A Journey to Christmasville
By the Holts and Berryhills
.

Chapter I
1600 - 1662

Historical Timeline: 1603-Queen Elizabeth I of England dies; 1603-James I crowned King; 1607-first permanent English settlement in New World at Jamestown; 1620- Pilgrims settle in Massachusetts; 1625-Charles I becomes king; 1634-Ark & Dove ships arrive in Maryland to establish a colony; 1642-civil war in England commences; 1646-Charles I surrenders; 1649-Charles I beheaded; 1653-Cromwell becomes Lord Protector of England; 1660-Charles II becomes king.

James G. Holt arrived near Christmasville, Tennessee in 1847. Some two hundred years earlier, in 1646, his gggg-grandfather, Robert, arrived at St. Mary's, Maryland. Along with his wife, Dorothy, and their four children (David, Richard, Dorothy, and Elizabeth), they were to begin a new life in the New World. Those intervening two hundred years would see our family moving time and time again, always further west, into the interior of Virginia, eventually ending in the newly settled area of western Tennessee. It would not be a comfortable and pleasant two hundred years.

Robert & Dorothy Heywood Holt

The story begins in England. Most family researchers believe that Robart Holte was born in Rochdale, Lancashire, England about 1600. Rochdale is a present-day suburb of Manchester in the northwest of England.

We have one document showing the marriage of Robart Holte to Dorothie Heywoodd of Eccles, another village near Manchester, at Manchester Cathedral on the nineteenth of December, 1625. Most believe these persons to be the ones who settled in Maryland about 1646.

There is, however, some evidence that suggests Robert's birth date to be about 1620. If this were true, then the above mentioned marriage would not have been our Robert's and Dorothy's. Statistically, the later birth date would place Robert more in line with the average life expectancy of the Seventeenth Century and increase Dorothy's ability to bear children at a much later date, something that will be observed in future discussions.

We may never know for certain: perhaps some future researcher will provide the answer. I must confess that I tend to believe the 1620 date and have attempted to prove such, without success. We do know that Robert and Dorothy originally came from England (in all probability, Lancashire), and that they were indeed, the parents of our Richard who we will trace in another chapter.

Lancashire was and remains the home to many, many Holts. A public petition signed by 2,100 men in Rochdale in 1642 contained the signatures of no fewer than sixty seven Holts. With such a large number of persons with similar names, to this date researchers have been unable to find the exact family from which Robert came.

Several Holt families were well-to-do landowners and loyal supporters of the King. Others were of the working class who may or may not have had ties to the wealthy Holts. The civil war which brought an end to one king and saw the establishment of the Protectorate divided families much as the American civil war did. We do not know which side our Robert took but it is interesting to speculate that he departed England for the Colonies about the time Charles I was dethroned: a possible clue that he was on the losing side.
The fact that he was able to pay his family's passage to the New World adds further to the speculation. Most emigrants came to the Colonies as indentured servants agreeing to a term of servitude in return for someone's paying their passage. Robert did not. Thus, large questions: where did he get the money? Was he of a family of means or did he simply save for the passage?

Most believe that our Dorothy Heywood was born in Eccles and baptized there on August 14, 1604: a daughter of William Heywood and Margaret Bent Heywood. Only the baptismal record has been found; therefore, we have no further information on the Heywood family. Again, if the 1620 birth date of Robert were correct, then this would not be our Dorothy.

Much more research in England is needed to document Robert and Dorothy. We may have the correct information now.
We may not. It may not exist. I respectfully reserve judgment.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


While the above information is, to a great degree, speculative, we can begin in 1646 with hard facts. Ample records exist to show that Robert and Dorothy Holt were indeed present and accounted for in St. Mary's, Maryland. Whether they came directly from England to Maryland or first to Virginia is not known. Many colonists of the period first disembarked in Virginia and shortly thereafter found their way to Maryland or other outlying areas. It is just as feasible that the Holts sailed directly to St. Mary's. Until ship's passenger records can be found, we will not know for certain. Currently, many records are being transcribed and it may be only a matter of time until we know for certain.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
St. Mary's, Maryland was the site of the fourth permanent English settlement in the early Colonies, having been established in 1634. A grant from King Charles I to George Calvert, Lord Baltimore, for land lying within present-day Maryland and Delaware created a colony noted for religious tolerance and a way of life associated with the broad Chesapeake waters.

While the colony was founded as a refuge for Catholic believers, many Protestants settled there as well. In fact, of the original one hundred-forty settlers who arrived on the Ark & Dove ships, only twenty were Catholics. The need for profitability was such that most were welcomed if they possessed a skill for survival or a needed trade. Robert Holt was such a Protestant, being a member of the Church of England.

The original St. Mary's City was contained in a thirty square mile area on the southwestern side of the Chesapeake Bay near the confluence of the Potomac River and consisted of a church, a jail, a State house, thirty homes and two forts: St. Mary's City and St. Inigoes.

The raising of tobacco soon became the chief crop for export while others crops were tended for subsistence of the colonists. Many skilled tradesmen also were in the settlement, producing items for cash sales or barter.

Suffice it to say that life was hard for the early colonists. Even by 1646, when Robert and Dorothy arrived, living conditions remained primitive. While we do not know the circumstances in England from which they escaped, life in the New World would have been extremely demanding. It has been said that most who came, constantly kept in their minds returning to the mother country: a fresh start here, an improvement of their lot, and they could return from whence they came in grander style. It was a dream that would prove un-achievable for most.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Many records have been retrieved that deal directly with the lives of the early Maryland settlers. Robert and Dorothy are included in those records.

Robert was a cooper (maker of barrels) and planter in St. Michael's One Hundred, and subsequently in St. George's One Hundred by 1653. He acquired land at various locations near St. Mary's, had cattle and a crop on Kent Island in 1649 and owned a shallop (boat) and rigging. Even with limited affluence and the necessity of work, quarreling and discord seemed to have been a constant past-time for Robert and Dorothy.

Many of the events surrounding them do not make for a pretty picture. Some are down right embarrassing but the facts are there and are included herewith. The only consolation is that they were not alone in discontent and recrimination. The court records are full of similar situations and complaints.

The earliest surviving record of Robert Holt in Maryland dates from March 1646/47, when Francis Posey signed a bond to pay a debt to him. Later in the same year, Robert Holt, to recover this debt, sued Cuthbert Phennock, Gent. who had attached the crop of Francis Posey.

On October 23, 1648, " Robt. Holt, aged 28 yrs. deposed
that George Manners did desire Hen. Clay to speak to Edw.
Commins to send him his pestle that he stole. Whereupon the
deponant told him that it was a hard matter to tax a man with
such a thing, but the said Manners answered again that he
did taxe him and would tax him. These words were spoken sometime in May last."

In June 1648, Robert Holt requested of the Governor "two barrels of corn or its value" borrowed from him for use at the fort at St. Inigo's , a reminder that the settlement of St. Mary's County was fortified against Indian raids.

On February 24, 1650/51, Robert Holt, Edward Hudson,
and Richard Ware, all of St. Michael's Hundred, St. Mary's County, agreed to pay a debt of 1500 pounds of tobacco to Henry Pontnell, the debt to be paid "at the dwelling house of said Robert
and Edward Hudson" by November 10 next. Edward Hudson did not honor this commitment so Robert Holt was "to be at liberty to attach his estate" for his part of the debt. No records exist showing that Robert exercised that option.

It will be recalled that Robert paid his passage into Maryland: his wife and four children included in the payment. On 23 March 1649/50, "Robert Holt by Edward Hudson demands 400 ac for trans himself, his wife, and four children, about three years since". A warrant was issued "to lay out 400 acres for Robert Holt in any place within this province southward of Patuxtent River". We assume that this transport of family came from England to Maryland but it could have come from Virginia to Maryland. As stated earlier, no records have been found, to date, giving the starting point.

We here emphasize the name of Edward Hudson. He played a pivotal role in the lives of Robert and Dorothy as they continued to live at St. Mary's. From surviving records in Virginia, we learn that Hudson was born in Virginia, lived there for some time, married, and later left for Maryland, apparently two steps ahead of the sheriff. For whatever reason, Hudson was living in the Holt household by 1650 as the above mentioned court action indicates. He apparently was a younger man than Holt and developed a record of complaints in the Maryland colony similar to those he left in Virginia.

By 1651, the domestic situation of Robert, Dorothy, and Edward Hudson came to a head. In November of 1651, a special commission was authorized to look into problems in the Holt-Hudson household. Depositions were taken from Robert Holt and some of his neighbors:

Robert Holt...Saith that Dorothy his wife hath
threatened him divers times to take away his life,
And further Saith that Edward Hudson hath divers
times been Compacted with the Said Dorothy...Soe
that between them I goe daily in fear of my life.

Andrew Watson...Saith that about July or August in
the year 1650 he...comeing to the house of Edward
Hudson...Saw the Said Edward Hudson and Dorothy
the wife of Robert Holt goe to bed together as if
they had been man and wife.

Rose Smith...[deposes] that about September last
year She...comeing to the house of Robert Holt,
the Said Holt told [her] that his wife would kill
him...[and] Holt's wife...Said that She were as
good as kill him as live as She did...Said Holt's
wife comeing to this Deponent's house, after
parting between She and her husband...replyed
again that her heart was So hardened against
him, that She would never darken his door.

George Delty [deposes] that one night he came
to the house where Edward Hudson and Robert
Holt's wife did live together and he did See them
both lyeing in bed together before the fire.

John Medcalf Gent deposeth that he heard
Dorothy Holt to cry for many Curses to God
against her husband, that he might rott limb from
limbe, and that She would daily pray to God that
Such Casualties might fall upon him, and likewise
that her Son Richard might end his days upon the
gallows.


Edward Hudson and Dorothy Holt were brought before the Court on November 7, 1651, charged and convicted of "divers lewd Incontinent and Scandalous actions," and judgement was passed:

Edward Hudson Shall be forwith whip't with thirty
lashes and not after the first January next to live in
any place within this Province within twenty Miles
of St. Maries...

Dorothy Holt be forthwith whipp'd with 50 lashes,
And for prevention of any Mischiefe She may doe to
her husband She is within one week...to provide
herself of Some habitation within five Miles at the
least distance from her husband's now Plantacion
in St. Michael's hundred where She may reside
for one quarter of a year ensueing if She think fit
in regard of her Young Children...

And that if at any time hereafter it be made
appear to the Court that the said Hudson and
She the Said Dorothy, Doe resort together
within this Province in any offensive way this
Court will...Inflict...Severe punishment on them...

this Order is not at all to restrain the Said
Robert Holt and the Said Dorothy Holt his
wife from liveing together as a man and wife
ought to doe if at any time both Parties
shall agree thereto....

The fact that Dorothy received a more severe punishment than that given to Edward probably is a sign of the times which held in favor of the male specie. Male domination was encoded in the laws and firmly upheld by the religious establishment.

Edward Hudson was charged with the costs of this action.
Exactly who lived with whom after this judgement is unclear, but three years later, on November 4, 1654 Robert and Dorothy Holt were divorced by William Wilkinson.

On January 28, 1657 Robert Holt and Christian Bonnefield were married by Wilkinson, the first Protestant cleric in Maryland: an ordained Anglican priest who would play a further role in the legal problems of Robert. From 1658 until Robert's death in 1661/62, he would be subjected to a series of challenges regarding the legality of his marriage to Bonnefield.

On October 6, 1658, the Attorney General of Maryland ordered a jury to "enquyre...[into] the charge concerning Robt Holt having marryed on Christian Bounefield (his owne Wife Dorothy being then and yett lyving)". In brief, Robert was charged with bigamy and William Wilkinson was charged as an accessory. Wilkinson had given a deposition in the case in September 1658, in which he affirmed that he had performed the marriage, but that the divorce paper, which Robert brought to Court, was given under pressure:

William Wilkinson Clerk...Sayeth That hee did joyne
in marriage Robert Holt and Christian Bonnefald, But
denyth that hee did anything by way of divorce between
Robert Holt and his former Wife Dorothy, Notwith
standing confesseth, that he drue and signed as a witness
that paper produced by Robert Holt, bearing the date
4th of December which conteyned a release of all
claims of marriage from the said Dorothy to the said
Robert, which paper hee sayeth hee did draw att
their request upon her Confession that shee had
Two Bastards by Edward Hudson & refusall to bee
reconciled to Robert Holt.

The jury convicted Robert of bigamy and Wilkinson as an accessory. It would appear that the man of the cloth had been caught in a lie. Equally, it would appear that Robert honestly believed that he had received an official divorce from Dorothy in 1654.

After the Presentment was read, the Prisoners
alleage that this Jury is a very weake Jury, to goe
upon soe weighty a busines...as life and death,
And there being few others present in Court but
what are Catholikes...The prisoners...[request]
that a Protestant Jury might passe on them...
As most reasonable.

Robert was released on bail, and was pardoned, apparently with an understanding by the Governor or the Attorney General that he and Christian Bonnefield were not man and wife. Whatever his own understanding, Robert continued to live with Christian and in 1661 another jury was appointed to reconsider the matter. This second case was never tried because of Robert's death in the spring of 1661/62.

He left a will in the form of a deed of gift, written March 2, 1661. The surviving copy is badly damaged with ink stains and fading and cannot be completely read, but some items can be made out:
Robert Holt of the Province of Maryland...give and
bequeath my whole estate to my beloved wife
Christian Holt (als.) Bonneyfield......two daughters
Elizabeth and Dorothy Holt jointly.....fifty acres
of land belonging to my patent of the said
plantation where my said wife doth.....daughters
Elizabeth and Dorothy....

Robert "R" Holt (Seal)

Sealed Signed and delivered In the sight of
Richard Browne, John L...., John "I" Benson.
[Side Note] Recorded September 20, 1662.

If Robert mentioned his sons David and Richard in this deed, it cannot be read; however, a month previous he had given one half of the 100 acres called Randalls Point to David. He is the only child who remained in Maryland.

A court-ordered inventory of the goods of Robert Holt was returned December 9, 1662. It showed substantial holdings in livestock, farm implements, tools, and household furniture. Except for his land patent of 1649, records of his landholdings have been lost in the destruction of St. Mary's County deed records. From all evidence, Robert existed and achieved some degree of success during his time in Maryland.

Of his four children, David died in St. Mary's County, Maryland in 1678 or 79. Richard will be discussed later in this research. He died in Essex County, Virginia in 1693. Dorothy, Jr. received the bequest of land in Maryland but went with her mother to Virginia where in 1665 she bound herself to Henry Aubrey, to serve him for five years, to do household work but not "working the ground." She subsequently married and disappeared from record. Elizabeth also received land from her father in Maryland but was in Virginia in 1672 when Edward Hudson left her a cow. No further records have been found.

Dorothy Holt went with Edward Hudson to Virginia after 1657 having four children by Edward, two of which were born bastards before her divorce from Robert. She subsequently married a third time to Thomas Day after Hudson's death about 1674. She died after 1684 in Essex County, Virginia.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What we have documented is a harsh endeavor of life in the Colonial Period. Most surviving records portray similar persons and situations. Many immigrants came in search of something that did not exist. Instead, they found misery, disease, endless toil, and life in its most basic form.

We do not know why Robert and Dorothy left England for the New World. We do not know what they were hoping to create for themselves and their family. What we do know from extant records is that they survived and prospered to some degree in the material realm. However, their emotional and familial lives were shattered and drained.

It is easy to pass judgment in light of today's ways and mores. But none of us can remotely imagine the day to day grind to which they were exposed: the fear of Indians, disease, loneliness, isolation, destitution, and the sheer shock of leaving one civilization for another place that lacked much evidence of such.

It is tempting to speculate that Robert was a weak but fairly industrious person who never should have allowed Edward Hudson into his home; that Dorothy broke all laws of God and man; that Edward Hudson was a no-good cheat, that the children of Robert and Dorothy took sides with Dorothy, following her to Virginia and leaving Robert with Christian. But we just don't know the whole story. And we don't know how we would have coped with primitive life in the 1600's. Fortunately, most of us never will face the hardships endured by those first pioneers.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The first generation in the New World came and they stayed no matter how difficult the situation might have been. They probably had no other choice. From Maryland to Virginia, the Holt family moved onward. Chapter II will deal with Richard, son of Robert and Dorothy, as he buys and sells property, rears a family, lives, and dies.