Dr Church's Letter is Deciphered

       With Dr Church under arrest and under guard in the Continental Army's Hospital Headquarters located in the Vassall House, General George Washington turned his attention to finding a way to decipher Church's letter since Dr Church had refused to do so. Fortunately, a classmate of Dr Church (and John Hancock) at Harvard (Class of 1754) had the reputation and skills needed for the task. But Reverend Samuel West could hardly be more of a contrast to his Harvard classmate. West was born and raised in Yarmouth on Cape Cod in Massachusetts, the son of a poor physician. As a young man he developed a reputation for his knowledge of the Bible and theology and attracted the notice of a local minister who tutored him so that he could take the exams to obtain a Fitch and Hollis scholarship to Harvard. Fitch and Hollis Scholarships were bequests for students at Harvard destined for the ministry. Legend has it that he walked to Harvard bare-footed with his shoes and stockings in hand. While at Harvard, West defrayed expenses by working as a waiter at the Fellows (tutors) table. After graduation, West worked as a schoolmaster until he obtained a position serving a very poor congregation in Dartmouth, Massachusetts on Buzzards Bay. To say that West was an eccentric is putting it mildly, but by this time he had developed a reputation for expertise in a wide variety of subjects and was reputed to have read every available book on law, history, law medicine, the political sciences and even alchemy. It is no wonder that he had developed a reputation for cryptography.

    West had a reputation as one of the most ardent of Patriots. After the battle of Bunker Hill, West served several months as a Chaplain administering to the Massachusetts militia and was therefore physically available for Washington to refer the letter to him for deciphering. West is now long forgotten but he was the perfect choice for Washington to turn for assistance in deciphering the letter.

   For further information on Rev Samuel West see my blog post on him.       

  .https://drbenjaminchurchjr.blogspot.com/2011/06/samuel-west.html

   As best as I can reconstruct, at the same time that Washington furnished a copy of Church's letter to West, he sent a copy to the Massachusetts Committee of Safety for informational purposes. Colonel Elisha Porter, the 33 year old Colonel of the Fourth Hampshire Regiment (Hadley, Mass) and a member of that Committee, received the letter. According to Elbridge Gerry (pronounced with a hard G), a prominent

Elbridge Gerry

member of the Massachusetts Provincial Congress, Porter showed him the letter. Porter, allegedly, had an expertise in cryptology and, with Gerry's assistance, deciphered the letter. Gerry then sent a copy of Church's letter to Robert Treat Paine who was, at the time, a delegate to the Continental Congress in Philadelphia. This was done before Washington had a chance to communicate to the Continental Congress that the letter had been intercepted. Washington was reported to be very upset but I suspect that  he was more than upset and that action triggered one of his famous temper outbursts. It also triggered a letter from Joseph Reed, Washington's secretary to James Warren, President of the Massachusetts Provincial Congress, complaining about Gerry's actions. Elbridge responded rather defensively but Washington had no authority over Gerry and the incident passed.

   A more detailed discussion of the Porter/Gerry Decode can be found here: 

  

   https://drbenjaminchurchjr.blogspot.com/2011/06/gerryporter-decode.html 

   In any event, Washington used the West translation of the letter in an upcoming Council of War and treated it as the official translation. Curiously, Washington sent the Porter/Gerry translation as an enclosure to John Hancock, President of the Continental Congress, when he informed him of Church's letter. 

   Before we move on with West's translation and Washington's reaction to it, I thought that recounting a letter Rev Samuel West sent to General Washington some ten days after deciphering Church's letter would give a glimpse into the character of Dr West and the type of thing with which Washington, and his Secretary, had to contend.

Plymouth October the 11th 1775

Sir:

When I was att Head Quarters the other Day, my good friend mr Pierpont informed your Excellency, that I had lost my horse; and proposed, that I should have one of the Provincial horses presented to me to supply my loss; the manner in which mr Pierpont introduc'd the Subject gave me a great deal of Pain and uneasiness; because (I thought) it had the Appearance of a design to beg a favor of the Gentlemen of the Army; when therefore Colonel Read offered to Send me an horse to ride home; I was under So much confusion as not to know certainly whether the horse was only lent me to ride home, or whether it was design'd to be presented to me for my own; mr Pierpont thought that the horse was presented to me as a gift; but I judg'd from Several things that it was only lent me to ride home; and accordingly had fully determined as Soon as I had gotten home to Send the horse back by the first opportunity; But several Gentlemen of my Acquaintance upon hearing an Account of the matter, judg'd, that I had a just right to have satisfaction made me by the Continent for my loss, inasmuch as I had preach'd in the camp five Sabbaths and a fast, and expected no reward for my Services, they thought, that I had a right to be Made whole by the Continent for any Damage I Might Sustain while I was doing duty in the camp. Colonel Warren of Plymouth Speaker of the house of representatives was so full in this Sentiment, that he advised me to present a memorial to your Excellency; and to represent the matter in proper light; not doubting, but that your Excellency would judge it proper that the continent should make good the damage that I have Sustain'd. It is in Consequence of his Advice, that I have now written this letter to your Excellency. In order that your Excellency may form a true judgment of the matter, I must briefly State the fact which is thus - mr Spring who is now gone chaplain to Quebec, had liberty granted him by Dr Cogswill to take his horse and ride him to newbury port and Sell him for Nine Pounds; he thro a Mistake took my horse and Sold him in his journey to a man belonging to Salem; hearing of this I went to sale, and when I came there was told that the horse was gone off, the Stable door being left open - diligent Search was made but he could not be found; Now as there is no person, of whom I can legally demand Satisfaction for my loss, except mr Spring, and as it is very uncertain when he will return from Quebec, and as I Stand in need of an horse every Day almost when I am at home, if your Excellency thinks my request to be rational and that the publick ought to make good the Damage that I have Sustaind; I Should be glad to have liberty granted to me keep the horse that Colonel Read Sent me, till I have proper Satisfaction made me by mr Spring for the loss that I have Susaind. If your Excellency will Send a line to me by the bearer of this mr Joseph Howland to let me know whether I must return the horse back by the first opportunity, or whether I may keep him till I am otherwise Satisfied., it will lay a peculiar obligation upon your Excellency's most humble and obedient servant.  

   Samuel Spring  was a Congregational clergyman who had recently completed his studies at Princeton and served in Benedict Arnold's expedition to Quebec.

   

Dr West's Letter to Washington

   Joseph Reed replied to West on 17 October 1775:

Mr Pierpont was mistaken in his Notion of the Loan of the Horse, which we understood was only requested to accommodate you in your journey home. I was not at Liberty to go farther - We also understood you proposed to return to the Army shortly - The General having given me no farther Direction upon the Subject I can only say that if your Business should again call you up here you can make Application if you do not you can keep the Horse you have until you hear further on the Subject from this - But the Property of the Horse in the mean Time is not changed.

   While some may feel that this is much ado about a horse, one must remember that Dr West served a very poor community of farmers, was paid a pittance, and several times had to go to court to sue for his back salaries. 

Dr Church's Cypher Letter to John Fleeming

   Below is the original Church cypher letter, with envelope. The original is in the George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress. Access to the original letter is now restricted; however, I was able to handle this letter over 25 years ago before access, necessarily, was restricted by the Library.

   Below is a readable copy of the original cipher letter:

   Church used what is referred to in cryptography as a "monoalphabetic cipher" in his letter to John Fleeming, his brother-in-law -  a simple substitution code that uses fixed substitution over the entire message as opposed to a "polyalphabetic cipher" that uses a number of substitutions at different times. Here is the key to Dr Church 's cipher:

The top line is the alphabet. The second line sets forth the substitutions in Church's handwriting. The third line is the legible version of the second line.

   Using the key, we get the first two sentences of the letter:

      I hope this will reach you. Three attempts have I made without success in effecting the last.

   Those interested in the use of ciphers in correspondence in Colonial America may wish to read my blog post on that subject.

https://drbenjaminchurchjr.blogspot.com/2011/05/use-of-ciphers-in-colonial-america.html

Washington Arrests Dr Church

   On Friday morning, September 29, 1775,* after interrogating Mary Wenwood for a number of hours on the night of 28-29 September, 1775 and securing the identification of Dr Church as the author of the cyphered letter, George Washington sent a message to Watertown, where the Massachusetts Provincial Congress was sitting, to James Warren, the President of the Congress and Major Joseph Hawley, a delegate from Northampton in Western Massachusetts, to come to his Headquarters in Cambridge without delay. Washington's message requesting the assistance of James Warren is certainly understandable. But why ask for Joseph Hawley? Hawley's military rank was awarded because he served as a Chaplain in a Massachusetts regiment in King George's War and was, in fact, a member of the expedition that captured the fortress of Louisburg on Cape Breton Island.  A Yale graduate, Hawley was a long time ardent Whig who was first elected to the Massachusetts

James Warren-1763

John Singleton Copley

House of Representatives in 1751. A very religious man who was a cousin of Jonathan Edwards and who played a major role in getting Edwards removed from his church in 1751, Hawley was well known in Massachusetts and was a close collaborator of James Otis and the Adams cousins. Other than acceptance of his election as a delegate to the Provincial Congress, Hawley refused any other appointments since he felt that acceptance would demonstrate a weakness of character. Hawley suffered from depression, had what appears to be a nervous breakdown in early 1776 and never served in any office again; yet he continued to be a man of influence. But at this juncture in his life he was a very prominent Whig with an unmatched reputation for piety and integrity. Therefore, it does seem reasonable that the Virginian George Washington, newly arrived  in a New England that was almost a foreign country to him, chose to turn to Hawley for counsel and advice. Both Warren and Hawley advised Washington that Church should be immediately arrested and his papers seized.

   Washington then did, in my mind, a very curious thing. He ordered a Captain and a company of 40 men to arrest Church and place him under house arrest in the Henry Vassall House where Church resided as the Director General of the Hospitals. Precisely just where Church was when he was taken into custody is unknown. By one account it took a few hours to locate Church and arrest him. Church could very well have been in one of the other Hospitals under his control. In any event, why would Washington order a company of 40 men to arrest one middle aged physician? He certainly couldn't seriously contemplate that Church would resist. A company of 40 men marching through camp would certainly draw attention and invite speculation. That was no way to keep something confidential and

Henry Vassall House today

secret. Had Washington had the experience he would later obtain in espionage he certainly would not have handled it this way. If, indeed, Church was in communication with the British, the last thing you would want to do, at this stage, is alert the British that you had discovered this relationship. In addition, Dr Church had few, if any, peers in the Whig cause and Washington was certainly aware of that. Not to mention that as Director of Hospitals, Church held a position directly under the control of the Continental Congress. Why then humiliate Church when all he had was a letter as yet to be decrypted? I just find Washington's initial treatment of the whole affair curious.

   But one must remember that Washington's appointment as Commander of the Continental Army was a political one, engineered by the Adams cousins in order to secure unity amongst the somewhat fractious thirteen colonies. It certainly wasn't because of Washington's military prowess. In fact, one could argue that his record was rather less than impressive and that Washington was a rank amateur who had never commanded regular forces or artillery or cavalry or handled the logistics of an army in the field. Indeed, he had never commanded anything more than a militia regiment. It was the seven years of the Revolutionary War that brought out the character and steel of "the indispensable man." At this point Washington was a Commander who had to purchase a number of books on military matters in Philadelphia after becoming named Commander so he could give himself a military education.

   But Washington soon showed a talent for organization, espionage and disinformation. There was an acute shortage of gunpowder after Bunker Hill. Washington was startled when informed that the Continental Army he commanded besieging Boston only had 36 barrels of gunpowder on hand; enough to provide only nine rounds per man in case of a British offensive. Exhausting every means to obtain gunpowder, Washington embarked on a campaign of disinformation. He leaked word to British Headquarters that he was almost embarrassed to find that the Massachusetts Provincial Congress had supplied him with 1,800 barrels of powder and his supply officers were having a problem finding storage space for them. Surprisingly, the British believed this although, given the Pyrrhic victory of Bunker Hill, they were disinclined to attack the rebels anyway.

  

   Upon entering the Vassall House, the contingent of soldiers searched the room occupied by Church and found nothing. Church's papers were seized and subsequently examined by Joseph Reed, Washington's secretary and aide-de camp, a very successful Philadelphia lawyer who

Washington had met and befriended in Philadelphia when he was a delegate to the Continental Congress. In a September 29th, 1775 letter to his brother-in-law, Charles Petit, Reed disclosed the results of his examination:

Dr Church, a man highly in the confidence of the people here, a member of their Assembly, &; has been arrested for carrying on a criminal correspondence with the enemy; his papers were all seized. I have perused the most intimate and confidential letters wrote to him, and am authorized to declare from them that there is no intention of going further than their late charter. This is the sentiment that runs through every one of them, nor have I seen a syllable to the contrary.

   But then, what did Washington expect to find? Would Church be so careless as to leave incriminating evidence in his room in the Vassall House? And what would be incriminating evidence? Loyalists had considered Church one of their vilest enemies for over a decade. Which Loyalist would trust him? More cyphered letters? Letters to General Gage? Obviously a search of Dr Church's papers would be in order; but what did they think they would find?
 

   Yet, in his 5 October 1775 letter to John Hancock, President of the Continental Congress, reporting his arrest of Church, Washington stated " but it appeared on Inquiry that a Confidant had been among the Papers before my Messenger arrived." I have been unable to uncover anything that would explain just how and why Washington came to that conclusion. But let us examine the circumstances of Church's arrest and determine if it is plausible that a Church accomplice, assuming he had one in Washington's HQs, could have found out about the imminent arrest and risked his own safety to destroy any evidence incriminating Dr Church. First of all, there is absolutely no evidence that Church had an accomplice in Washington's HQs. Nor would one assume that Church would be foolish enough to trust anyone in the HQs. Church was the highest ranking source that General Gage had in the Massachusetts Provincial Congress and Church was still a member of that body and member of the Committee of Safety. Church was too valuable to be exposed to risk in that manner. Any communication Church would make with Gage would be outside of Cambridge.

Cambridge -1776

   Washington had  assigned a sergeant's guard consisting of a sergeant, a corporal, and nine soldiers to the Vassall House/Hospital and the sergeant was instructed to take orders from Church. One would assume that a messenger from Washington's HQs to that guard would have immediately secured Church's papers. How would any accomplice first find out that Church was about to be arrested and then risk his own security to go through the papers before they were seized? How would he know what to look for? Yet the belief lingers to this day that there were incriminating letters/documents in Church's office in the Vassal House that would have proved his guilt. There is even a belief that there was a secret panel in the House where Church hid his papers. First of all, how would Church, who

Interior of Vassall House from 1907 guide

had only been in the Vassall House a few weeks, even know that there was a "secret panel" next to the fireplace that opened a door revealing a secret room that someone could stand in as had been alleged?    

   

   The origin of the "secret panel" is from a publication titled "The Cambridge of 1776" which included the "Diary of Dorothy Dudley", written to commemorate the Centennial of the outbreak of the Revolutionary War. Everyone involved at the time knew that the book was a fictional creation designed to evoke living in Cambridge one hundred years prior. There are no historical sources substantiating the book. Dorothy Dudley is an entirely fictitious character; yet, to this day that diary is quoted as if it were written contemporaneously. Historians  have relied on it as a source totally oblivious to the fact that it was written one hundred years after the events, had no footnoted sources, and was intended as a somewhat "cheeky" account of Cambridge in 1776.

   Historians have even identified the person they think was responsible for "sanitizing" Church's papers but that will be the subject of a future post.

   In a 1 October 1775 letter to John Adams, James Warren reported the arrest of Dr Church as follows:

                            Dr Church has been detected in a correspondence with the Enemy...

  He owns the writing and sending the letter, says it was for Flemming (sic) in answer to one he wrote to him, and is calculated by magnifying the numbers of the army, their regularity their provisions, and ammunition, etc,  to do great service to us. There are, however, many circumstances, new and old, which time won't permit me to mention, that are much against him. The letter, I suppose, is now deciphering and when done will either condemn, or in some measure, excuse him.

    Warren's statement that there are "many circumstances, new and old...that are much against him" indicates that Warren must have communicated those "circumstances" to Washington. Just what those "circumstances" were have never been documented and they, I would assume, would have influenced Washington in his handling of the situation. The precise relationship between Church and Warren is not that well known but it doesn't appear that they were the closest of friends or, indeed, colleagues.

   Establishing a precise timeline from the letters written several days after the Dr Church's arrest is difficult, especially since Washington's own report of the arrest is written five days later and, undoubtedly, conflates the timeline. But it appears that after Church's arrest, he was asked directly by Washington about the letter. That, as best I can determine, was on the 29th of September. Church responded in the words relayed by James Warren in the letter quoted above. Church then, apparently, refused a direct request from Washington to decipher the letter. This is something inferred from the available documentation. Church, presumably, was then confined under arrest in the Vassall House while Washington considered his next step and how to go about getting the letter deciphered. I have always found it interesting that Church refused to decipher the letter. There was nothing, as he would repeatedly argue, incriminating in that letter and, indeed, exaggerated the rather sorry state of the rebel forces. The cypher used in the letter appears to be unique to the correspondence between him and his brother-in-law and so its compromise would not be that damaging. Perhaps the shock of his arrest propelled Church to take a defensive posture until he could see how things would progress. It must be remembered that Church had pleaded ill health only roughly nine days before his arrest when his request to resign from his position as Director General of the Hospital was refused.

   Washington determined that the letter had to be deciphered and he undertook measures to have that done. It wasn't until October 3rd that Washington called a council of war to discuss the Dr Church arrest. On Saturday, September 30, 1775 Washington issued a general order that the ongoing inquiry into Dr Church's leadership of the hospitals, specifically Brigadier Joseph Spencer's brigade, was postponed due to Church's ill health. I don't think that "ill health' was just as much a convenient excuse as it really reflected Church's condition.

  Before I proceed with the narrative I would like to conclude this post by mentioning one other letter written about Church's arrest. It as written by Ebenezer Huntington, a Yale graduate and a Lieutenant in a Connecticut regiment during the siege of Boston. Huntington would go on to become a Lt

Ebenezer Huntington -1806

John Trumbull

Colonel, and was present at Yorktown when Cornwallis surrendered. Th letter was to his half-brother, is dated 3 October, 1775 and was written from a camp in Roxbury.

...You will be much Surprised to hear that our famous Doct'r Church that great pretended Patriot is now under a Special Guard of a Capt'n & 40 men for Corresponding with Gage and others of his Hellish Gang the Plot was discovered by his Miss who is now with child by him and he owns himself the father (for he has now dismissed his Wife)…

 
   Huntington had absolutely no acquittance with or interaction with Dr Church and is, undoubtedly, passing on camp rumors. Was Church's mistress pregnant and had he left his wife? This is the only reference I could find that Church's mistress was pregnant and that he had left his wife. Church's relationship with his wife was undoubtedly very strained but there is no reason to believe that he had  actually left her. In fact, information indicates that Church's wife and daughters were, at the time of his arrest, in Southeastern Massachusetts and he had visited them on his trip to Philadelphia a couple of months previous. But this letter is indicative of the problems encountered trying to unravel the precise details of Church's arrest.

* Church maintains that he was arrested on Wednesday, 27 September, 1775 but he is clearly in error.

 

Dr Benjamin Church Jr's Family

   In the coming days I will be continuing the saga of Dr Benjamin Church Jr. with posts about his arrest, trails, incarceration, and demise. And, I will be giving my assessment of his alleged treachery. Before I do that, however, I need to present some updated information, based on new research,  about Dr Church and his immediate family. Some of the details of his family can now be definitively reported or presumed. The one fact that made the strongest impression on me was that, until Church's marriage records were discovered, I had had no idea that his wife was six years older than him.

Dr. Benjamin Church, Jr.

Marriage: 18 January 1759 to Sarah Miller of St John Zachary, London, at St Stephen Parish, Coleman St, London. Witnesses were James Miller and Mary Potts. Although the marriage was in London, Sarah Miller was from the town of Ross in Herefordshire. Sarah was the daughter of James Miller and Mary (Unknown). Sarah had one sibling, a younger brother named Matthew Miller. It could be that the Mary Potts who served as a witness to the marriage was, in fact, the wife of James Miller and her maiden name was recorded as witness.

Church of St Stephen -1815

William Pearson

   Baptismal records in Ross indicate that Sarah Miller was baptized on March 18, 1728 which would make her about 30 years old at the time of her marriage. Benjamin Church would have been 24, a roughly six year age difference. At the time of his arrest, Church was 41 and Sarah was approximately 47. 

    There is an approximate six year age gap between the couple. It also appears that there is a significant gap in education and social status between the published poet, Harvard graduate and the daughter of  what appears to be small town English tradesman. A 30 year old spinster or perhaps widow, without property, certainly would not be seen as a "catch" for a 26 year old Harvard educated physician, descended from one of New England's most famous soldiers. Church certainly could have made a better match upon his return to Boston. But then again, he may have just loved her, at the time. 

      The marriage occurred while Church was studying medicine at the London Medical College and "walked the hospitals for three years."

   This marriage record also explains why Church named his first born son James Miller Church.

   The 1913 Church Genealogy by John A. Church, titled " The Descendants of Richard Church of Plymouth" reports that Benjamin Jr married Hannah Hill of Ross in Herefordshire, and that she was a sister of one of his medical student friends.  Obviously the author got Sarah's name wrong and the origin of the statement that she was the sister of a medical student is doubtful since Sarah's brother Matthew was a linen draper and snuffmaker in Ross. Of course, it is possible that Matthew was a medical student at the time of his sister's marriage to Church but, for some reason, never pursued the profession.

    There has been a St Stephen's Church in London since the 13th century. The original building was destroyed in the Great Fire of London in 1666. St Stephens was rebuilt by the office of Christopher Wren but that building was destroyed by bombing in 1940 and never rebuilt.

Royal London Hospital. Construction started in 1754

 and only the central core would have been completed when Church studied there. 

It started to receive patients in the autumn of 1757.

  Children: 

     James Miller Church: Born in Boston and baptized at the Hollis Street Church, where his grandfather was Deacon, on 28 October 1759. Little is known of James' early life or his education except that he entered Boston Latin School, his father and Uncle Edward's Alma Mater, at the age of 8 in 1767. Records do not indicate whether he graduated or how long he attended there.
   At the outbreak of hostilities in April 1775, James Miller would have been 15 years old. Any plans to attend Harvard and follow in his father's and grandfather's footsteps, would have been curtailed since Harvard suspended all classes on May 1, 1775 only to resume on October 5, 1775 in Concord, 20 miles away.  James apparently began learning to become a physician because the pay records of the Continental Army Hospital in Cambridge and Roxbury reflect payments to a James Miller Church from Dr Charles Mc Knight * for the period August 17, 1775 to Jan 1, 1776 as a Surgeon's Mate. James' whereabouts from January 1776 until July 1777, when he arrived in England with his mother and two sisters, is unknown but one presumes he was with his Mother and Sisters in Boston.
   The next record of James is as a "Surgeon's Mate and Ensign in the Middlesex Militia", probably at the end of 1782. That unit, however, was disbanded in by the end of March 1783. He was appointed Ensign in the South Gloucestershire Militia in June 1791. Later he served as a surgeon in the Westminster Militia.
   Upon arrival in England, Sarah Church, James Miller's mother, successfully petitioned the King for a pension to cover her and her two children because of the services that her husband had rendered to the English Crown. The petition was successful and Sarah was awarded an annual allowance of L100, paid quarterly for her and her two children. On a visit to Sarah by the Commissioners sometime in 1782, they discovered that James was drawing a salary as an Ensign in the Middlesex Militia and reduced her pension accordingly. But the pension was reverted back to the original amount when the Middlesex Regiment was disbanded in March 1783.
   Sarah Church died on 7 August 1788 and in October 1788, James and his two sisters petitioned the Crown after the pension was stopped because of their mother's death.

That your Petitioners through His Majesty's bounty enjoyed an Allowance of One Hundred Pounds per Annum received quarterly by their late Mother Mrs Sarah Church who departed this life suddenly on the 8th day of August last, by which unfortunate event your Petitioners reduced situations induces them to implore a continuation of that allowance or such other as you in your wisdom shall think fit. To render your Petitioners situation more distressing, is the advanced State of Pregnancy of one of your Petitioner's whose sole support depended on her deceased Mother, and who from such situation humbly implore  your immediate attention to their case."

   On 1 January 1784, James married Mary Amey Powney in London.  It is believed that Mary and James had three children together and it is possible that James had a fourth, illegitimate child.
 
   Children of James Miller Church and Mary Amey Powney:

   i. Rebecca Eleanor Church, baptized Framingham, Kent, 22 February, 1785.
   ii. Susanna Church, baptized St Andrew, Holborn, 13 November 1791. Buried there 11 November 1792.
   iii. Fanny Church, baptized St Andrew Holborn,13 November 1791.
   iv.(?) Emma Church, born Harwich, Essex, England, ca 1807. m Thomas Peachey.

   Susanna  and Fanny Church were baptized the same day in the same church where Mary Amey Powey was baptized so it appears they had twin daughters, one of whom died within a year.
 
   In her will, Mary Amey Church left a legacy to "Emma Peachey, daughter of my late husband James Miller Church and now wife of Thomas Peachey. No baptismal records can be found for Emma Church and her birth date from 1807 is from English census records. Mary Amey Church would have been around 43 at the time of Emma's birth. The phrasing of the will would seem to indicate that Emma was her husband's illegitimate stepdaughter.

   James Miller Church died in Brighton, Sussex, England on 20 May 1834. He was buried there in the graveyard of St Nicholas Church. Mary Amey Church was buried in Brighton, Sussex, England on 29 January 1837. The parish records do not record her as being buried at St Nicholas but it would be logical to assume that she would be buried with her husband.

St Nicholas Churchyard, East Sussex, England.

   Sarah Church: Born in Boston and baptized at the Hollis Street Church on 15 March 1761. Sarah married Benjamin Weld of Massachusetts in Ross, Herefordshire, England on 1 July 1783. He likely was the son of John and Katharine (Chamberlain) Weld who was baptized in the Second Church of Roxbury on 15 April 1750. The Church family genealogy states that Benjamin Weld was a Loyalist but there is no other information to substantiate this. It should be noted that Dr Benjamin Church's

Hannah Church Weld- Age 71

older sister, Hannah Church*, married Edward Weld of Roxbury in 1757 when she was 23 or 24 years old. The Welds were a large family and I have not done the research to see if there is a connection between Edward Weld and Benjamin Weld. Sarah's marriage to Benjamin Weld didn't last that long. On 25 August 1789, Benjamin Weld petitioned the Supreme Judicial Court in Boston for a divorce from Sarah:

She, on her part, regardless of her marriage vows, regardless of charity and virtue bestowed the affection which was due to him alone, upon other men, with whom since said marriage she has had criminal collection and lived on terms of dishonor & vice. Especially she committed adultery about November in the year of our Lord and divers times with one James Talbot Monbrun a Frenchman and totally left the bed & board of your petitioner. 

   The petition for divorce included a copy of the marriage record in Ross and testimony as to its validity. A witness to the wedding testified that the parties are Benjamin Weld... who now resides in Boston... and Sarah Weld (formerly Sarah Church) one of the daughters of "Doctor Benjamin Church formerly of Boston aforesaid deceased."
   Sarah's brother-in-law testified that Sarah was a loyal wife until Benjamin left for Boston in 1787 for business reasons. Benjamin left Sarah under the care of her brother, James Miller Church. About three or four months after Benjamin's departure, Sarah "formed a criminal and adulterous connection with James Talbot Montburn." Sarah continued to live with Montburn until March 1788 when Benjamin returned to London from Boston. At that point, Montburn fled to Dominica to escape a suit Benjamin filed against him for his adulterous relationship with his wife. In addition, the witness testified that "some short time previous to the said Benjamin Weld's so returning as aforesaid the said Sarah Weld informed this Deponent that she the said Sarah Weld was with Child by the said James Talbot Montburn" and that he had since been informed that she had given birth to the baby sometime in September 1778 and that the child had died.
   Sarah's maidservant testified that she had lived with James and Sarah as her servant and had seen James and "her said Mistress Naked and in bed together." Talbot's footman testified that Sarah "did live in open adultery and cohabit with the said James Talbot Montburn Esquire taking his name and passing for his wife."
   The parish register of St Leonard in Heston, borough of Hounslow lists the baptism of Henry Talbot, child of James and Sarah" on 21 September 1788. the fact that there is no burial record is not unusual.

  [It should be noted that James Miller Church's October 1778 petition to the Crown for a pension indicates that one of his sisters was in advanced pregnancy. Are the dates wrong or was James embellishing his petition?]
   
  The only other record that could be located for Benjamin Weld is a marriage of a Benjamin Weld to Eleanor Weld on 2 September 1798 at the Hollis Street Church. Also, no other record of Sarah Church Weld has been found.

   Children of Benjamin and Sarah (Church) Weld:

      i. Benjamin Weld, baptized Kyrle Street Independent Church, Ross on Wye, 1784.
      ii. Sarah Maria Weld, born 15 June 1786, baptized St. Marylebone, 3 Aug 1786.

    Child of James Talbot Montbrun and Sarah Church Weld:

     i. Henry Talbot Montbrun, baptized St. Leonard Heston, Hounslow, London, 21 September1788, died within one year.


Hannah Church: born in Boston and baptized at the Hollis Street Church on 8 July 1764. She died in Boston on 7 April 1836. Originally buried in Trinity Church in the Tucker family tomb, she was

Mount Auburn Cemetery, Cambridge Mass

interred with other family members on Magnolia Avenue, in  Mount Auburn Cemetery, Cambridge, Massachusetts in 1872. Many notables, to include Henry Wadsworth Longfellow are buried here.

   Hannah Church married first in the parish of St Marlybone, Westminster, England, on 31 August 1786 to William Kirkby of the parish of Saint Helen, London.  William Kirkby was a merchant in Boston but no record could be found of him in the city directories. He died in Boston on 19 October 1804.

William and Sarah did own some property Hannah inherited from her grandmother Hannah (Dyer) Church (Deacon Church's widow) which the Kirkbys sold on 20 March 1804. On 22 December 1804, a few weeks after William Kirby's death, Hannah published an advertisement in the Columbian Centinel that she was moving to 53 Orange Street in the South End, next door to where she had been living, and where she planned to continue to sell English goods. 

   Hannah married her second husband, William Longhurst, at the New South Church, Boston on 22 February 1807. Longhurst was born in England, circa 1759 and he died in Boston on 23 September 1832. He is buried in the famous Granary Burial Ground with Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, and John Hancock. During the War of 1812, British aliens were required to register with the nearest Federal Marshall. William Longhurst registered as age 54, a cordwainer (shoemaker), who arrived in the US in October 1807 (sic). Living with him was his wife Hannah, age 45, and William "Kirkley", age 24, John "Kirkley", age 22, and Robert "Kirkley", age 16. Hannah, William, John, and Robert were all listed as being born in the USA. This would place the immigration of William and Hannah Kirby to the United States sometime in 1788 or 1789. William and Hannah had no children.

   Children of William and Hannah (Church) Kirkby:

     i. Mary Ann Kirby, baptized St Mary, Whitechapel, London, 16 November 1788. married William Tucker, year unknown, died 5 Nov 1848.
    ii. William James Kirkby, born US or England, circa 1789. died Boston 21 April 1837. buried in Mount Alban Cemetery.
    iii. Sarah Church Kirkby, baptized St Mary, Whitechapel, 27 January 1790.
    iv. John Kirkby, born 24 January 1791, baptized St Clement Danes, Westminster, 27 March 1791. died in Boston in June 1833.
    v. James Church Kirkby, born London, 23 November 1794, baptized Christ Church, Southwark, 3131 January 1795.
    vi. Robert Kirkby, born Boston (?), circa 1797.
 

Tombstone of Mary Ann Kirkby Tucker,

Granddaughter of Dr Benjamin Church, Jr.

Mount Auburn Cemetery 

   * see my blogpost on Church's Surgeons, October 12, 2015
https://drbenjaminchurchjr.blogspot.com/2015/10/dr-churchs-surgeons.html


   * * See my blogpost on Hannah Church Weld, February 26, 2013
 https://drbenjaminchurchjr.blogspot.com/2013/02/hannah-church-weld.html

Who is Major Cane and Why was Church sending a letter to his Brother-in-Law through him?

   Why was Benjamin Church attempting to send a letter to his brother-in-law, John Fleeming, in Boston, through Newport via a Major Cane?  It would seem that the siege lines around Boston were not so tight that letters couldn't be passed back and forth without that much difficulty. And we know that they were. So why did Church choose this rather round about way of getting a letter to his brother-in-law? Because that's how Fleeming instructed him to do it. Here is Church's own account of how he came to write and send the letter while under interrogation in the Massachusetts Provincial Congress:

Sometime after my return from Philadelphia I was passing in my chaise towards Mistick , I met with a team conveying household furniture towards Cambridge,. In the team, seated on the bed was a woman with two children; the woman accosted me by name, asking me if I did not know her; her countenance was familiar to me;  I answered yes, and inquired when she left Boston, she informed me the day before, and told me she had a letter for me from Boston from my Brother; she took a small bundle out of her pocket, and, opening it, handed it to the carman, who delivered it to me; it was directed to me; upon breaking the seal I found it to be written in ciphers and signed J.F. I put it in my pocket and rode a few rods; curiosity induced me to turn back and repair to my lodgings, to decipher the letter, and acquaint myself with the contents. This is the letter...

Dear Doctor: I have often told you what the dreams of  your high flaming sons would come to; do you forget my repeated cautions not to make yourself too obnoxious to Government? What says the psalm-singer and Johnny Dupe to fighting British troops know? They are at Philadelphia, I suppose plotting more mischief where, I hear, your high mightiness has ben ambassador extraordinaire; take care of you nob, Mr. Doctor - remember your old friend, the orator; he will preach no more sedition[Dr Joseph Warren]. Ally [ Church's sister Alice] joins me in begging you to come to Boston. You may depend on it, Government is determined to crush this rebellion; a large re-enforcement of troops is hourly expected, when they are determined to penetrate the country; for God's sake, Doctor, come to town directly, I'll engage to procure your pardon; your sister is unhappy, under the apprehension of your being taken and hanged for a Rebel, which God grant may not be the case. You may rely on it, the Yankees will never be a match for the troops from Great Britain. The Yorkers have behaved like damned fools in robbing the King's stores, as Government had intended to grant them some executive privileges in trade had they continued loyal. It will now be a rendezvous for British troops. We know ell enough that you are divided; your people are discouraged; that you want discipline, artillery, ammunition; and Government has taken effectual care that you shall not be supplied by other Powers. I have wondered that we have not heard from you.; difference of politicks has not cancelled my friendship for you. Let me entreat you not to take up arms against your rightful King, as your friend Warren did, for which he has paid dearly. I cannot send your sulky and other matters you sent for; you may thank your own people for that, who first set the example, by preventing anything from being brought to town. I think you might have sent us some fresh pork now and then. You see Hancock and Adams are attained already. If you cannot pass the lines, you may come in Captain Wallace, via Rhode Island; and if you cannot come immediately, write me in this character, and direct your letter to Major Cane. on his Majesty's Service, and deliver it to Captain Wallace, and it will come safe. We have often head your people intend to attack the town. By God I believe that they had such a dose on Bunker's Hill as to cool their courage. Your sister has been for running away. Kitty [Church's niece] has been very sick We wished you to see her; she is now picking up.

          I remain your sincere friend and brother.
          P.S. Don't fail to write me soon. 

   John Fleeming, the husband of Church's sister Alice, a native Scot, was a very prominent Loyalist newspaper publisher and printer whose activities on the part of the Crown forced him to leave Boston, with his family, virtually penniless, in April 1773. He returned to Boston in 1774, probably May 1774, as some kind of civil official with the British Army. ( I have been unable to determine precisely what his job was.)

   Historians have traditionally identified Major Cane as Lt Col Maurice Cane of the 6th Regiment of Foot. But Maurice Cane, a Lt Colonel with a date of rank of May 1772, never got close to Boston. Major Cane is, in fact, Edward Cane, a captain in the 43rd Regiment of Foot, who was promoted to Major on July 12, 1775.

   Captain Cane was appointed to the post of Town Major for Boston in November 1774. In the British Army, a Town Major, usually a Captain's position, is an officer responsible for good order in an occupied city during military operations. Captain Cane was promoted to Major after his predecessor, Major Spendlove, died of the wounds he suffered during the second charge at Bunker Hill.

   I now suspect that John Fleeming was serving as an agent for one of the British Regiments, probably the 43rd. In the British Army system, a Regiment was really the property of its colonel and much of his income came from what he could derive from the running of his regiment, legitimately. However, the number of financial tasks, commercial transactions, finance, pay, etc. required the appointment of a civilian agent to handle these matters. The term for this individual was regimental agent. The agent was paid by the deduction of two pence in the pound from the pay of the entire regiment. This resulted in a tidy sum and often the Colonel of the Regiment would sell the position to the highest bidder. Professional Agent offices were established in London but representatives had to be dispatched with a Regiment when it was posted to an overseas detachment. It is possible that John Fleeming was serving as one of these agent's representatives. It would also help to explain why he wasn't on the list of civilians evacuated from Boston. He would have been considered part of a regiment. But I can't definitively establish that.

Since Fleeming apparently had some type of civil service position with the British Army, he may have been familiar with Major Cane, and he with him.

   I find it interesting that neither Fleeming nor Church established some type of relationship with the woman who brought him the letter and to funnel a reply through her back to Boston. But there could have been all kinds of reasons why that wasn't practicable.

 Just for the record. I believe Church's account as to how he received the letter from his brother-in-law.

  Church used the same cypher as his brother-in-law used which is not surprising. And it should not be surprising that people communicated in cypher in the mid 18th century. It was quite common.

  For the most comprehensive biography available on John  Fleeming see my three part biography of him:

Dr Benjamin Church Jr: John Fleeming - Part One
Dr Benjamin Church Jr: John Fleeming - Part Two
Dr Benjamin Church Jr: John Fleeming - Part Three

  

Dr Benjamin Church Jr's Mistress

   Since George Washington chose, for whatever reason, not to identify the woman who named Dr Church as the person for whom she attempted to smuggle a letter into Boston, historians have had no first hand, reliable information upon which to identify her. That her identity was well known to a number of individuals in Washington's Headquarters and the camps of the Continental Army besieging Boston is quite obvious. She was seen, obviously, as a quite minor character in the drama of Dr Church's alleged treachery. So then, other than curiosity, why is  her identity important? For one reason, there has been a widely held belief for over 240 years that Dr.  Benjamin Church, Jr "betrayed" the revolutionary effort in order to finance his relationship with his mistress, not to mention the purchase of an expensive mansion in southeastern Massachusetts. ( see my post dated August 10 2010 )

   The key to determining the identity of this woman lies with the "Mr. Wainwood" mentioned in Henry Ward's letter to Nathanael Greene. According to the letter, Wainwood was approached by a woman with whom he had been acquainted in Boston, and she asked him to perform what could be considered a treasonous act. Are we to believe that this woman approached Wainwood with such a task based on a casual acquaintance some years earlier in Boston? Or is there more to this relationship than Wainwood is admitting? If Wainwood was such a committed patriot, why did he do nothing upon being first approached by this acquaintance, but only acted after this woman persisted in her efforts. Indeed, he only acted after another party was witness to the affair.

  So, then who was this "Mr. Wainwood"?

   Godfrey Wenwood, as he styled himself in the 1770s , was a baker who emigrated to Newport, R.I. from London, in 1764, at the age of 25, describing himself as a "native of the Kingdom of Prussia." He became a naturalized citizen in the early 1770s. In January 1765, soon after arriving in Newport, Wenwood married a woman named Mary Butler. In September 1774, Wenwood obtained a divorce from Mary Butler stating that Mary "had absented herself from his Bed and board, committed adultery and cohabitated with other men." Mary had apparently fled to Boston after stripping her home of "sundry articles." Mary appears to have retuned to Newport several months later because her ex-husband posted this notice in the Boston Weekly Post-Boy in January 1775:

Wheras a certain pretended Lady, now known and called by the name of Mary Wenwood, formerly called Mary Butler, a Native of Marblehead, a very lusty Woman much pitted with the Small-Pox, who generally wears the best of Cloathing, did some time past, take, steal, and carry away from my Dwelling House in Newport, a Woman's red Broad cloth Coat and Head, a Muff an Tippet, a Silk Shirt, and sundry other articles, - I do hereby offer a Reward  of the said Sum of Twelve Dollars to any Person or Persons who will apprehend the said Mary and confine her in his Majesty's Goal in Newport, exclusive of all reasonable Charges, that he or they may be reasonably at in performing the same.

   Now that's a bitter divorce.

   But why then why should we identify Mary Wenwood nee Butler as the woman who was Dr Church's mistress?

   On 1 October 1775, James Warren, the President of the Massachusetts Provincial Congress, who Washington immediately notified of the Church letter, wrote John Adams as follows:

The history of the whole matter is this. The Doctor having formed an infamous connection, with an Infamous Hussey to the disgrace of his own reputation, and probable ruin of his family, wrote this letter last July, and sent it by her by Newport ... She not finding an opportunity very readily, trusted it with a friend of hers to perform the orders and came away and left it in his hands.

   Dr. Ezra Stiles ( see my August 10, 2010  post) of Newport, although not always reliable, was involved peripherally and gives some additional, conflicting details concerning Wenwood and the woman who brought him the Church letter, in his diary. Dr Stiles has the advantage of knowing Mr. Maxwell.  In a 2 October 1775 entry, he writes:

Some weeks since he [Church] sent a letter privately by a woman who brought it in her stocking on her leg, with orders to deliver it to either to Mr Dudley the Collector or & so as to go on board Captain Wallace & so thru his hands into Boston. She was a Girl of Pleasure, & one Wainwood a Baker in Newpt had known her in Boston, & they now fell into compt together in Newport. And she inquiring how she might get a letter on board Wallace, he offered to do it. She confided in him & told him who it came from. He afterwards suspected & opened it....Wainwood applied to Schoolmaster Maxwell to decipher it. He could not - but I remember some weeks ago Mr Maxwell  ask me whether I could decypher characters - & said he believed there could be some occasion for a decypherer  to detect an illicit correspondence in the Army. The Saturday before last [ September 23 ] I dined with Mr Maxwell & he spake more of the matter as a fact & advised me as to going to the Army with the man tha had the letter. I desired him first to let me have a line of it - he said he would persuade him to suffer it. Master & Wainwood went to the Army last week and opened the matter to Gen Greene with whom Master was intimate. Thus the matter came before Washington. The Girl was first arrested, she denied but at last own'd & disclosed the whole....

   In a further entry on this matter on October 23, 1775 Stiles, referring to a deciphered copy of Dr Church's letter writes that:

This letter was brought to Newport by Dr. Church's concubine & she delivered it in Confidence to Mr. Wainwood, her former Enamorato (sic) who promised to deliver it to Wallace on board the Rose.

   The letter that Church's mistress wrote to Wenwood remains in the archives:

  

   Dear Sir:

         I now sett down to right afeu Lines hoping they will find you in good helth as  they Leave me I expeted (?) you would have arote to me be for this But now Iexpet to sea you hear every Day I much wonder you never Sent wot you promest to send If you did I never reseve it so pray Lett me know By the first orpurtunuty wen you expet to be hear & at the Same time whether you ever sent me that & wether you ever get a answer from my sister I am a little unesey that you never rote that is aserten person hear wants to Sea you very much so pray com as swon as posebell if you righ Direct your Lettr to me Ewerd Harton* Living on Mr. Tapthonges farm in Little Cambrig [Brighton}

           
Why is it most likely that Mary Wenwood nee Butler was the woman who brought Dr. Church's letter to Wenwood? General Washington's October 5, 1775 letter to John Hancock describes his investigation and subsequent arrest of Dr. Church. The explanations Wenwood gave Washington of his interactions with this woman just don't ring true. Either Wenwood was shaving the truth or Washington was trying to save the man's sensibilities, or both. It just suffers credulity to believe that Wenwood would take this dangerous action for some casual acquaintance from Boston. His account of the discovery of the cypher letter also just doesn't ring true. The account given by Dr Stiles, the one he got from the Schoolteacher Maxwell certainly sounds more plausible. That Wenwood offered to help the woman once she informed him of the letter is more plausible than Wenwood's story to Ward and Washington. Not to over-psychoanalyze, but perhaps Wenwood still held some passion for his wife and saw his helping her as some way to get back together. I think Wenwood panicked when he saw the cypher letter and was desperately trying to find a means to extricate himself from the whole affair. Once Mr. Maxwell got involved there was no turning back. Perhaps Washington sensed this and as repayment for his information decided to save Wenwood.

   The final piece of evidence for me is the letter from the woman to Wenwood asking him why she hadn't heard from him. In it she mentions her sister. There is a level of familiarity that implies a close relationship. And there is little doubt in my mind that the woman writing the letter knew that Wenwood still held a passion for her and she was using that as an allurement to get him to cooperate. This woman had to survive and was undoubtedly playing any angle she could.

   I could well imagine that Dr. Church, desperate to get a letter to his brother-in-law, thwarted, by his own admission, at every turn, would have seized on the fact that Mary Wenwood was from Newport, an area with which he was very familiar and a logical place from which to smuggle a letter into Boston since the British still controlled the port and the ocean route to Boston. If Mary Wenwood informed him that her ex-husband still resided in the city and still yearned for her, Dr. Church would have seized the opportunity. Church certainly would not have used someone with whom he had no relationship and no measure of control.

  Of course, none of this can be proven unless some historical discovery occurs, but the sequence of events, the players involved, lead to the logical conclusion that Mary Wenwood was the woman employed by Church to get his letter to his brother-in-law.

   Finally, if one accepts that Mary Wenwood was indeed the woman attempting to smuggle the letter into Boston, then I have a hard time having her defined as Church's mistress. Undoubtedly there was a relationship, sexual and otherwise. But I don't think we should characterize the relationship in the "classic mistress" sense. Gossip about Church's womanizing goes as far back as the late 1760s. After Lexington/Concord, Church was cut off from Boston and it would be logical to assume that he had certain needs. Perhaps he met Mary Wenwood in Boston in late 1774 or early 1775 and continued a relationship in Cambridge. Or perhaps he met her there. We certainly would know if Church and Mary were cohabitating because we know where Church was residing. Could he have "kept" her? Possibly. But it appears that the woman who wrote the letter was living on a farm in Little Cambridge. Could that farm have been something other than a farm? Perhaps. Let us also not forget that Church was financially stressed since his income had ceased after Lexington/Concord.

   But can one really see Dr Benjamin Church, Jr. America's first great poet, classically trained, who could quote Virgil, in Latin, or Alexander Pope or a dozen other scholars off the top of his head besotted with the barely literate woman who wrote that letter to Wenwood? So yes, I agree that Church had a relationship, sexual and otherwise, with Mary Wenwood, but let's just not get carried away.


  Wenwood remained in Newport after this incident, married a 17 year old in 1776, and died in 1816 at the age of 77, leaving two daughters from this marriage.

   Mary Butler Wenwood disappears from the historical record although a Mary Wainwood of Rhode Island was in out of the alms house in Boston, dying in it in May 1797.

        

General Washington Is Informed of a Mysterious Woman and Equally Mysterious Letter

   The precise chronology and account of the manner in which it came known to George Washington that Dr. Benjamin Church, Jr had been trying to smuggle a letter to his brother-in-law John Fleeming, residing in the town of Boston totally cut off by land from the rest of Massachusetts, is a little muddled.

   Sometime in the last week of September 1775, most likely Friday, September 29th, Brigadier General Nathanael Greene, the 33 year old Commander of a brigade of eight regiments and a native of Rhode Island, received a visitor at his Headquarters on Prospect Hill inside a fortification called the Citadel in Cambridge. It was the strongest point in the Continental Army lines encircling Boston. Indeed, because of its prominence, it was sarcastically called "Mt Pisqah" by the British referring to the biblical account of Moses climbing Mt Pisqah to see the Promised Land. The British maintained that the colonists would never enter Boston. The visitor, an elderly gentleman named Adam Maxwell, was well known to General Greene since he had once served as his teacher. Maxwell brought a letter to Greene from Henry Ward, the provincial Secretary of Rhode Island, dated September 26, 1775:

Sir: This letter waits upon you by Mr Maxwell, who goes down to Cambridge upon a matter into which the strictest inquiry ought to be made. Is in short, this: In July last, a woman with whom Mr Wainwood had an acquaintance in Boston, came to his house and wanted him  to assist her in procuring an opportunity of seeing Mr Dudley or Captain Wallace: and by all, her behaviour showed that she had some secret of consequence. He artfully drew from her that she had been sent from Cambridge with a letter to be delivered to either of the persons named, to be forwarded to Boston. It immediately occurred to him that the letter was probably sent from some traitor in our army. Upon which, he started every difficulty in the way of her seeing Dudley or Wallace, that he could think of, and finally prevailed on her to entrust him with delivery of the letter. He kept the affair to himself some time, being at a loss as to what step he should take in it; and at length imparted the secret to Mr Maxwell who, upon opening the letter, found it written in characters he did not understand. Here it rested until very lately, when Mr Wainwood received a letter from the woman, discovering great uneasiness about the letter she had entrusted him with, which naturally induced a suspicion that the writer of it still continued his correspondence in Boston, and had received information that the letter had never been transmitted. Mr Wainwood and Mr Maxwell, whop are both of them friends to the cause of America, rightly judging that the continuance might be attended with the most pernicious  consequences to the interest of America, thought proper to come to Providence and consult me upon it, having prudently kept the matter entirely to themselves. By my advice, they proceeded to Cambridge, to lay it, with all the circumstances before you.

          I think it best to introduce Mr Maxwell to General Washington, and for you and the General, with not more than one trusty person besides, who is now at Cambridge, in so private a way as to create no suspicion; and it is probable that rewards and punishments, properly placed before her, will induce her to give up the author; in which case, he, with all his papers, should be instantly secured. If the woman should be obstinate, some clew may be found from her connections, that will probably lead to a discovery. But I beg pardon for undertaking to give advice in this case,  when you, upon the spot, possessed of all the circumstances, will be so much better able to judge of the measures proper to pursue. As Mr Wainwood is well known to many of the inhabitants of Boston, I have advised him to go no further than Dedham, where he may be sent for as soon as it shall be though proper for him to appear. I will only add that, if they are happily the means of discovering a treacherous correspondence, carried on by any person of note or trust in our publick affairs, they will do a most essential service to teir Country, and deserve an adequate reward.

          I am, with great truth and Esteem, Sir,  your most obedient and most humble servant, Henry Ward.

   Rarely noted, if at all, in accounts of this affair is an identification of just who Capt. Wallace or Mr. Dudley was, and why their names would have immediately added to the suspicion of the circumstances surrounding this affair. Captain James Wallace, of the sixth rate frigate HMS Rose, was well known to colonials. In 1774, HMS Rose, commanded by Wallace, was sent to Newport, R.I., to put an end to the smuggling that had made Newport one of the richest cites in the colonies. Since the Rose out-gunned any American ship, smuggling was soon reduced to a trickle, affecting the economy. Newport merchants petitioned the legislature to form a navy to confront Wallace and the Rose. They backed up their petition with funds and in June 1775 a merchant ship was purchased and outfitted as a sloop of war.  Its first commander was John Paul Jones.

   Capt. Wallace and the Rose saw service in the Revolutionary War. In fact, Capt. Wallace was knighted for his actions in helping to drive George Washington and the Continental Army from New York City.

                                                               

A replica of the HMS Rose was built in Canada in 1770.
She was later sold to Fox studios who then altered her to resemble the HMS Surprise for the movie Master and Commander.

   Mr. Charles Dudley was the Royal Collector of Customs in Newport, R.I. and an ardent Loyalist.

   It is about 75 miles from Cambridge to Newport so, it is not a journey to be taken lightly, even if much of it would have been on the Boston Post Road.

   General Greene, after reading the letter and accompanied by Maxwell, proceeded to the Vassall House, Washington's Headquarters, and informed Washington of the letter. There are conflicting accounts of precisely just what happened next. George Washington Greene, the son of Nathaniel Greene and a prominent professional historian, maintains in a biography of his father, that after consulting various individuals around the Headquarters, the woman's identity was ascertained. Major General Israel Putnam, or "Old Put" as he was known, was the person who tracked the woman mentioned in the letter down, compelled her to mount behind him on his horse, and brought her in triumph to Washington's Headquarters. Allegedly, not even Washington could stop laughing when, from his chamber window, he saw "Old Put" dash up to the Vassal House gate, leap from his horse, and drag his terrified prisoner up the broad pathway to the door. Composing himself, Washington reached the stairway landing as the front door was thrown open, and putting on his sternest look, assured the terrified woman that nothing but a full confession could save her from a halter. The woman then identified the person who wrote the letter as Dr. Church.

     Washington himself, in his letter to Congress reporting the Church affair, only indicates that the woman " for a long Term, she was Proof against every threat & Persuasion, to discover the author. However, at Length, she was brought to Confession and named Dr. Church." Washington would hardly have mentioned any such conduct as reported in the Greene biography. However, George Washington Greene was born in 1776 and was 10 years old when his father died. He could have gotten the story directly from his father who, after all, was a witness to the woman's arrest. Or, he could have been telling wild tales to his son.

   I would love for the Greene story about General Putnam to be true, but I cannot endorse it.

   Another account indicates that it was Wainwood and not Maxwell who brought Henry Ward's letter to Greene. I have a hard time believing this tale since that would just not have been done in 18th century America. Besides, it is unlikely that Nathaniel Greene would have even seen Mr. Wainwood. He knew and presumably trusted Maxwell.

   It is not clear if Washington ever even interviewed Wainwood. But, as with much of the story surrounding Dr Church, things are not always as they seem. Washington, as did many others, knew the identity of Church's mistress and, to our knowledge, never revealed it to anyone. Research by historians, within the past several years, however, has solved the mystery of just who Dr Church's mistress was and, as we shall see in future posts,  Mr Wainwood and perhaps some other players in this drama have not been entirely truthful.

Dr Benjamin Church Jr Takes Control of the Continental Army Hospital -III

    At this point it would help to once again quote a portion of Dr Church's letter to Samuel Adams  giving his version of his actions upon assuming his position as Director General of the Hospital.


Continental Hospital, Cambridge, Aug 23,1775

 Honoured & dear Sir!

Accept my most sincere acknowledgements for the honour and favour of my late appointment., derived from you my Friend! and the rest of that august body, for whom (abstracted from Self-Consideration) I have ever felt the warmest Devotion, the most heart-felt Reverence: the most acceptable Expressions of my Gratitude, I am assured will be a zealous Application of myself to discharge the important Duties of my Commission. 

  An acquaintance with the economy of Hospitals derived from a Residence of almost three years in the London Hospitals, made the Task before me very acceptable, but I confess the extreme Disorders in which I found matters upon a closer scrutiny, rendered the attempt to effect a Change a very formidable One; a total Revolution was necessary, to fix upon any Principles at all: there existed near 30 Hospitals, each distinct and independent, and some of them under the Guidance and uncontrouled Jurisdiction of Surgeons who had never seen an Hospital; the demands yon the Commissary General and Quarter-master were so extremely frequent and rapid that they informed me, the Expense of supplies for the Surgeons exceeded all the other Expenses of the Army: a matter so ruinous to the Cause demanded, an instant remedy.

I immediately procured two good Houses in Cambridge, the one already improved as a Colony Hospital, the other a regimental sick-House, a perfect sink of Putrescence, filth and Disease; to these I have since found it necessary to add a third viz the House of the fugitive Judge Lea,

I found little difficulty with the Surgeons of this Colony, for having examined and appointed them, they considered me in the light of a Master or Director before, and readily conceded to my Orders; but I have had much difficulty with my Brethren of Connecticut &c, they viewed themselves as Lords of their little Dominions; each Surgeon had his Hospital, to which the officers submitted as matters of Right, already established by uninterrupted usage, and hugged as a Benefice by each distinct, some Surgeons divided the Regiments with their Col'., their Orders were undisputed at the publick stores: The Officers indeed groaned that Diseases became so grassant, the Committee of Supplies and the Commissary groaned with good Reason that they should never be able to answer the Demands.

a cabal has been formed against me, which now exists in a crumbling situation, I still persevere in demolishing these little Pagoda's, and altho much Art and much malice  have been exercised to discredit the American Hospital, it is now arrived to such a degree of reputation that the Soldiers bless the happy Institution, and several of the Regimental Surgeons are soliciting mates Birth, at the loss of 30/pr Month, to improve themselves in the Practice of the Hospital.

We have now 200 Patients in three Houses, which go under the Denomination of Washington's Hospital, Lee's Hospital and Putnam's Hospital.[illegible] to the Brigade on this Quarter. We have likewise three Houses at Brookline to accommodate Roxbury Camp in which are 170 Patients, but these I am reducing to 2 Houses Loring's and Barnard's which I shall call Ward's Hospital and St Thomas's Hospital in honour of the two Generals on that Quarter.

I should be happy could every purpose be effected agreeable to the Disposition of Offices made by the Honle Congress, with the Allowance annexed to sundry of them. The number of Surgeons I apprehend must be enlarged  to three more.

The Houses at Cambridge now improved for Hospitals are most advantageously situated to accommodate the Camps on Prospect Hill, Mystick, &c. And in the course of two days by which time I hope to compleat the Number of Beds & Slaw bunks [ some type of a bunk bed with straw as near as I can determine], will be filled and will contain about 240 Patients with their proper number of attendants. These Hospitals are not only insufficient to hold all the sick of both Camps, but they are so remote from Roxbury being 6 miles at least, that in many Cases it would be greatly inconvenient, and in case of an Engagement totally impracticable to remove the wounded men so far;

the Houses lately the property of Barnard and Loring are already made use of for the sick, stand very conveniently, and are sufficiently elevated & capacious these will accommodate the Camp at Roxbury, and the disposition of the Surgeons could stand thus: [Church names his seven surgeons] 

I must entreat your Indulgence to mention one or two other matters - the sick thicken upon us so rapidly, that we are obliged to send the Recovering Men too early to the Camps; being obliged to do duty immediately, and being thereby exposed to all Weathers in their weak state, they frequently relapse; 4 out of 5 generally return to the Hospital within a Week after their Dismission. An Airing house, or as 'tis usually called a Convalescent Hospital is a wise and salutary Provision; here the Patients upon their recovery ought to be sent, to be kept upon a half-Diet and tonic medicines, till they have recovered such a degree of firmness, as to be able to do their duty in Camp without hazard - these Houses require nothing more than a good careful Mate or two to attend them, and to be daily visited by the Hospital Physician.........

I must here renew my solicitation to be supplied with Medicines, I will particularly attend to eke out the few on hand, to prevent distress for want of medicines before the rest arrive. 3 lb of Ipecac is our whole stock, for 400 sick men, and great part of them Dysenteries, and no more to be obtained this way. Tow-Cloth for Beds I am much embarrassed for, the stores are exhausted and none can procure as yet elsewhere....

  

 The friction between the regimental surgeons and Dr Church continued. At the end August and the beginning of September 1775, Church actually thought that the tensions were easing because several regimental surgeons, being attracted by the educational opportunities in the reorganized hospitals, were accepting appointments as hospital mates at a 30 % reduction in pay. But then the frictions between the Army Hospital, headed by Church, and the regimental surgeons reached Washington.

George Washington By John Trumbull

1780

Washington reacted to this on September 7,1775 expressing his desire to have "the utmost care taken of the sick (wherever placed and in every stage of their disorder)" but at the same time announcing his determination "not to suffer any impositions upon the publick." He then ordered his brigadier-generals, with their regimental commanding officers, to sit as a court of inquiry, and directed that they summon Dr Church and the regimental surgeons before them, investigate the matter, and report back to him. Dr Church would have to face six separate courts of inquiry. Courts composed of regimental commanders who appointed the regimental surgeons. Men who were not only from the same colony or even town but who were in the closest units in the armies, the regiments. Washington revealed his organizational concept of the medical service by stating that "when a soldier is so sick that it is not safe or proper for him to remain in camp, he should be sent to the General Hospital," Further, he declared that "there is no need of regimental hospitals...when there is a General Hospital so near, and so well appointed." If, as some believe, that this was an attempt by Washington to shore up his Director General, then it sure was a strange way of doing it. But Washington, at this point, was not the Washington that emerged  at the end of the war. At this point, he was a new Commander, commanding units in a colony hundreds of miles away from Virginia with subordinates whom he hardly knew and, frankly, with New England troops that he found rather repulsive.

   Dr Church must have been furious when he learned of Washington's decision to hold these courts of inquiry. He would have to appear, in person, in front of  men with whom he had little in common and who he, undoubtedly considered his intellectual, social, and professional inferiors and justify his actions, even though he had been appointed by the Continental Congress to the position as the Director General of the Hospital.

   We do not have a single shred of evidence as to what Washington thought of Church at this point or, indeed what Church thought of Washington. But one would imagine that the Harvard educated, London trained Doctor, a brilliant, renowned  poet, polemicist, satirist, scion of a distinguished New England family, with a long record of Whig activity, and the self-educated, ruthlessly ambitious Virginia planter, land speculator, and surveyor had little in common.

   The first court of inquiry was held by Brigadier General John Sullivan of New Hampshire on September 13, 1775. Regimental surgeons complained to the court that the general hospital denied them the drugs they demanded. Gen Sullivan protested that his wounded were being moved three to four miles to Cambridge to have their wounds dressed while his regimental surgeons remained idle. Sullivan complained:

Are the Dolorous Groans of the Disconsolate, agreeable to any human ear - That they should be still increas's by Dragging our sick...in Waggon Loads to Cambridge? Humanity shudders at the Prospect."
   
  Sullivan insisted that fully half of the patients ordered by Church to the general hospitals refused to go.

   "Declaring that they would rather Die where they were and under the care of those Physicians they were acquainted with."

   Sullivan concluded that since the enlistments in the Continental Army were for only one year that Church's policies would so affect morale that soldiers would not reenlist.

   We do not know how Dr Church responded to General Sullivan's accusations but he, apparently believed that matters were concluded in his favor since he sent the following letter to Gen Sullivan the very next day. It is quintessential Church:

American Hospital                                September 14, 1775

  Dr. Church presents his most respectful compliments and most heartily felicitates himself on receiving so honorary a testimonial of General Sullivan's approbation, as he met with the last evening at Headquarters. The Doctor esteems himself peculiarly happy that the undeserved prejudice against him is so totally removed which from frequent intimations he was apprehensive had possessed the general's mind. He flatters himself that his whole conduct, during the present unhappy conduct, will bear the strictest scrutiny. A regard to place, popularity, or the more detestable motive of avarice never influenced his conduct in publick life. The sole object of his pursuit, the first wish of his heart, was ever the salvation of his country.

The Doctor, nevertheless, in Justice to himself, and with respect to the man behind the curtain has influenced and took the lead in the opposition to him, must declare that although he could never stoop to act the parasite, play the buffoon, or become the herald of his own eminence in his own profession would feel the indignation of conscious merit should be put in competition with the person who vainly endeavours to supplant him.

         Hon General Sullivan


   Dr Church also alluded to a someone plotting to replace him in his letter to Samuel Adams. That he would mention it so openly in his letter to Gen Sullivan is an indication that there is substance to his belief. One gets the impression that General Sullivan knew who this person was. There is no definitive evidence just who this person might have been, but a reasonable suspicion could be placed on Dr Issac Foster of Massachusetts , one of the surgeons Dr Church hired to attend at the Cambridge Hospital.  (See my post on the surgeons hired by Dr Church.). It is known that when Church was later replaced by Dr John Morgan of Philadelphia, Dr Foster and Lt Col Hand, a physician serving as a line officer in a Pennsylvania rifle battalion were competitors for the appointment. Foster was actually appointed to serve temporarily in Church's place after he was removed by Washington.

  The inquiry at Sullivan's brigade was followed by inquiries at Gen Greene's and Gen Heath's brigade. We have no information as to what transpired during these two hearings, but within a few days, Church apparently took leave to visit his family.

   The next record we have is of Church writing a letter dated 20 September 1775 to Washington requesting release from his position as Director General of the Hospital. I have not been able to discover a copy or the original of this letter. We know about it because of a letter written by Horatio Gates, Washington's Adjutant General, to Church.

Cambridge September 24, 1775

          To Doctor Church:

           Sir: I am directed by his Excellency the General to inform you that his unwillingness to part with a good officer alone prevents his complying with your request, in your letter of the 20th instant. He desires you would stay with your family some time longer, and if there then is no prospect of its being in such a situation as to permit you to return to your duty, you will  receive a discharge pursuant to your letter.
           Horatio Gates, Adjutant-General

    Dr Church's wife and children are believed to have been residing with family friends in South-Eastern Massachusetts at this time so it is reasonable to assume he was there when he wrote this letter. We do not know what reasons(s) he may have given for his resignation but we do know that in later correspondence Dr Church said that he fell ill at this time. The precise nature of his illness is not known. In any event Dr Church returned to Cambridge to resume his duties and complete the series of Brigade inquiries into the hospital situation ordered by Washington. The inquiry at General Frye's brigade was held on September 24th so Church must have been back in camp by then. An inquiry in General Thomas' Brigade was scheduled for the 29th. That inquiry may never have been conducted since General Nathaniel Greene arrived in camp on 26th September with some earth shattering information.

   So on Saturday, September 30, 1775, the following order was issued:

     A Court of Inquiry ordered to sit this day in Brigadier-General Spencer's Brigade in relation to the dispute between the Director-General of the Hospital and the Regimental Surgeons is, on account of the indisposition of Dr. church, to be postponed until further notice.