to any will or deed during that long period. His death probably took place within a month before the probate of his will. The inventory of his estate contained the following:
One-half share of land, £200.
Feather beds and bedding, £40.
A Bible and other books, £5.
Table linen, woolen, yarn and flax, 3 iron pots, 2 iron kettles. 1 brass kettle, 2 brass skillets, a warming pan, barrel of cider, 30 pounds of tobacco.
The only debt due from his estate was a bill of Dr. James Tallman for £4 4s.
There is no tradition nor record of where his house stood or his homestead; it was probably not much, if any, east of the main road extending to Acushnet. The early settlers located their houses within easy access to the rivers where they could escape from the Indians. According to the will of Arthur Hathaway he left three sons and three daughters.
John—Married (1) Joanna Pope, daughter of Thomas and Sarah Jenney Pope, 1732; (2) Patience.
Thomas—Married Hepzibeth, daughter of Nathaniel and Mary Starbuck, of Nantucket, 1748.
Jonathan—Married Susannah Pope, daughter of Captain Seth Pope.
Mary—Married Samuel Hammond, son of Benjamin Hammond.
Lydia—Married James Sisson, son of Richard Sisson.
Hannah—Married George Cadman, son of William Cadman.
About 1684 the Hammond family lived in that section of Rochester now Mattapoisett, and they owned expensive tracts near the Dartmouth line and on Mattapoisett Neck. Benjamin Hammond was a contemporary and associate surveyor with Benjamin Crane in the work in Dartmouth. The Sissons came to Dartmouth from Portsmouth, R. I. Richard owned land in Dartmouth, but probably never lived there and his interests came into the possession of his son James. His homestead was at the Head of Westport, on the south side of the road and west side of the river, and comprised the region from the river west to the Central Village road, and half a mile down the river. His house was at the corner near the bridge where he kept a public-house, and the place was known as “Sisson’s.” Here were held meetings of the proprietors, and here for over one hundred and fifty years was a tavern.
Hannah Hathaway married George Cadman, son of Honorable William Cadman, of Portsmouth, R. I. George Cadman was one of the leading men of Dartmouth. He was selectman, treasurer and overseer of the poor. His name appears as a witness to most of the wills of his day, and he may have written them. Cadman’s Neck was owned by his brother Richard.
George Cadman’s farm was very long, extending from the east branch of the Westport River northwest to Brownell’s corner. It lay between two brooks, one or which is two miles south of the Head and is still called Cadman’s Brook.
He died in 1718, leaving only one child, a daughter, Elizabeth, who married William White. Some part of his farm near the river was owned in recent years by the White descendants. While no information fixes the location of George Cadman’s house, there is reason to suppose that it was near the river, on the south side of Cadman’s Brook, on the farm recently owned by Stephen Kirby, and which for over a century was owned by the White family.
The three sons of Arthur were farmers, and do not appear to have sought public life. John and Thomas served one year each as constable, and John was once elected “Tythingman.”
Thomas Hathaway was selectman for two year and was clerk of the proprietors when his house was burned down and with it the land records. This comprised the whole of their official career. In addition to the landed interests received from their father, they purchased largely from outside owners, and each family came into possession of several large farms. By marriage they became connected with several well known families in this section of the province.
John, the oldest son, married Johanna Pope, daughter of Thomas Pope, and Sarah “Jenne,” both well known families in Plymouth. (A well preserved Pope cradle of 1648 is exhibited in this building.) His second wife was Patience.
The first wife had six children, and the second ten, and of these, ten were sons.
Thomas Hathaway married Hepzibeth Starbuck, daughter of Nathaniel, of Nantucket, and Mary Starbuck, whose father was Tristram Coffin. This was the “Great Mary Starbuck,” the founder of the Society of Friends at Nantucket. They had nine children, of whom four were sons.
In 1671 Jonathan Hathaway married Susannah Pope, daughter of Captain Seth Pope, one of the leading men in Dartmouth, who was a brother of John Hathaway’s wife, Johanna Pope. In this family there were ten children, of whom six were sons. From these three families there were twenty sons to perpetuate the name.
John Hathaway—Married (1st) Joanna Pope, daughter Thos. and Sarah (Carey) Pope.
Sarah—Married John Cadman.
Joanna—Married Elkanah Blackwell.
John—Married Alice Launders.
Arthur—Married (2) Maria Luce.
Hannah—Married ____ Boomer.
Mary—Married ____ Douglass.
John Hathaway (married 2nd) Patince.
Jonathan—Married Abagail Nye.
Richard—Married Deborah Doty.
Hunnewell—Married Mary ____
Abialson—Married Mary Taber.
Patience—Married Reuben Peckham.
Benjamin—Married Elizabeth Richmond, Mary Hix.
James—Married Mary ____.
Ebenezer—Married Ruth Hatch.
Thomas Hathaway married Hepzibeth Starbuck, daughter of Nathaniel and Mary (Coffin) Starbuck of Nantucket.
Antipas—Married Patience Church.
Apphia—Married Adam Mott.
Elizabeth—Married John Clark.
Mary—Married Thomas Kempton.
Thomas—Married Lois Taber.
Hepzibeth—Married Samuel Wing.
Jethro—Married Hannah West.
Jonathan Hathaway married Susanna Pope, daughter of Seth Pope.
Abigail—Married Seth Spooner.
Gamaliel—Married Hannah Hillman.
Seth—Married Hannah Willis.
Deborah—Married Jireh Swift.
Jonathan—Married Bridget Delano.
Elnathan—Married Esther Spooner.
Paul—Married Ann _____.
The three brothers above mentioned owned large sections of the ancient town.
Jonathan’s Hathaway’s south line was at Dahl’s corner, where the line between Fairhaven and Acushnet crosses the road. It extended north about one thousand feet, and from the river east over one mile, and was bounded on the north by the Laura Keene and Franklyn Howland farms. Thomas Hathaway had the estate next north, in width half a mile north and south, and extended back from the river over two miles, and comprising six hundred acres. Both had land on Sconticut Neck.
Jonathan Hathaway had large tracts in the north part of Long Plain Village, extending from Quaker Lane, north over half a mile, and the same distance east of the main road toward Rochester, and to the westward, across the river nearly to the Keene Road.
John Hathaway’s land, chiefly on the west side of the Acushnet River, was in several tracts, and in area was about as extensive as that of his brother Thomas. His homestead extended from the river out to Mt. Pleasant Street, and began at a point 330 feet south of Davis Street at the north line of the Coffin farm, and extended north as far as Brooklawn Park. On the water front of this farm are located today the Whitman, Manomet, Nonquitt and Nashawena mills. In the northeast corner on the river was a landing place as early as 1730, and here John McPherson started the village of Belleville in 1774.
John Hathaway had another tract of 200 acres on the south side of Hathaway Road, and extending west from Shawmut Avenue to the ledge. On Shawmut its frontage is over half a mile. On the north side of the Tarkiln Hill Road were large tracts extending down from the hill west beyond the railroad, and east about the same distance. The house that he gave his son Arthur stands there today, and is still occupied. Arthur early moved to Rochester, and owned a large tract there. John also owned a large tract to the south of Sassaquin Pond, the east part of which became the farm of Jonathan Tobey.
The location of the houses of Thomas and Jonathan Hathaway can be determined, but not in the case of John. The location of the Belleville cemetery may indicate that John Hathaway’s house was on the river front, and not far distant. In 1704 Acushnet Avenue was laid out in its present location, and likely since then the farm house was on the road. There is neither record nor tradition where it stood. In 1730 he had a lane running east from Acushnet Avenue about 300 yards toward Belleville. His house may have been at its end.
When the road from Dahl’s corner on the line between Acushnet and Fairhaven was laid out southerly to Oxford, it began at the corner of Susannah Hathaway’s orchard. This was on the east side of the road at the north side of the Fork. If the house of Jonathan, her husband, stood nearby, as might reasonably be supposed, its location is then approximately fixed. The Jonathan Hathaway farm was narrow and very long. Rebecca Hathaway, one of his descendants who died in 1888, owned and occupied a part of this farm.
Next north of the Captain Franklyn Howland place is a solid two-story house, center chimney, end to the road, and fronting south. It is known as the Stephen Hathaway house, from the fact that he was owner, and occupant for forty-six years from 1792 to 1838. The house was built in 1725 by Thomas Hathaway, whose former dwelling burned in 1725, and in it all the records of the land-owners of whom he was clerk. There he built the present house. It is one of the finest colonial houses in Old Dartmouth. The inhabitants at Acushnet in 1711 concluded to avail themselves of local water-power instead of depending on the first enterprise established at Smith’s Mills; so that an association was formed composed of the three Hathaway brothers, together with Seth Pope and Thomas Taber, and they obtained from the proprietors a grant of land on the north side of the road at the Head of the Acushnet, and on each side of the river. Here they built after 1711 a grist mill, and a saw mill. The Hathaways, Thomas and John, after 15 years, conveyed their share to Nathaniel Shepard (in 1726). These mills were operated on both sides of the river until within a half a century, when those on the east side were demolished. The saw mill on the west side is still standing.
Titles were often added to names in deeds to identify the social standing of the individual. In 1728 John and Jonathan were known as yeomen. John signed with his mark, while Thomas and Jonathan wrote their names. Thomas was described first as a yeoman, and latterly as “gentleman.”
There is no tradition that either was entitled to adopt a coat of arms. From works on heraldry it appears that there was a Hathaway family in Devonshire and in Gloucestershire that received grants of arms widely different in design. Stated in popular language, one comprised three silver birds on a black background, and the other a silver bugle horn on a black ground, while the crest is a demi-lion rampant with a fleur-de-lys, in the dexter (right) paw in red, on a black ground. “The lion as an armorial device was used almost exclusively before the 13th century, intended to be emblematical of their bearer, and signified, to an eminent degree, strength, courage and generosity.”
The church affiliations of these people are difficult to state as there was no religious organization in Dartmouth until 1699. Arthur Hathaway must have been a member of the Colonial church at Plymouth or Duxbury. According to the tradition concerning John Cooke, it might be inferred that he was disposed toward a liberal adaptation of the Plymouth theology to changed conditions at Dartmouth where numerous families from Portsmouth were inclined toward the Baptists and Quakers. Both of these sects had religious gatherings in Dartmouth as early as 1680, and quite likely the Plymouth emigrants on the east side of the Acushnet River, including the families of Samson, Spooner, Jenny, Pope, Cooke, Hathaway, Shaw and Palmer, may also have had some small house congregation. The meeting of Quakers was organized in 1699, and the First Congregational church at Acushnet was formed in 1708. Arthur Hathaway left nothing to show his choice. His name does not appear in relation to any Quaker activities, so probably he remained connected with the first church. Without question the Hammonds of Rochester were staunch members of the Pilgrim church. The Cadmans and Sissons probably were associated with the Quakers.
In 1708 came the first clash between the Presbyterians and the Quakers, which resulted in the great struggle in 1723 when the English king, George I, overruled the general court of Massachusetts and declared the Quakers entitled to freedom from contributing toward the maintenance of Congregational churches and ministers. At the opening of the contest, which was urged chiefly in Dartmouth, a petition signed by eighty-six men who were Quakers and Baptists, was sent to the general court protesting against the church tax. This was signed by John and Thomas Hathaway. The position of Thomas can be easily understood, because his wife belonged to the leading Quaker family of Nantucket. John’s first wife was a sister of Captain Seth Pope, who was a vigorous Puritan. The second wife hasn’t yet been identified, but the second marriage may have led to his favor for the Quakers.
In 1736 the men connected with the Congregational church at Acushnet agreed to contribute one hundred and three pounds for the minister. It included the names of Jonathan Hathaway senior and junior. As the father had married Captain Seth Pope’s daughter this church relation is explained. According to the usage of that day, women seldom owned real estate. In their wills the daughters were given money or personal chattels, but the houses and lands were given to the sons. Without attempting to describe in detail the descent of the extensive landed interests of the three Hathaway brothers, a brief statement will be given indicating the location of the homesteads of the nineteen grandsons of Arthur Hathaway. Thomas had three sons; to Antipas he gave the north third of his homestead, part of which was recently owned by George F. Lewis, and the house which he built was burned down last spring. The middle section he gave to Jethro, and this was the Stephen Hathaway farm in later years; while Thomas received the south third, which included the Laura Keene and Captain Franklin Howland farms.
Jonathan Hathaway had six sons. In the division of his estate Gamaliel received the narrow farm north of Dahl’s corner; Paul received a house lot in Fairhaven village between Middle and Water Streets, and the others, Seth, Jonathan, Silas, and Elnathan, received tracts in the north part of Long Plain. John Hathaway had ten sons. In 1730 he conveyed to each a small lot of one acre at Belleville, which was the first attempt to establish a village on the west side of the Acushnet, south of its head. They each had a farm. Jonathan received the north two-thirds of the homestead, including the Belleville and Nash farm. The south third of his homestead he gave to his son John, and this included the Peter Butler, Tucker and Nye farms. Arthur received the farm on the north side of the road, and on the east side of Tarklin Hill, while the farm on the west side of the hill, extending west beyond the railroad, was given to Ebenezer.
Abiah had the north and south quarters of the farm on the south side of the Hathaway Road, and west of Shawmut Avenue, and Richard received the central part, comprising one-half. The latter is now owned by C. T. W. Gifford.
The farm on the south side of Sasacowan Pond, now called Sassaquin, went to Benjamin and James, and in the division James received the last half, which later was sold to Jonathan Tobey, and in recent years owned by Morton and others.
The burial places in Dartmouth before 1700 have been obliterated beyond identification. The Quakers started at Apponegansett that year, and had their yard near the meeting-house. The Presbyterians built their church at the Head of Acushnet, 1712, and since that date the churchyard has been a cemetery. Except in this burial place very few gravestones before 1800 are known to exist. The Quakers excluded them from all burial places before 1850.
Tradition states that John Cooke was buried near the shore at Oxford. In his will he gave the “land near the burial place to Arthur Hathaway.” The line of demarcation between different religious sects in Dartmouth appears to have been recognized even to the grave. In the churchyard at Acushnet which John Jenney gave, “to the people of God called Presbyterians,” none but members of the church were admitted—Jonathan Hathaway was loyal to this organization, was buried here, and near the stone that marks his grave are those of his relatives and friends who stood steadfast to the Pilgrim church, but no gravestone appears at this place referring to Thomas or John Hathaway. The feeling had run too deep in the great controversy between the Quakers, and Presbyterians, and these two brothers had allied themselves with the Society of Friends. Although a family of abundant means, there is no information as to the location of the burial lot of Thomas Hathaway. Having adopted the stern rule of the Quakers, they rest in unknown graves.
On a hill overlooking the Acushnet River at Belleville is an ancient burying ground. All that marks the graves are rows of rough stones taken from neighboring fields. Not a name or a date designates what person found here a last resting place, suggesting the influence of the Quaker dominion that held control of Dartmouth for nearly two centuries. Here was the spot selected by John Hathaway for the burial place of his family.
In 1732 Antipas Hathaway conveyed to Jethro Hathaway, a tract of eight acres on the Acushnet River, the most westerly part of the homestead of Thomas Hathaway, bounded on the east by the creek up to Howards Brook, on the south by the property of Jethro Hathaway. It was called in the deed “Ye old Buring Point,” and is located on the river northwest of the Laura Keene farm. This may have been the family burying ground of Arthur and Thomas Hathaway.
The limits of this work will not allow tracing further the career of this Hathaway family. Including those of other names, the descendants of Arthur Hathaway are legion, from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
“One of the first steps of civilization is distinction of ranks. Heraldry has been found serviceable as a means of marking that distinction. Symbols or devices of honor by all nations, from the earliest ages, to distinguish the noble from the inferior. Heraldry as an art flourished chiefly under the feudal system. It is agreed by most antiquaries that the hereditary use of arms to distinguish families did not commence until the year 1230. The introduction of Heraldry in England is referred to the Crusades. Coats of arms are thought to be clearly referable to the tournaments. A. D. 1190, the arms were on small escutcheons, worn at the belt. Every one engaged in the Holy Wars had the form of the cross sewed or embroidered on the right sleeve of his surcoat, whence the expeditions received the appellation of Crusades. After the Norman conquest, heraldry made rapid progress in England, and the high esteem in which it was held is attested by its union with other arts, especially painting and sculpture. Heraldry is thus connected with the lasting monuments of architecture.”