The Puritanism of Edward Howell and Early Southampton
Puritans are often defined as mundane and somber individuals who wanted to “purify” the Church of England.[1] But why did they want to “purify” the Church of England? What led them to commit such horrible atrocities, like temporarily shutting down Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre, that would cause most of posterity to view them as some of the biggest killjoys in English history.[2] Puritanism is far more complex than it is too often portrayed as. Puritans were not one large group of people with uniform beliefs and goals, in fact, they almost never referred to themselves as “puritans.”[3] But what exactly they were is nearly impossible to define due to the vast variety of sects within what is considered Puritanism. However, these more zealous Protestants did all share a universal hatred for Roman Catholicism that would cause them to be categorized as puritans. So where did Edward Howell fit in the many sects of Puritanism? Unfortunately, there are no known personal writings of Howell regarding his specific religious sentiments that have survived. However, puritanism was not just a religion, it was a lifestyle; therefore, evidence of Howell’s puritanism can be seen in the early years of Southampton.
Before settling on Long Island, Edward Howell lived in Lynn, Massachusetts with many of the people that would go on to found Southampton. Howell’s largely negative experience in Lynn would later influence various aspects of Southampton’s political, religious, and town structure. The soil quality on Lynn was apparently very poor, which caused many early residents of Lynn to leave (not only those who eventually went to Southampton). A series of earthquakes in 1638 and 1639 led to fear among those in southern New England (and elsewhere) due to many perceiving the earthquakes as a sign from Divine Providence. In 1632, Rev. Stephen Batchellor became the first minister of Lynn, however his tenure there did not last long, as he was essentially forced to leave both Lynn and his pulpit in 1636.[4] Batchellor’s unorthodox beliefs were enough for him to be removed from Lynn, but Winthrop notes that Batchellor was accused of attempted adultery.[5] It is important to note that the people of Lynn did not choose Batchellor as their minister and often attempted to have him removed. Later in Southampton, the minister had to be accepted by the congregation (however, town membership itself required the acceptance of a council based on the prospective resident’s character).[6] Howell arrived in Lynn sometime in the late 1630s, most likely after Batchellor had already left.[7] However, the local sentiment regarding recent discontent with religion and ministers in Lynn would have likely not been lost on Howell.
Abraham Pierson was the minister in Lynn when Howell lived there, and Pierson would be part of the group that settled Southampton in 1640. However, Pierson would leave Southampton in 1647 due to his disapproval of Southampton being placed under the jurisdiction of the Connecticut Colony (Pierson apparently hoped that Southampton would follow Southold’s example and place themselves under the jurisdiction of New Haven).[8] Southampton was initially and independent town for four years before placing themselves under Connecticut jurisdiction. However, Southampton was able to negotiate with Connecticut to gain certain privileges (like exemptions from various obligations). These negotiations were possible due to the increasing pressure put on Connecticut by the Dutch who were attempting to form “English towns” in western Long Island.[9] Rev. Robert Fordham replaced Pierson (who left Southampton with some of his followers).
Numerous practices and values were associated with Puritanism in both England and southern New England; however, the early settlers of Long Island took some of those values and implemented them in ways that were not possible in England. One of the values that Puritans emphasized on both sides of the Atlantic was volunteerism, but those on Long Island applied it to their basic town structure, government, and church. As mentioned earlier, town membership required both the consent of the prospective member and the approval of a council. There was also a distinction between “resident” and “inhabitant.” Inhabitants of Southampton possessed more rights and a higher status than residents or servants. Only inhabitants could own property (and to vote one must be both an inhabitant and a landowner), but inhabitants also had obligations to the community, such as the “Whale Watch.” Edward Howell’s mill is an example of a town-inhabitant agreement. The town allowed him to build a mill and profit from it, as long as he fulfilled the community’s needs regarding the mill.[10] Although bound by common religious sympathies, towns like Southampton also could be considered secular voluntary communities because by choosing to live there, they accepted the town’s quasi social contract.
Another example of volunteerism in Southampton is illustrated in Southampton’s founding charter, the Southampton Covenant from March 1639. The first part of this document describes the deal the undertakers made with the ship that to bring them to Long Island and transport their cargo thereafter. The second part demonstrates how the undertakers planned to organize the allotment and distribution of land in Southampton. They emphasize that planting lots and housing lots are to remain in their distinct spheres to avoid “the ouer [over] chargeing of Commons and the Impoverishinge of the Towne….” Their desire to avoid planting lots being turned into housing lots possibly hints at some of the problems in Lynn, but it also shows their value of the designated common space. The undertakers in their charter specifically called for the perpetual protection of common space, stating that “what is layed out for Commons shall Continue Common & noe man shall presume to Incroach vpon [upon] it soe much as A hands breadeth….”[11] The protection of common space was something that the English had been trying to maintain for a very long time. In England, the common spaces had dwindled considerably due to largely encroachments from the Crown (whether directly or by grant).[12] On Long Island, the English were relatively free to politically divide the land as they wished and were no longer bound to the feudalistic structure of land tenure in England. The third and final part of the Covenant briefly describes the church model. Prospective church members had to be accepted by those already in the church. This illustrates volunteerism because the prospective member had to agree to be in the church and then accepted by the church.[13] Volunteerism also is demonstrated with the congregation’s opinion of the minister. If the majority didn’t like him, then they could petition to have him removed (as was the case with Rev. Batchellor). However, if the minister was removed or chose to leave, his followers were free to move with him (as was the case with Rev. Pierson). Puritans had an extended definition of volunteerism that included choice and human will.
Despite being a part of the Connecticut Colony, Southampton (and the other townships on the East End of Long Island) maintained a great deal of independence and the local government essentially managed the town’s bureaucracy. However, that independence was threatened in the summer of 1664 when the Dutch lost New Netherland to the English and it became “New York” (named after the Duke of York who then owned it). The “Duke’s Laws” in 1664 demanded that all of the former landowners on Long Island surrender their previous land grants (many of the grants were from treaties with Natives, which likely would have been deemed illegitimate by the royal government) and they would receive new land grants from the Duke. This meant that those in Southampton (and other nearby towns) who were formerly free-holders, would now be back under a more feudalistic system under the Duke of York. It also did not help that the Duke of York, the future James II, was a known Catholic. Submitting to the Duke of York would have caused the loss of the autonomy that the towns in Eastern Long Island had enjoyed for over a decade, so Southampton, Southold, and East Hampton resisted and refused to acknowledge the Duke’s claim on Long Island. When the royal governor of New York, Richard Nicolls, sent a letter to Edward Howell Jr. (and other prominent men in nearby towns) asking that Southampton petition to the Duke for a land patent, Southampton (and the other towns) refused because to petition the Duke for a patent would be to acknowledge that he owns Long Island, therefore invalidating their claim that they were under the jurisdiction of Connecticut.[14]
The refusal of petitioning for a patent was a direct challenge to English royal (and imperial) authority. Volunteerism appears once again in their argument against the Duke. They claimed that they had agreed to be under the jurisdiction of the Connecticut Colony, but had not agreed to be under the jurisdiction of the Duke of York. After more than a decade, Southampton (and the other eastern towns) conceded to the Duke. However, they only agreed to after Governor Edmund Andros had offered to let Southampton continue their free-holding structure and have guaranteed protection of their designated town common spaces.[15] The Andros Patent of 1676 in theory protected some of the rights of those in Southampton but the townspeople considered this as the Governor (and the Duke) confirming their rights that were enumerated in the Southampton Covenant. This episode bears some similarity with the Baronial Revolt of the early 13th century and the eventual signing of the Magna Carta in 1215. The Magna Carta did not invent rights for Englishmen, it simply confirmed their rights from Henry I’s Charter of Liberties.[16]
End Notes
[1] Cynthia Ward Clark, Descendants of Edward Howell (1584-1655) of Westbury Manor; Marsh Gibbon, Buckinghamshire and Southampton, Long Island, New York, vol. I (Baltimore: Otter Bay Books, 2021), 21.
[2] The theatre shutdowns are probably some of the most well-known aspects of the Interregnum. However, there are many misconceptions surrounding that and the intellectual culture of the Interregnum in general. The Puritan faction who were so strongly opposed to theatre was largely those who followed William Prynne’s beliefs.
[3] William Lamont, Puritanism and Historical Controversy (London: University College London Press, 1996), 2,4.
[4] Faren Siminoff, Crossing the Sound: The Rise of Atlantic American Communities in Seventeenth-Century Eastern Long Island (New York: New York University Press, 2004), EBSCO host, Chapter 4.
[5] Frederick Newberry, “A Red-Hot A and a Lusting Divine: Sources for the Scarlet Letter,” The New England Quarterly 60, no. 2 (1987), 261.
[6] Siminoff, Crossing the Sound, Chapter 6.
[7] Clark, Descendants of Edward Howell, 22.
[8] George Rogers Howell, The Early History of Southampton, L.I., New York, with genealogies (New York: J.N. Hallock, 1866), 100, 102.
[9] Siminoff, Crossing the Sound, Chapter 6.
[10] Ibid. The “Whale Watch” refers to Southampton’s beaches initially being divided into quadrants where it was the duty of the inhabitants of each quadrant to watch for beached whales. If a beached whale was found those in that quadrant would process it (for oil, meat, and the tail and fins, which by an arrangement would go to the local Ninnimissinuoks). Once process the whale would be divided up into portions and be distributed among inhabitants, with those who processed the whale getting the largest portion.
[11] “Historic Documents: The Disposal of the Vessel,” Southampton Town Website, Accessed September 22, 2023, https://www.southamptontownny.gov/207/Historic-Documents.
[12] Although recent Stuart and Tudor land encroachments played a role in the Undertakers’ desire for the protection of designated common spaces, 17th century England is notable for its reinterpretation of earlier English history. Edward Coke reintroduced the Magna Carta to challenge Stuart tyranny. It was just over a decade prior to the Southampton Covenant that Edward Coke’s Petition of Right shook up the status quo. Lesser known is Walter Raleigh’s “The Prerogatives of Parliaments,” written around 1615 while he was in the Tower of London (however published posthumously in 1628, as James I had it censored, like almost all of Raleigh’s writings). In the dialogue, Raleigh refers to Edward the Confessor’s laws, Henry I’s Charter of Liberties, and of course, the Magna Carta. Prior to the early 17th century, all of these documents and laws had essentially been forgotten, but were reintroduced and reinterpreted by people like Coke and Raleigh to challenge the Stuarts. It is also around this time that the “Norman Yoke” idea was starting to become very popular.
[13] Siminoff, Crossing the Sound, Chapter 4.
[14] Siminoff, Crossing the Sound, Chapter 6.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Of course, there were new clauses added to the Magna Carta that were not on the Charter of Liberties. Some clauses, such as Clause 61, were not reconfirmed by Henry III after the death of his father, John. I have heard recently that there is some discussion of a possible connection between a Howell ancestor and the Magna Carta, which is why I chose to draw this connection between the Magna Carta and the Andros Patent.
Bibliography
Clark, Cynthia Ward. Descendants of Edward Howell (1584-1655) of Westbury Manor; Marsh Gibbon, Buckinghamshire and Southampton, Long Island, New York, vol. I. Baltimore: Otter Bay Books, 2021.
“Historic Documents: The Disposal of the Vessel.” Southampton Town Website. Accessed September 22, 2023. https://www.southamptontownny.gov/207/Historic-Documents.
Howell, George Rogers. The Early History of Southampton, L.I., New York, with genealogies. New York: J.N. Hallock, 1866.
Lamont, William. Puritanism and Historical Controversy. London: University College London Press, 1996.
Newberry, Frederick. “A Red-Hot A and a Lusting Divine: Sources for the Scarlet Letter.” The New England Quarterly 60, no. 2: (1987).
Siminoff, Faren. Crossing the Sound: The Rise of Atlantic American Communities in Seventeenth-Century Eastern Long Island. New York: New York University Press, 2004. EBSCO host.
