I presume that I have been asked the question which heads this chapter, more frequently than any other, and to all I have given the same answer, "I do not know." I have to confess that I have made no attempt to trace him to his English home, both from want of time and opportunity, as well as from the difficulty of the task. The name exists over the entire district of Great Britain; in England, in Ireland, in Scotland, and in Wales. From all these lands Grangers have immigrated to the United States, but generally since the Revolution. Some of these families, and especially the Scotch, trace their line back for several centuries, and show connections with families of rank and position. A number appear among the clergy of the Church of England, and the Rev. James Granger, the famous biographical historian, erected a lasting monument to himself in his literary works. On August 1, 1700, Thomas Granger, a lay officer of Westminster Abbey, was buried within its precincts; John Granger, a deputy teller of the Exchequer, was also buried in the Abbey on March 8, 1736, as was his wife on July 17, 1735. But it has been impossible for me to trace up these persons bearing our name to any connection with those who came earlier to America.

There has naturally come to me through my extensive correspondence with the members of the family, traditions as to the coming of Launcelot, which have been handed down from father to son. He is said to have been a Welshman; a Scotchman; a North of Ireland man; an Englishman. These statements are mostly but traditions, and unsupported by substantial proof. They must be given here without endorsement by me, and must be received by my readers with such credit as each chooses to give. It certainly is to be regretted that nothing more definite is known regarding his advent into this country, and a hope had that some time among the early colonial papers of New England, a clew can be found which will unravel the mystery.

From some members of the family, widely scattered over the land, came the story that three brothers named Granger, came together from England and settled on the Massachusetts coast. One of these was Launcelot; the names of the others are not given. It is a story misty and dim at best, endorsed by no facts or dates. It is not impossible but it is improbable. There were, indeed, three men by the name of Granger in New England about the same time; John of Scituate, whose record we know; Byron of Salem (1637), of whom we know nothing further; and Launcelot at Ipswich (1648), the subject of this sketch. But, beyond the fact that these three were in that country about the same time, there is nothing to vouch for the correctness of the story, and I am inclined to pass it by without further thought or comment.

There is another story which comes down through many years and through many hands, which was long ago reduced to writing from the lips of one who was born not many years after the death of Launcelot, and to it I am inclined to give a great deal of attention and credit. It is romantic, it is true, but history tells us that such incidents were not uncommon in the early days of Massachusetts. Let me give it as it comes to me, with such comments as I think pertinent.

Sarah Granger was born at Suffield, August 16, 1731, about forty years after the death of Launcelot. Her father was John, a grandson of Launcelot, being born in 1706. Her grandfather, Thomas, was one of the children who came over from Newbury to Suffield with his father, the founder of the family, and he died but a year before Sarah was born. She was a woman of more than average brightness, and I am told retained her mind and memory to the end. She married a Suffield man, Joel Harmon, and with him removed to Ravenna, Ohio, where she died, February 28, 1830, nearly one hundred years old.

Ebenezar Granger was born at Suffield, July 6, 1781, and died at Zanesville, Ohio, September 22, 1822, where he was a lawyer. He was a nephew of Mrs. Harmon, his father being her youngest brother. Ebenezar was very intimate with the Harmons after their joint removal to Ohio, and frequently visited them. From her lips he heard the story, and, at the time, wrote it down. This paper is still extant, and I give it verbatim as follows:

"Launcelot Granger was born in the west of Engiand, and, when a lad of twelve or fourteen years of age, he was stolen from his mother (his father being dead) and brought to Plymouth in Massachusetts, where he was sold (apprenticed) to serve two years for his passage. He had served on the ship as a cabin boy.

"He afterwards married a lady named Adams, and settled east of Boston, where he lived till he had two children.

"Being the eldest of his family he returned to England to obtain his inheritance. On the way from the place where he landed to his mother's house, to which he traveled on foot, he had to pass through an uninhabited country, and, just before night, stopped at a little cottage. The old man of the house told him that frequent robberies had been committed on the road a short distance ahead, and advised him to put up for the night. But, not knowing but what he would be in as much danger at the cottage as on the road, and being in haste, he determined to proceed. After he had advanced some distance into the woods he perceived by the light of the moon a man step into the road before him and move on slowly until a second one joined him. When he came up to them they demanded his money. He told them he had but one crown, which was barely sufficient to pay his expenses to his friends, who lived at some distance. They, however told him he must give up his money or they would take his life. He replied that if they got his money they must fight for it, on which they attacked him with their swords, while he defended himself with his quarter-staff. With the butt end of this he knocked down one and dispatched him, and the other ran away. When he arrived at the next village he made oath to what he had done, before a magistrate, and was suffered to proceed on his journey. The inhabitants of the village found the man who was slain to be one of their 'honest' citizens.

"When he arrived at his mother's house, he found his younger brother in possession of the estate, and very much displeased to see him, and, it is supposed, hired assassins to dispatch him. As he walked out with them, under the pretence of viewing the farm, they attacked him behind a wood, with their swords, but he defended himself so manfully with his quarter-staff that he killed two of them and the other fled. He returned and made known what he had done to the magistrate, who, upon investigation, acquitted him of all blame. Meeting, however, with difficulties in obtaining his inheritance," (He certainly did.--ED.) "he abandoned it and returned to America.

"Launcelot was a man of great resolution; was of full medium height and stockily built."

The story is one which will at first raise a smile, and one would be tempted to cast aside as too romantic and improbable. Indeed, even now, I am not inclined to accept it as true in all its details, but a careful study of the times show that in the main it is not improbable. Then, too, it comes to me in more or less the same form from other sources; from Grangers most distantly related to Mrs. Harmon. One old lady, a descendant of the Pennyslvania branch, assures me that it has been handed down in her family for generations as true. Since, then, from so many sources comes the same story, I feel warranted in at least discussing its probability.

In the first twenty years after the founding of the colonies in New England (1620-1640) the influx of immigrants was great. I have already stated that it is estimated that over 21,000 people came over in 298 ships, and more in others. The colonies became over-crowded, and, as the ministers found in the case of Thomas Granger, many ungodly people were employed in bringing other ungodly people into New England. Servants were in demand; they had to be obtained by fair means if possible; by foul if necessary. Men and ships were specially employed in the business of supplying the demand. Convicts were banished to the new world, and many of the New England families are descended from these involuntary immigrants who left their country for their country's good. Finally men and boys were kidnapped in large numbers at the various English seaports, and carried to the shores of Massachusetts Bay and Plymouth. In this the apprentice laws of New England assisted.

The apprenticing of boys and youths was conducted by the town authorities, and contracts were enforced in the strictest manner. It is interesting to trace through the historical fragments which have come down to us, the condition of these apprenticeships. At Windsor, Conn., the contract stipulated that the master should teach the boy to "read and write English and cast accounts, and be at the cost and use his best endeavors to get his scurf head cured." At the end of his apprenticeship this soreheaded boy was to receive double apparel, a musket, a sword, bandoliers, and 20s. A girl in Charlestown was bound for five years, at the end of which time she was to receive a she-goat. For improper conduct, apprentices were ordered by the court to be imprisoned, or whipped, or fined. If they did not pay the fine they were sometimes sold to Virginia, the Barbadoes, or any English colony or plantation. In 1654 Rhode Is land passed a law to return apprentices and servants who had escaped from their masters in the other colonies.

It is plain, then, that the portion of Sarah Harmon's story that Launcelot was kidnapped as a boy in England and brought to Plymouth, where he was sold as an apprentice, is fully within the bounds of possibility and reason. His would not have been an exceptional case, but one with hundreds of similar ones. There is no doubt in my mind that there is some element of truth in this part of the story; that Launcelot was kidnapped and apprenticed out in the Plymouth colony, and that after his discharge he left the place of his servitude for the adjacent colony of Massachusetts Bay. The very name he bore seems to show that he did not belong to the Puritan, but the Cavalier party, and his trip to New England would hardly have been a voluntary one "for religion's sake."

There are also fingers which point to the probability of his return to England to recover his portion of the estate, but I doubt if he returned to America emptyhanded. As to the fights in which he was forced to take a hand, I prefer to pass them by. Launcelot was a thick-set sturdy man, able to defend himself, and the times were turbulent and dangerous especially in the West of England. Highway robbery and murder was not unknown in those days, as readers of English history are aware.

It will be seen later that, when Launcelot was living at Ipswich, he courted and married the daughter of a Puritan, an elder in the church, a man of position and means. Launcelot himself was never a member of the church at Newbury. I have the names of all the members during his time, and his is not among them. He was never a freeman or voter at Newbury; only a church member attained the right. The Puritans were bitter in their hatred of those outside their church organizations; they refused to associate with them. But in one respect they tolerated them; if the son of Belial was rich, they would permit their daughters to marry him. Launcelot, a child of Satan, married a daughter of Robert Adams, a Puritan of the strictest kind. He must have returned from England the second time, supplied with that golden disinfectant which made him acceptable to the nostrils of the old Puritan as a son-in-law.

In 1654 the majority of the dwellings within the colony were of the humblest sort. A writer describes them as follows

"They were built of logs, the floor of earth or split logs. They were at least 18 feet long, 16 feet wide, and of 9 foot studd. A good chimney gave a domestic hearth and made them comfortable. Dedham had ninety-five of these log houses in 1664; four only were valued at twenty pounds; the most ranged from three to ten pounds. The roofs were thatched, and this covering was common until about 1691.

"The better class of houses were two storied; the upper usually jutted about one foot over the lower story. Sometimes the roof was gambled, and often it sloped through the upper story, making the rear line lower than the front. The frame timbers were heavy and of oak; the windows were two and a half to three feet long; one and a half to two feet wide. A common arrangement of the first floor was a 'great room,' i. e. company room, and a kitchen, each twenty feet square, with a bedroom and large cheese and milk pantry. Closets clustered about the chimney on either floor; some of them were arranged for hiding places. Bricks were laid against the inner partition or wooden wall, and covered with clay; boards were placed on the outside, first called clay-boards, and then corrupted into clap-boards."(*)

(*) "Economic and Social History of New England," by W. B. Weeden.

When Launcelot was married in 1654 he took his wife to a newly built house of the better class on Kent's Island in Newbury. It was such a one as has just been described. It was forty-eight feet long, twenty-two feet wide; two storied with an attic, and built of sawed oak lumber. It had a large "great room" and kitchen on the first floor, besides a bedroom and pantry. In its huge chimney were three fireplaces, two closets and an oven. The lower story was lined with brick. It was, in fact, one of the best classes of houses in the colony, and a young bridegroom who could commence housekeeping at the top of the ladder must have been different from most of the young men of his day. It points to the truth of what I claim, that Launcelot was a very well-to-do man at the time of his marriage, and, if he did return to England to recover his inheritance, he was successful in obtaining at least a portion of it.