The Ancestors of Thomas and Hannah (Smith) Flewelling

THE ANCESTORS OF THOMAS AND HANNAH (SMITH) FLEWELLING
OF HEMPSTEAD, LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK
1500's - 1700

  PREAMBLE

  Where to start? The problem is that it is like a jig saw puzzle with half of the pieces missing. You place the pieces as best you can, and you get a vague picture. As if that's not enough, some of the pieces  come from other puzzles, and are simply the wrong ones, but they almost seem to fit.
  Flewelling genealogy probably goes back to the turn of the century when the Right Honourable Gabriel Hudson Flewelling, MLA, having time and money, desired to do two things in his retirement. First, he financed the research into his family origins and, according to his family, traced them through records of heraldic visitations to ancient Wales. Secondly, he built a large (very large) house to contain his family with their children. The results of the genealogical research he carefully placed in the upper floors of the almost completed house. The house burnt down. The subject was never raised in the family again during his lifetime, and if he knew anything, he never spoke of it.
  There have been notices and summaries. For example, the Right Rev. Archdeacon H. A. Cody (who married a Flewelling) and was Pastor at Oak Point, New Brunswick, wrote brief biographies of the early (1783-1820 or thereabouts) members of his church. These included several of the Loyalist Flewellings. H. A. could write a decent story, and some of his novels can still be found. He undoubtedly used church records and the recollections of his in-laws; but probably just a bit of artistic license as well.
  The next entry into the study of the family was that of Allan H. Wetmore (1945 manuscript, in the New Brunswick Museum, Saint John, New Brunswick) who compiled it for his Flewelling nieces. It basically begins with the Loyalists, but with the aid of Capt. (USN) Ernest Mott, MD, a distant cousin, he made some inroads into learning something of the colonial ancestry as well. Mott was also descended from Adam Mott, of Hempstead, Long Island, and had an 'in' in that area. Wetmore's, 'Flewelling Genealogy' is the cornerstone upon which all following Flewelling researchers have constructed their work. It is invaluable because he based it on local church records, the early findings on New Brunswick Loyalists, cemetery inscriptions and conversations and correspondence with branches of the family in New Brunswick. There are many errors  (for which there is no blame) offset by much information which would have been lost in the past 50 years.
  From 1950 to 1980, there were a series of seekers (including myself) following the same blazed trails, making the same errors, and running into the same barriers. Some constructed compilations: Vivien Spack's scattered notes for the United Empire Loyalists' Association, Queen Perry's aside in her Chambers-Outhouse Genealogy, even published works which deal which whole branches of the family. David Avery wrote, Cogs: The Ancestors and Descendants of John Gunton and Eliza Jarvis, (Mika Publishing Co., Belleville, ONT, 1982.) It is a fine work, carefully researched, lovingly written. Eliza Jarvis was the daughter of Olive Ruth (Flewelling) Jarvis, so, even if the name appears rarely, they are all Flewelling descendants. The section on Flewellings is good until it gets back to 1700, and then it fails. This was symptomatic of a common problem for searchers. As they got back a few generations, they would strike a point where they could not make the leap to the next generation. With the co-operation and sharing of each other's research, a number of us made some progress in, "Oak Leaves", version 1, from 1980 to 1990. We still relied much on the work of those who had blazed the trail, but it became clear that the path was going in wrong directions, leading to dead ends, going the wrong way. It was necessary to set aside many of their conclusions until the material they were based upon was found. When some of it was, it was found to have been misinterpreted. Genealogists were notoriously poor scholars, which is why the were considered to be presumptuous riff-raff by professional historians. I find it intriguing that it is genealogists who will probably make the internet a valid historical artifact, preserving, disseminating and synthesizing far in advance of other historical disciplines; unless historians can get off their . . . chairs.
  The internet. I left off genealogy when my efforts became debilitating and an interference with my other obligations. I refrained from acquiring a personal computer as I was disappointed with the rapid obsolescence and outrageous costs. We needed one, we got one, we got on line. I anticipated rapid advancements. Accurate compilations. Rare volumes, previously guarded by ferocious librarians, at the fingertip. Archived manuscripts and documents scanned and saved for visual examination. I was dismayed. The same problems, the same questions, the same blazed trail. On the other hand, there was a lot of stuff, and one could see a beginning, a glimmer of daylight through a partially open door. But, it is still a jig saw puzzle.
  That is what this work is about. I am picking up pieces I can find, adding them to fragments I have, re-evaluating, synthesizing and attempting to create a pattern on which something new can be built. In this format, I can do something I could not do before, rearrange the pieces into different patterns. This is especially true in that I can sort the pieces chronologically. With the pieces sorted, I will attempt a summary of what I see developing, and I hope that you see fit to correct me, even in the smallest misspelled werd (I mean 'word') and I hope that I will have this new toy long enough to make the necessary changes.



  A NOTE ABOUT DATES

Dauphin: What a long night is this!
King Henry V, Act VI, Scene VI, William Shakespeare

  The Gregorian calendar was introduced 4 OCT 1582, the next day being 15 OCT 1582. The British Protestants, however, were not ready to lose eleven days of their lives through a Popish trick.  At the time, in England, the year began the 25th March; not the 1st of January.  The Britons finally accepted the `New Style' in 1752. At times, dates might be written in either format, but were often differentiated as `Old Style' (O. S.) or `New Style'.
  It is assumed that most of the dates mentioned in this work are Old Style, but that depends on whether researchers and transcribers have `translated' them or not. I take the dates as I find them. If it is necessary to be absolutely sure, then the original source should be tracked down and examined.
  Sometimes, a date might be written 16 FEB 1656/7. This indicates one of two things. First, that the original recorder was aware of the difference, and the date (in our terms) would be in 1657. The matter of the eleven days is another problem, best solved by ignoring it. Secondly, the transcriber (or a transcriber, as these often go through many hands) was aware of the difference and wished to indicate that although the original said '1656', it was 'meant' to be 1657.
  As a rule (when I remember), I assume that January, 1613 (for example) comes before April, 1614; (because the New Year was in the intervening March.) Thus, a child born in February, 1613 to parents married in April, 1613 need cause no comment. The February is actually in our year 1614. Should a child prove to be born after the date of his parent's marriage, several things need to be considered. There may not have been a clergyman available, and they may have been married by declaration before family and friends, with a religious wedding when feasible. The differences between religious sects caused several to deny the validity of a marriage performed by another sect; and, again, two separate marriages may have resulted. The father, expressing his desire to test the fertility of a prospective life-mate, may have gain her agreement to the experimentation prior to marriage. (This last concern has become less of a serious matter than it was even a century ago. The suggestion today might be the cause of a certain degree of hilarity on the part of the young lady so approached; another reason why the proposal has rarely been considered today.)
  Where discrepancies occur, I have not tried to resolve the difficulty. In some cases, where the dates are obvious guesses (resulting in a father siring several children a decade after his death, for example) I have simply failed to record the suspect date unless it has a genuine use as a theory. If I have slighted previous researchers by doing so, I hope that will realize that my motives are to attempt simplification of problems rather than creation of them.
  Take a look at my entry for 27JUN1650. What a mess! That's why I write dates the way I do. I picked it up from the military. For me 5/6/78 could be 5JUN1978, 6MAY1978 or even 5MAY1878.


  THE THORN (A rose by any other name would still have them.)

  Prior to the `modernization' of print, there existed a letter in the English alphabet known as the thorn. It was used to represent 'th', particularly at the beginning of words such as: the, this, that, etc. I find that the composition programme I have includes that almost extinct letter, and it looks like this: þ. With the introduction of the printing press, it was discarded as being too easily confused with 'd', 'p' or even 'b'. However, handwritten works and older manuscripts, still used it and were often transcribed into type. The typesetters resolved the problem by using 'y' as a replacement. Thus: "Ye Olde English Junque Shoppe". (They actually, at one time, used and pronounced those 'e's on the ends like, 'Olduh English Junkuh Shoppuh'.) The tendency is for the reader to pronounce 'ye' as 'yee', when it is meant to be 'the', pronounce 'thuh' or 'thee' as the case might be. Since transcribers have replaced the thorn with a 'y', in some of the following transcriptions, I have put the thorn back. That is, I have cheated by not always transcribing as I find things, but in lengthy transcriptions of old documents, I have changed 'ye' to 'þe'. I did this to remind you that a `th' is meant, and to `restore' the transcription that was 'corrected' in the first place. In shorter transcriptions, I have used a `y' just as the original writer did. Often this was because the transcription as a whole is suspect, and I did not wish to be accused of further 'correction'. One problem may be that this special character may not translate from computer to computer or to printer or to web page, etc. But if it can't, why include it in the available fonts? I can only marvel at the modern technological mind which is something far, far beyond my simple understanding.
 One problem will be distributing this. The last time I wrote something and left it on one of the Family Forums, it was dropping a plate of spaghetti; with sauce, cheese and meatballs. All the formatting disappears, some of the fonts are lost. It's a mess.
  Here I am with a giant jigsaw puzzle, it's raining, so, where do I start? Why not with my favourite, William Shakespeare.


  MY VERBOSITY

Capt. Fluellen: If the enemy is an ass, and a fool, and a prating coxcomb, is it meet, think you, that we should also, look you, be an ass, and a fool, and a prating coxcomb, - in your own conscience, now?
King Henry V, Act IV, Scene I, William Shakespeare

  I tend to 'run off at the mouth' when I write these things. I will beg your pardon and patience now. It is partially my desire to give you each scrap available, and partially the fact that I am trying to understand, myself, the significance of what is evolving as the pieces come together. At least, in this format, I can go back and rewrite a passage as my opinion changes, or new facts come to light. This will result in a ragged format, and may make reading difficult. Sometimes, I will discuss matters that have no significance, apparently; but I often digress to provide a historical backdrop about people for whom we have so little biographical information. Other times, I will follow a line of reasoning only to demonstrate that it doesn't work. This will be disconcerting, and I suggest you read the whole thing before taking notes


  STRATFORD-UPON-AVON

Pistol: Know'st thou Fluellen?
King Henry: Yes.
Pistol: Art thou his friend?
King Henry: And his kinsman too.
    King Henry V, Act IV, Scene 1, William Shakespeare



  William Shakespeare did three things to the Flewelling family. One is fairly obvious, the other is probably known to most Flewelling genealogists, and the third thing lies before you, but is not as clear as the others. The first thing is that Shakespeare popularized the `F' spelling of Llewelyn. When someone sees  a `F' version of the name, they often recognize it as a variation of the original, and as of Welsh derivation. Secondly, because of  Shakespeare's fame, admirers seeking to learn as much about him as possible have been responsible for the examination and preservation of records in the area of Stratford-upon-Avon to a greater degree than in many other localities. The least obvious effect is that Shakespeare's works, together with the King James Version of the Holy Bible, were probably the most popular works in the English language to be published by the relatively new printing presses. He was a best seller. Prior to Elizabethan times, the English language was variable in content, pronunciation and especially in spelling. Elizabethans took a deep interest in language and vied (at least in London) in erudition, elocution and flamboyancy. Consider that in the 400 years before Shakespeare, the English language had undergone such massive changes that an Englishman of 1200 could not converse with one of 1600. While Shakespeare's language may be a trial today (after another 400 years), we can still read his works without great difficulty. The printed word 'fixed' much of vocabulary and grammar (allowing study, creation of grammatical rules, and even dictionaries) and pronunciation. Most of all, it created standards of spelling. Most researchers will be familiar with the variables of 17th century 'spelling', if that word had a meaning at that time. These standards were first applied in England, and later in the American colonies. As a result, the Welsh in Great Britain had the opportunity to 'correct' the spelling of Welsh names, at least to the extent that Llewelyn is usually spelled Llewellyn; but in North America, the 'F' versions appear to have prevailed, resulting in an almost uniquely continental set of variations.
  Shakespeare's treatment of the character, Captain Fluellen, is curious. He uses four captains in the play; one English, one Irish, one Scottish and the last, Welsh. In all cases, he lampoons their nationality to some degree, less so with the English. With Fluellen, the satire is balanced with a characterization, which is respectful and admiring.  In part this treatment reflects an early concept of unity in Great Britain (James I having claim to the crowns of the United Kingdom of England, Cornwall and Wales; Scotland and Ireland) and, in part, reflects the attitude of the English of his time. The Scots and Irish were troublesome Celtic barbarians, while the Welsh were usually more integrated into English society. The development of Fluellen's character is broader than would seem necessary to present these concepts. There are several reasons why this might be. Henry V was born in Wales, and had a large contingent of Welsh with him in France. These may have been more willing to serve him because they could regard him as Welsh. Before Henry had assumed the throne, one of England's chief adversaries had been Owen Glendower leading the Welsh people. Loyalty may have been at a premium. The Welsh contingent was led by a staunch supporter of the House of Lancaster, Davy Gam ('Squint-eyed Davy') or Davydd ap Llewelyn. He is briefly mentioned in the play as one of the more honoured slain of the English army. Amongst the Welsh contingent was Sir Owain Tudor, second husband to Henry's French queen and, through her, ancestor to the Tudor dynasty; of Elizabeth I and James I. Shakespeare would be wise not to be too disparaging of the Welsh. Davydd ap Llewelyn was brother-in-law[1] to Glendower, and it has been claimed, if not shown, that he and Owain were kin and that they both claimed relationship to the various princely families of Wales. So did Henry V. Therefore, they were all cousins. It would seem that Shakespeare gives special notice to Fluellen as he is basing him on a historical personage, possibly connected to the royal family, and by doing so would earn nods of approval from that royal house.
  There may be more to it. Shakespeare may have been Welsh himself. I would really rather not get into the details, but Shakespearian genealogy was a hot topic about 1900-1940, and they really got into dog fights about it. One theory was that Richard Shakespeare, Will's grandfather, married an Alys Griffin. This raised speculation that the Bard was a bard, and that his eloquence was inherited; learned, literally, at his grandmother's knee. In short, they said that the Welsh were a verbose people in love with the sound of their own voices. The nerve! Oh! Yes. Well. May be they had something there.
  The Griffin family to which Alys (Griffin) Shakespeare belonged are supposed to have come from around Brecon, which is where Davydd ap Llewelyn's father, Llewelyn ap Hwyll, had his lands. Sir Walter Raleigh is said to have quoted Davydd as saying to Henry V, when asked how many French there were before the battle of Agincourt, 'that there were enough to be slain, enough to be taken prisoners, and enough to run away.'[2] While this may not be fact, it does show that Davydd was still known in Shakespeare's day, and that it was believed that he was an intimate of Henry V. Owain Glyndwyr, who once held Davydd prisoner until his father ransomed him, in a verse described Davydd as a short, squint-eyed, red-haired man.
  I found all of this while poking around Welsh genealogies trying to get a fix on Llewellyns and Griffins. Griffins have always seemed to be hanging around where ever there are Flewellings, and sometimes they married each other. This was true in my line. Well, the Shakespearean genealogists provided a ton of ancient Welsh genealogies on the Griffins. Nothing really relevant to me. Besides, Welsh genealogies are infamous. If you take Celtic 'history' seriously, then we are all descended from the goddess Aphrodite, and semi-divine.
  I was just trying to see if there was any connection to the Princes of Wales. There would be more than one prince at a time. A Prince of Powys, a Prince of Gwenydd, and so on. There were so many Princes (Prince just means the leading noble in a defined region) that all the Welsh could, with justification, claim noble ancestry. I was doing it the wrong way. First, you prove the line back to Britain; and then you see what develops.
  The Welsh were a little slow on adopting permanent or family surnames (the name of your sire.) They did it literally longer than most others in the British Isles. Surnames were originally for the nobility, and generally referred to the land they owned. For commoners, surnames arose more to distinguish one John from another. The smith's son was John Smith, the guy who lived by the oak glade was John Ogden (Oak dene.) In Wales, they really used their father's name with 'ap' meaning 'son-of'. So Llewellyn the son of Rhys was Lewellyn ap Rhys. If he met another Llewellyn ap Rhys, then he was Llewellyn ap Rhys ap Davydd, and the other was Llewellyn ap Rhys ap Hwyll. And they generally could cite back several generations. The English thought all of this was a bit extravagant, and the ap Rhyses became Prices, the ap Hwylls became Powells, and the ap Llewellyns became Llewellyns (fortunately.)
  Nobody has a clear idea of what the name means. It may have a reference to the Celtic sun god, Lugh, with an adjective referring to a lion; sort of Lugh the Lion; but the best guess is 'lion-like'. I have seen one definition for Flewelling (derived from its patronymic origins) as 'son of Llewellyn'; but that was the same definition the guy had for Llewellyn. It's strict spelling is Llewelyn.
  So, I was chasing Griffins and Llewellyns and Shakespeares, and I found out that John Shakespeare (Will's dad) had been a naughty boy.
  At the time, there were several types of courts of law, for different bodies of law. In particular, there were Church courts for canonical law and criminal and civil courts for temporal laws. Sometimes the distinction was not always obvious. Church attendance was, for example, compulsory probably by both state and canonical law. This state of affairs would be brought about by the fact that in England, the Monarch is Head of Church and of State. The Church court was sometimes called a bawdy court as it is where you were summoned for, not so much crimes as we understand them, but for being disrespectful; of the Sabbath for instance. Since Shakespeare is so famous, a fellow by the name of Brinkworth thought it worthwhile to write a book on the bawdy court of Stratford-upon-Avon, and to quote some of the entries in the records thereof. There were two such 'Act Books' and the first entry of the first book, dated NOV1590 was:[3]

    William Flewellyn: for not attending his parish church: admonished to attend: also `for that he useth to (open) shopp windowes on the Sabothe day': admonished to desist from the same fault.

On page 4 of this first Act Book, for 9NOV1590 is:[4]

    William Llewellyn: for not attending the parish church `and also for that he kepethe open his shop wyndowes in tyme of divine service': he appeared: admonished to desist from the same Fault and to frequent the church.

It is not clear whether this William was simply obstinate, or disinclined to lurk about the church as he was admonished to do. Perhaps these refer to the same incident, or two different ones. Brinkworth also recalls Captain Fluellen and marvels that a name he used should appear in local and contemporary records. There is more. Francis Jiccox (Hitchcock, Hickock, Hiccox, Giccox and Jacock, just to add to the plethora of spelling variations) is twice excommunicated, on 13DEC1622 and 31JAN1623. The reasons are not given, and he is part of a party of individuals. It was Hilary Foskett who had been trying to track down the Jaycocks, as she was aware that Thomas Jaycock had called Robert Ashman his brother-in-law (see 4DEC1663) and accepted that Catern, Robert's wife, was a Jaycocks. She also had noted the presence over the next century of Thomas, William, Francis and possibly Joshua Jaycocks and their families on Long Island on in Westchester Co., NY; and the similarity of the given names in the Stratford-upon-Avon names struck her.
  It has been suggested that John Shakespeare was called up before the bawdy court  for also keeping his window open. I should mention that the windows were probably shutters, or a swing up, hot-dog-stand kind of affair in shops, or in the workrooms in people's houses. John Shakespeare had bought the house next door and attached it to his own as a workshop. The customer would be out doors, and the transaction or purchase made through the window. John Shakespeare was called a glover, and I don't see anybody needing gloves urgently on a Sabbath. (Actually, there I go, thinking like a man again.) He was also possibly a butcher, so that may have been the trade for which the window was used. It is a pity that the above quoted records do not suggest William Flewellyn/Llewellyn's trade.
  What we do have is first the interesting phenomena of a Flewellyn and Francis Jaycocks in the same small town, both in trouble about the same time with the same authorities, probably attendees (after their repentance) of the same church. I suppose it could be said that they didn't know each other, but it is more than likely that they had at least a nodding acquaintance. Certainly they shared certain values and attitudes. I do find it interesting that when we later find members of the Jaycocks family active in Hempstead about twenty years later that a Flewelling shows up, apparently alone, unmarried and therefore young, and marries the daughter of one who seems to be a member of the Jaycocks in Hempstead and those in Stratford-upon-Avon. This is a theory of course, but one worth keeping an eye one.
  The second matter is that William Shakespeare seems to have had every opportunity to know something about a real Fluellen, and may well have based his character on a real person other than Davydd Ap Llewelyn. He was known to do this, sometimes lampooning known persons in London, or drawing upon the Lucys or Oldcastles as figures of fun. Justice Shallow may have reflected an actual justice-of-the-peace with whom Shakespeare had a less than friendly contact. The personality and character of Captain Fluellen may well reflect those of an actual Flewelling ancestor.
  It is most probable that the Shakespeares and Llewellyns knew each other. French, in a section of his book which deals with, "persons and Places, Belonging to Warwickshire, Alluded to In Several Plays", mentions Capt. Fluellen:[5]

In the valiant and choleric Welshman, some commentators see a caricature of Davy Gam, which means "squint-eyed," whose real name was Llewellyn, though it is worth notice that FLUELLEN, as the Welsh word is pronounced, is, as well as Bardolph, the name of a contemporary townsman of SHAKESPEARE'S, Stratford-upon-Avon.

French expands on the name, Bardolph; and writes:[6]

In the list of the nine recusants, returned in 1592, by the Commissioners (of whome Sir Thomas Lucy was one), are found--"Mr. John Shackspere, William Fluellin, and George Bardolfe." HALLIWELLS'S records, p. 66. And the same three names are returned as those of persons who do not attend Divine Service, page 67.


  It would appear that William Fluellin, at least for two years, was persistent in his heresy. Recusant, as far as I can determine, would mean someone who denied that a person or body (i.e., a Church Court) had any authority. It means basically to refuse. In this particular case, it is said to mean those who deny the authority of the Church of England as opposed to the Church of Rome; in other words, Roman Catholics. There is some evidence that John Shakespeare may have been a Catholic. The other excuse, given in the certificate of 26SEP1592, is that the nine feared being arrested for debts; also a distinct possibility in the case of John Shakespeare. That there were only nine of then indicates that it was not a common fault amongst the people of Stratford-upon-Avon. French adds one more tidbit:[7]

  The valiant, but choleric Captain FLUELLEN, bears a Stratford name, as already see; William Fluellen being mentioned in the company of John Shakspeare and George Bardolf as recusants, and not coming to church, in 1592. Anne Fluellin, widow, lived at Stratford, in 1604, and appears in the Chamberlains' Books.

  The IGI (International Genealogical Index of the Church of the Latter Day Saints: LDS IGI) does not list everyone who ever existed, nor can it be said to be always accurate as it relies often on the reports of genealogists who have made an error or two. Sometimes it can be indicative in a small way. When checked for Flewellings or Llewellyns in Stratford-upon-Avon in the late 1500's, early 1600's, there are not many to be found. Out of over 4,000 entries in the "L" versions of the name, there were only four in Warwickshire in the 16th and 17th centuries; three in the late 1600's, and one lady in Bristol. The "F" versions were more yielding, giving the following:

MARGARET FFLUELLYN of Stratford On Avon, Warwick, England married 13DEC1608 THOMAS WILKINS

RAPHE FLEWELLIN married Holy Trinity, Coventry, Warwick, England 23JUN1584 ELIZABETH DANNE

MARGREAT FLUELLEN married 23DEC1578 Holy Trinity, Coventry, Warwick, England RICHARD ELLET

This was out of 353 entries over the past four centuries. In the late 1700's and later, the "F" version in the area of Warwickshire becomes more common, especially around Birmingham. These three entries, especially the first, add to the mention of William Flewellyn/Lewellyn to suggest that a small, but definite, family may have existed in or near Stratford-upon-Avon in the late 1500's to early 1600's. There are some entries referring to the Jaycock Family which are so suspicious (suggesting people whom, if they existed, would have been born in North America, but are listed as born in England) that I cannot mention them for fear of perpetuating an enormous series of errors. In an indirect way I can suggest them by pointing out that Robert Ashman (according to entries in the IGI) was married in 1632, 1640, 1647 and 1651; and that he was born 1615, 1626, 1630 and 1652: all in New York.
  This brings us to Hilary Foskett's findings on the IGI[8]. I should mention that the spelling of the surname is probably properly Jeacockes, but in the available records spelling varies widely and wildly. In the baptismal and burial records compiled below, there is: Geekokes, Jecoxe, Jecox, Jeccox, Jeecockes, Jacocks, Jeckockes and Gicockes. I have decided to use Jaycocks as generic, appropriate to the pronunciation and origin (one who preens like a jay cock), and probably the best version to use for Soundex searches. In the following, I am summarizing the baptismal records rather than attempting to transcribe them as the IGI is so suspect and so non indicative, that I cannot be certain of its accuracy. The baptisms were:

Richard Jaycocks bpt. 18MAR1604 Stratford-upon-Avon
John Jaycocks bpt. 14NOV1605 Bishopton
Simon Jaycocks bpt. 12OCT1608 Bishopton, bur 27JUN1618
daughter bpt. 5MAR1610 Bishopton
Katheren Jaycocks bpt. 26MAY1613 Bishopton
Elizabeth Jaycocks bpt. NOV 1615 Bishopton
Francis Jaycocks bpt. 4JAN1618 Stratford-upon-Avon
Thomas Jaycocks bpt. 20MAR1620 Stratford-upon-Avon
Hugh Jaycocks bpt. 22AUG1624 Stratford-upon-Avon, bur. 6MAY1634
William Jaycocks bpt. 12AUG1627 Stratford-upon-Avon
child bur. 27JUL1632

Bishopton was very close to Stratford-upon-Avon. So close that it may be considered part of the larger town today. It is the baptism of John Jaycocks that is the source for the given name of the mother, and she is Grace. In all cases, the father is Francis Jaycocks.
  According to the IGI, this was the only Jaycocks family in Stratford-upon-Avon in the early 1600's. There were several other families with variations of that surname, apparently well established in Warwickshire, many within a day's good walk.
  The burials come from, Campion who is responding to an article about the Champion family, about whom more below.



  STRATFORD-NOT-ON-AVON AND OTHER TOWNS

Capt. Fluellen: . . . it is out of my prains what is the name of the other river; but `tis all one, `tis alike as my fingers are to my fingers, and there is salmons in both.
King Henry V, Act III, Scene VI, William Shakespeare

  JAYCOCKS IN AMERICA

  As I have been writing this, I have been considering the question, "Why would whole families be eager to transplant themselves to conditions of hardship, deprivation and other difficulties in an environment vastly different from that to which they were accustomed." There is the obvious answer that they were somewhat misinformed. Today, wealth is measured in terms of dollars, or another form of currency. In the 1500's and 1600's, wealth. Especially amongst the lower and middle classes, was measured by the value of one's possessions. Social rank was also judged not only by one's birth, by the ownership of land. A peasant was raised to level of a franklin or yeoman, or even a gentleman by the possession of land. The distinction of social rank was one taken seriously and guarded jealously. A person who received a grant of land or a charter was generally under compulsion to populate the territory concerned with so many families by such and such a date. The reward for succeeding in colonizing the relevant property was the proceeds of the sale of land, and the social distinction of attaining an almost baronial position in society. This may not have been as evident in the English colonies, as other factors were involved, but it is better illustrate by the seigniorial system in New France and the patroons of the New Netherlands. The latter defined social status in some areas of the Hudson River well after the American Revolution. It was to the advantage of the initiator of a colony or a part of it to attract as many families as possible. In order to do that a little cosmetic description was in order (Greenland was an outright fib); that is, the difficulties were understated and the rewards enhanced in descriptions of this wonderful new world. There was land for the taking. Cut down a few trees, pull out one or two stumps, and you have a farm. Lumber was plentiful, and you could shoot a deer (something strictly limited in England) from your back door. Everyone would be landed gentry, and live their old age in comfort and plenty. There was no mention that for some trees it would take two days to chop down, forever to pull out the stumps, the sawmills were yet to be built, and the deer could get pretty wily. There was probably also no mention of the voyage packed into a wallowing ship for several weeks. In any case, land would have been a big attraction.
  Another aspect of social status was the right to choose those who governed you. This was a rare privilege in England defined by social position and wealth, and was by no means an automatic privilege. The right to vote was often tied to the ownership of  specific lands, and it was this which led to the 'rotten boroughs' of the 18th century in which a handful of voters, often obliged to the local leading family, had the franchise to elect a member of parliament. The right to participate in government was an inducement.
  In preparing for this work, a more likely and overriding motive for migrating to America was suggested by the works consulted, and by the fact some families move as much as six times within two decades, and the circumstances of those moves. Often, they were the result of religious differences, and a clergyman was a central figure. It seems to me that a primary consideration was religion, and these were involved in a search for a location in which they could practice Christianity in a fundamental and "pure" manner; by using the Bible as their sole religious authority and basis of government. It is not the purpose of this work to discuss the religious proclivities of these wanderers, but I probably will refer to this concept when events which support this notion are described.
  In the case of the Jaycocks, we do know that the Francis Jaycocks of Stratford-upon-Avon in England was in such serious difficulties with the Church that he was excommunicated at least once, if not twice. This would suggest that his religious point-of-view was somewhat at odds with the established Church of England. It is also a matter of general belief that the initial settlers of New England were seeking religious freedom, and that tens of thousands of settlers between 1629 and 1640 were Puritans wishing to establish their own domain. I do not believe that 'freedom' was exactly what they sought, but rather the opportunity to impose their own precepts. It is a matter of record that anyone who deviated from the Puritan credos, particularly those who failed to show proper subservience to authority, were poorly treated and banished. An example of this will be seen when the Scudders and Kings are discussed, and possibly if the Quakers are elaborated upon.
  In order to be a member of a church in New England, one had to have had a religious experience analogous to the divine visitations or evidences of the presence of the Holy Spirit as described in Acts; and these epiphanies had to be authenticated by a proper witness, such as a recognized clergyman. Churches in different communities appear to have had some degree of autonomy, and there was no centralized religious body, although the colonial General Court, as well as civil powers, often passed on which churches were considered acceptable and conformable, and had the power to order clergymen to desist from preaching. In order to vote for certain officers, including townsmen, magistrates, etc.; or to have voice and vote at town meetings, or to stand for most offices, one had to be a freeman of the town and colony (somewhat of a cross between a business license and citizenship) and a member of the Church. This meant that the ruling elite controlled who had the power to select the members of which ever level of government they were in. If the Church passed on their religious membership, they could still withhold civil participation.
  There are two mentions of a Francis Jaycocks which are of a fragmentary nature. The first is that passage in Savage which reads: "JECOCKES, or JECOXE, FRANCIS, Stratford 1646. It may be Jacocks, or sometimes Jackax."  (See 1646.) The suggestion is that Savage has seen at least two, perhaps four, notices of Francis Jaycock; and that this Francis was in Stratford, Connecticut, by at least 1646. The next fragment derives from a map originally found in, "A History of the Old Town of Stratford and the City of Bridgeport Connecticut", by the Rev. Samuel Orcutt, (3 volumes, Stratford, 1886) on page 751. These volumes are not available to me, and it would be of interest to have them examined, but at URL


http://www.rootsweb.com/~ctfairfi/pages/stratford/stratford_settlers.htm

is a reproduction of that map accompanied by a list of the owners of the original town lots, and subsequent owners. There are comments attached to some the names, such as: that Nathaniel Porter's descendants lived in North Carolina, or that Jeremiah Judson's headstone is still in Stratford, or that the original stone house on Lot 41 stood four rods (66 feet) from the northeast corner. These, often genealogical, comments, combined with the unit of measurement, rods (at least twice) suggest that the information for the list derive from Orcutt as well as the map. The purpose of the list appears to be to identify the original and some subsequent owners, and dates on the map further suggest that the period under consideration is 1640 to 1676, and that the map was made in 1862. The style of the drawing of the map is consistent with those of about a century ago. Effectively, this would be a list of the original settlers of Stratford, CT.
  At the bottom of the map and list is the statement that the area was known as (when Orcutt was writing) Sandy Hollow, and was part of the creek or inlet from the Housatonic River (once called the Potatuck.)
  It is said that the Rev. Adam Blakeman led fifteen families from Wethersfield to Cupheag in 1639. Cupheag was renamed in 1643 as Stratford[9]. Blakeman is supposed to have been born 10JUN1596 in Grosall, Stratford, ENG[10] It is unclear which Stratford is meant. Since Francis Jaycocks is said to be an early settler of Stratford, CT (see entry for 1640), this may be significant as it would explain why people from Stratford joined those from Stamford in the settlement of Hempstead in 1644; both groups being self-exiles from Wethersfield at about the same time. Stamford, about which more below, was about a day's walk west along the Connecticut coast.
  It is worth noting that in the list which accompanies the map is mentioned that Philip Groves is called the first and only Ruling Elder in the Stratford Church, and that there were at least two other clergyman, besides Blakeman, in this rather small, one church town. I am not exactly certain what Ruling Elder means, but I have noted that while historians cite clergymen as 'leading' settlers, there is usually a lay person who acts in an executive position, and who seems to have more authority than the clergy. It also sounds suspiciously dictatorial, and goes to the concept of religious motives mentioned above.
  (The terms, "above", and, "below", used, as I just have, refer to ancient times when records were on scrolls rolled on sticks; and as one read they would roll up the top part, and unroll the bottom. It strikes me as amusing that these terms have returned to their original sense as you are scrolling through this work.)
  The question arises as to whether this Francis Jaycocks is, in fact, part of that family found in Stratford-upon-Avon. Seversmith and Campion seem agreed to accept that probability on the slim evidence offered, and they have good reasons for at least a provisional conclusion. The next question is whether this is Francis, Sr., or Francis, Jr.; and on that matter they seem to be at odds. The  debate involves not so much the Jaycocks as the Champion family. Specifically, they are concerned as to whether Frances Jaycocks, who married Thomas Champion, was the daughter of Francis, Sr. or Francis, Jr. The questions is pertinent from our point of view as it relates to which one settled in Stratford, CT.
  It would seem from the two meager scraps mentioned above that the Francis Jaycocks of Stratford, CT was there most likely by 1640, as one of the earliest proprietors. So far, we have no mention of when he arrived in America, except that he might have been one of the party which moved from Wethersfield, CT in 1639; or one of those to soon follow.
  Accepting that Francis was one of the Warwickshire family, then we know this: Francis Jaycocks, Sr. was still in England in 1634 when his son, Hugh, was buried there. Afterwards, there appears to be no mention of him in the records of baptisms or burials, or surely they would have been included in the findings cited so far. While there were Jaycocks in other parts of Warwickshire, not far from Stratford-upon-Avon, in the early 1600's, and while the name persisted in that shire for some time; it is a least fair to say that Francis left that town sometime after 1634. In 1640, the ages of the surviving children mentioned in the baptismal register were:

    Richard 36 years
    John 24 years
    daughter 30 years
    Katheren 27 years
    Elizabeth 24 years
    Francis 22 years
    Thomas 20 years
    William 13 years
Of Richard and John they may well have been grown, married and settled by the time the migration took place, even if it was earlier (1635-1638?); so it is not a surprise that no notice of them in America comes to us. Francis, Jr. is unlikely to have a daughter of marriageable years until 1654. William Jaycocks first come to our notice in Hempstead in 1657, when he would be about 30 years old, and Thomas, said to be his brother, not until much later.
  In dealing with the Champion family, I have little to offer. Although I am able to cite Seversmith as a source, it is only at secondhand as Campion refers to his work. The actual article, (Thomas Champion of Hempstead, New York, `The American Genealogist', Vol.     20,  No. 1, July, 1943, pp. 43-5) I have not found in my collection, and it may well be interesting reading.
  What I do have comes from the internet, from one of the genealogical family forums, in which descendants of the family discuss various issues. One string of entries starts with, The Champion Family; 350 Years in America, initiated by Elizabeth King Black (24FEB2000) and has Virgil W. Huntley, G. Johnson, David Haesig and Eleanore as participants. Another string, Thomas Champion, 1600's, Long Island, is begun by Robert Christian (19MAR1999.) Participants are Katie Beaver, Yvonne Tims and Mary K. George. A third, Water Champion???Henry Champion (1600).., begins with Chrissy, with Bruce Huntley, Virgil W. Huntley, Ava A. Powell and Robert Christian. A fourth is, Henry Champion+Sarah--1611, started by L. Hauck; with Jim Barnhardt. An interesting element to this last string is a letter by Bonnie Smith who notes that she had written a compilation on the Champions for 1976, and had since gathered much new information. In ill health, she wishes to pass on her material (about four or five storage boxes) to someone willing to carry on. In these `conversations', three works are mentioned. Champion Trails in America: 1607-1796; The Champion Family: 350 Years in America, by Ruth Crawley Champion (Gateway, Baltimore, 1984.); and The Champion Genealogy - A History of the Descendants of Henry Champion of Old Saybrook and Lyme, Connecticut, Francis Bacon Trowbridge (1891, available from Higginson Book Co.)
  I include the family of Henry Champion although he is not likely connected with the families immediately considered in this work. It is possible that he was related to Thomas Champion, possibly a brother, and it may be necessary in the future to be able to differentiate between the two families. What I can construct from these strings is:

THOMAS CHAMPION b. ca. 1622-52 or ca. 1615, from Ashford, Kent, ENG?, on the 'Hercules' out of Sandwich in 1635, no family, certificate 12MAY1634, d. Hempstead, Long Island 1680/1, m. 1672 (or 1686/7?) FRANCES JAYCOCKS (or JACOBS), daughter of Francis Jaycocks of Stamford, CT. 16JAN1672 Thomas Champion described as the son-in-law of Francis Jaycocks.

1. MARTHA HONOR CHAMPION b. ca. 1632 England or New York, m. THOMAS ELLISON, son of Lawrence Ellison. (In 1665 Thomas Champion is described as the father-in-law of Thomas Ellison.)
11. THOMAS ELLISON
2. SARAH CHAMPION b. ca. 1643 (1634?, 1644?) Ashford, Kent?, d. ca. 1673 Hempstead, m. 1662 Hempstead RICHARD TOTTEN (b. 1640, d. 12JUN1712 Hempstead), son of Edward and Joane (Meade) Totten
21. PETER TOTTEN b. 1664 Hempstead, Long Island, d. North Castle, Westchester Co., NY, m. PRISCILLA?
22. RICHARD TOTTEN
23. WILLIAM TOTTEN
24. BENJAMIN TOTTEN
25. JASPER TOTTEN
3. JOHN CHAMPION m. SARAH WILLIAMS
31. SARAH CHAMPION m. WILLIAM EASTLAND
4. HANNAH CHAMPION m. JOHN JOHNSON


HENRY CHAMPION b. 1610 (or 1611), d. 17FEB1708 Lyme, New London Co., CT, m 1647 SARAH (DeWOLF?); settled first in Saybrook, CT. A Water Champion had a son, Henry, b. before 6APR1577 (Baptismal date?, who had a son, Henry, b, 1610, m. Sarah.)

1. SARAH CHAMPION b. 1649, m. 9DEC1673 Lyme, CT HENRY BENET(T) (d. 17JAN1726)
2. JOSHUA CHAMPION
3. MARY CHAMPION b. 1651 Saybrook, CT, d. 10DEC1732 Lyme, CT, m. Lyme, CT 22FEB1676, AARON HUNTLEY (b. 15APR1654 Boston, MA, d. 24MAY1745 Lyme, CT)
4. STEPHEN CHAMPION b. 1653, d. MAY1660
5. Capt. HENRY CHAMPION b. 1654, m. Lyme, CT 1APR1684 SUSSANA DeWOLF (Sussana m. 2nd John Huntley, father of  Aaron Huntley)
51. MEHITABLE  CHAMPION?
6. RACHEL CHAMPION b. 165?
7. THOMAS CHAMPION b. Saybrook, CT 1656, d. Lyme, CT, m. Lyme, CT 23AUG1682 HANNAH BRIGGS BROCKAWAY
71. ELIZABETH CHAMPION
72. THOMAS CHAMPION b. 21JAN1691 (or 1690), m. 1709 ELIZABETH WADE



  What are we to make of this? Set aside the family of Henry Champion, as it is included only for future reference if needed. In the case of Thomas Champion, he is born between 1622-1652 and precociously  sets sail for the colonies about 1634 or 1635, or he is born ca. 1615. Several accept the 1615 date, although preponderance is not proof as they may derive their information from the same erroneous source. Even so, sailing at the age of 19 or 20 as a single man (and it is indicated that he had no family in 1634/5) makes some sense. That his father-in-law is Francis Jaycocks derives from records in Hempstead in 1672. I have not viewed these records, but they can be checked (see the entry for that year) and seem reasonable. The same sources indicate that his wife was Frances. Her date of birth is given as 1620, but I would expect her baptism to have been available, and the date conflicts with other baptisms. Francis Jaycocks did have a daughter baptized 5MAR1610, and this may well have been Frances. I have so placed her in the family summaries at the end of this work. The marriage dates are atrocious, especially as they are given by the same people who give the birth dates for the children. The 1672 date may well be a confusion with the records in which Thomas Champion is stated to be Francis Jaycocks' son-in-law. The 1686/7 date is out of the question, even if Frances is to be considered a daughter of Francis Jaycocks, Jr. It is especially unsatisfactory as Thomas Champion, with somewhat more reliability, is said to have died about 1680/1. The birth of their children raises some questions. The birth of Martha Honor Champion in 1632 (in either England or  New York) is problematic if her parents probably met after 1634. The birth date of Sarah Champion is variously given as ca. 1643, 1644, and 1634, with ca. 1643 being the most reasonable.
 Sharilyn Whittaker, in notices on the Jaycox forum, refers to the following extracts and correspondeces:

Then from, "History of Stratford 1639-1939", by Wm. Howard Wilcoxson published by The Stratford Tercentenary Commission, Stratford, Connecticut 1939. A Note of Every Man's Fence in the Old Field with what Numbers and the Several Rods (from the earliest book of records of Stratford)

#21 on this list is Francis Jecockes with 5 rds 4ft. and 6" of fence.

From Volume 1, page 6 and 7 of Stfd. Ld. Rec.

Wilcoxson says that the lot of Francis Jecockes was never recorded, and sold to Seargeant Edward Hinman in 1668.

This is consistent with the idea that Francis Jaycocks lived in Stratford until, becoming elderly, he moved to Hempstead, Long Island; purchased land there, and gave this land to his son-in-law, Thomas Champion, in exchange for care and maintenance for the remainder of his life; until 1672.
  Sharilyn also reproduces the following communication from Mrs. Reese Jacocks Moses:

Subj: Re: [JAYCOCK] Hempstead and Connecticut
Date: 3/25/00 9:45:58 PM Central Standard Time
From: (Reese Moses)

This is my Jacocks family as per the book, Descendants of Thomas Jacocks, by the late Dr. Will Picard Jacocks in Chapel Hill, NC. I have the book as do many libraries.
On first page: "A lead relating to the history of Thomas I of NC is found in the American Genealogist, Vo.  21, No. 3, of January 1945. In a lawsuit of the year 1675 to determine ownership of land by Thomas Champion who claimed to have married Frances Jacocks, "daughter of Francis, Sr." the following developments were described: Frances Sr. lived as late as 1627 in Stratford-on-Avon, Warwickshire, England. His son Francis migrated from Warwickshire to Stratford, Connecticut, and then to Hempstead, Long Island, NY. He was married but his wife is not named. He died after January 1672 leaving three children including a son Thomas who was baptised in 1619 before his father left. England. This Thomas had a son Thomas who was a co-patentee with his father in a 1000 acre grant in the Passayunk, now Philadelphia,, area of Pa. etc.

Reese Jacocks Moses-S. (mrs.)

We know that Francis Jaycocks, Sr. was in Stratford-upon-Avon as late as 1632 from the burial records. This means that the apparent quote may not be necessarily extracted from the records. The writer knew of the baptisms (1627 being the latest of these), but not of the burials. The assumption that Thomas Champion's father-in-law was Francis, Jr. leads to the conclusion that Thomas Jaycocks, Sr. was the son of Francis, Jr. We know this cannot be, as there were only 2-3 years difference in their ages. The conclusions, then, are the author's and are not derived from statements in the records. This further supports my theory that it is Francis, Sr. who came to America.
  An interesting statement is that Thomas Champion married Frances Jaycocks in Stratford-upon-Avon. I must admit this to be a possibility, except that Thomas Champion came in the 'Hercules' in 1635, and there is no mention of the Jaycocks on that ship. A similar statement is made of Robert Ashman, except it is unlikely that Robert was ever in Stratford-upon-Avon. This is similar to the Champion notes above which state that Thomas Champion married in 1672 (untrue) and that Francis Jaycocks was in Stamford (when we know he was in Stratford, CT.)
  We don't have enough to make any firm conclusions here, but we must derive a theory to be tested. Speculate in order to fit the pieces together. Make a guess. It would seem, then, that the best guess that can be made is that Frances Jaycocks is the daughter of Francis Jaycocks, Sr. This means that the Francis in Stratford, CT is Francis, Sr., and it is he, with at least some of his sons and daughters, who emigrated, eventually settling in Stratford, CT, and that his daughters found husbands in America. This is important as it gives a clue as to how Catern Jaycocks met Robert Ashman.
  After writing the above conclusion, I found a another reference to Trumbull's, The Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut. In an extract from the, Records of the General and Particular Courts, was the following entry on page 170 of Book 1 of the original records for 29OCT1647:[11]

Jecoxe is bownd in a Recognizance of 10£., James Pyne in 20£., pruided Pyne keepe good behauior vntill the Court in May at Fayerfield, and appeare ther.

The Rats to be paid in Englishe graine.

I couldn't understand why the rats would insist on being paid in English grain. I would have assumed that any grain would be acceptable. Then it was explained to me that it was the rates (taxes) which were to be paid in grain. In any case, this Jaycocks was in trouble, just the same as the one who was excommunicated in England; even more likely the same person. James Pine was also to soon move to Long Island. In 1670 he serves on a jury with William Jaycocks. (See 6OCT1670.)
  In a list of the Freeman of Stratford in 1669[12], (see Appendix 8) there are no Jaycocks, although this only means that he was not a freeman, it may also mean that he has left Stratford by this time, and this agrees with the idea that he sold his lands in Stratford, CT in 1668. He is supposed to be in Hempstead in 1672, when he gives his son-in-law property there. There is a Hope Washburn, who may be connected with Phoebe Washburn and Hope Carpenter, who marry Ashmans in Hempstead.    
  It is generally assumed that Robert Ashman was one of the proprietors of Hempstead, Long Island who made a division of the land there in 1647. This assumption is based on the fact that his name is missing from relevant lists. Three such lists, all containing his name, are discussed below. In each case, they include him as he was missing from the original records. This is not as ridiculous as it sounds, as several names were lost from the original records, and Robert Ashman's apparent prominence in later years made him a candidate as one of those whose name was lost. In the entry in the, `Chronicle of Days' for 1650 is the mention of a bill for £30 (in wheat and pork) assigned by William Parks to Barnabus `ffawer'. This bill (which I interpret as a sort of IOU) was owed by `Robert Ashman of Stratford', and was dated 1648. This would indicate that Robert Ashman was in Stratford, CT in 1648.
  It seems to me that the frequent transaction of debts and payments mentioned in some records suggests that the rarity of currency was offset by a means of exchange. If one person had too much of a perishable (pork and flour, for example) they would give it to a neighbour who needed it, agreeing on a value, and the recipient would give a note acknowledging the debt. It could be speculative as well. If the first person gave a bushel of wheat at a certain value, and the general value of wheat dropped to half by the time the bill was due, then they would be owed twice as much wheat.
  It would be of interest to learn of the whereabouts of William Parks and Barnabus `ffawer' around 1648-1650.


  PEREGRINATIONS, PILGRIMS AND PEQUOTS:

Capt. Fluellen: . . . I pray you to serve Got, and keep you out of prawls, and prabbles, and quarrels, and dissensions, and, I warrant you, it is the petter for you.
King Henry V, Act IV, SceneVII, William Shakespeare

  The persons with whom we are immediately concerned have not always been located in the better know records in published versions. This would indicate that, for the most part, they were not held to be of great historical or social significance in their own right. This may not be a bar to understanding something of them. If they were of the common people, then they would have done as the common people did. Robert Ashman is an instance. His absence in the early records of Hempstead is explained by the 'mouse-eaten book', theorizing that his name does not appear amongst the earliest records of Hempstead because of the rodent's culinary proclivities when destroyed some of the early pages of those records in 1848. The difficulty is that his name does not appear to have been noticed by researchers before the mouse dined.
  It was Sir Richard Saltonstall who was the leading light of the Watertown, MA settlement. One of the original Patentees of the Massachusetts Bay Colony (perhaps the leading patentee as his name is given some prominence.) He was a descendant of Edward III and a distant relation of Charles I, and a Saltonstall of the period was Lord Mayor of London. It was probably his Puritan beliefs rather than his aristocratic origins that motivated him. It is usual to think of Salem, Boston and Charlestown as being the centre of early immigration to the Massachusetts Bay Colony, but these areas were soon well settled and newcomers tended to push on to other settlements We tend to think of brave pioneers seeking political and religious freedom, but that was not to be found in the Bay at that time. One had to be a member of the Church, and a property owner, to have any say in the politics of Massachusetts, or to serve in office. The laws were based on the Bible, and were sternly enforced. Any deviation in beliefs or behaviour was dealt with quickly. Rhode Island soon became the haven of those exiled, and there were many decades of hostility between that colony and the rest of New England. The vicious treatment of the Quakers in the 1650's and the witch trials of the 1690's give some picture of the prevailing atmosphere.
  Capt. John Seaman is an example[13]. Arriving from Essex[14], ENG with the Winthrop Fleet in 1630, he is involved with Capt. John Underhill, Capt. John Mason, William Cooper, Thomas Moore and Sir Richard Saltonstall in attempting to settle New Hampshire. Soon after, he is in Watertown, in 1636 in Wethersfield, in 1641 at Stamford, he still owns land in Salem in 1643 and may have been in New Haven, CT in 1646 but by 1647 he is in Hempstead where he was a Captain of Militia and Justice of the Peace.[15]
  John Carman[16], born 1606 in Hemel Hempstead, ENG, arrived on the 'Lyon' 4NOV1631 going to Plymouth, MA and Roxbury, MA. From 1632 to 1637 (with the possible exception of a period in 1635/6) he was at Lynn, MA, and then briefly to Sandwich, MA and Stamford, CT in 1637, Wallingford in 1638, probably back to Stamford and then to Hempstead. What was the motivation for these travels? They did not always end at Hempstead, and we find a number moving on to new settlements at Oyster Bay and Jamaica, in 1653; even to New Jersey. (New Jersey!!)
  Saltonstall was a Puritan, and it is suggested that he brought specific people, with the distinct purpose of beginning a new society, in 1630 to Watertown.[17]
    The Rev. Richard Denton seemed to have been at the centre of the religious difference of opinion in Watertown and six (voting) members of the church separated and moved to Wethersfield during the winter of 1640/1. Denton was in Watertown by 1634, Rippowams (Stamford) by 1641 and Hempstead by 1644[18].
  The move to Wethersfield was led by John Oldham (perhaps another 'Ruling Elder'), whose death in 1636 at the hands of the natives was to be one of the reasons for the Pequot War described below[19]. It was probably after his death that the Rev. Richard Denton took up a leadership as well as pastoral role; although this seems to have eventually fallen at various times to Robert Fordham, Robert Coe, Andrew Ward or John Carman.
  It was Andrew Ward, John Shearman, Robert Coe, Robert Reynolds and Jonas Wood (whether `Halifax' or `Orum' is not stated) who were the voting members to make the move to Wethersfield; as identified by a letter of dismissal dated 29MAR1635. Just in time for a front row seat to the Pequot War. The Rev. Richard Denton would have been of the company, as would have been, probably, Thurston Raynor, John Strickland, John Seaman and the other Jonas Wood. John Seaman may have been the "Jo. Sharman" in the dismissal; although the latter was more likely John "Sherman" in Wethersfield in 1636 with a Samuel Sherman. There was a Samuel in Stamford by 1640/1 and a Thomas Shearman in Hempstead, Long Island by 1647. There may not be a connection between these Sharmans/Shermans/Shearmans, but the surname appears to follow on the journey. The Shermans, including a Samuel, are well represented in Orcutt's list of the settlers of Stratford, CT.
 One feature about the Hempstead settlers is that historians are agreed that they are, mostly, members of a group that has made several moves, and that one of their most prominent leaders is the Rev. Richard Denton (the ancestor of at least some Flewellings.) There is little certainty about the motives and exact movements of this group, and they have picked up members on the way, and left some behind with each move. John Carman, who with Robert Fordham purchased Hempstead on behalf of the settlers, would have had some prominence.
  One of the objectives of this writing is to see if a definable band of folk were involved in an exodus which eventually ended on Long Island. If a specific group can be identified, then those whose names are not mentioned in the earliest records may have been associated with them and shared their goals and aspirations, as well as their religious and social standards. The Rev. Richard Denton, for example, so far appears first in the colonies at Wethersfield, CT in 1635/6 when he, Richard Gildersleeve, and twenty-eight others, with their wives, decide to go to Rippowanis (Stamford, CT.) The 'same company' later became restless and moved to Long Island. Where did they come from before Wethersfield?
  A curious set of historical fragments suggests a group of people who may have much to do with the early settlers of Hempstead, Long Island; or nothing at all. One of the entries for 1633, in the 'Chronicle of Days' tells of people from Lynn, MA (between Boston and Salem) who went to Long Island to settle there. They are arrested by the Dutch, and eventually allowed to settle on the east end of the island. At Schout Bay they left wooden cabins found by the Hempstead settlers when they arrived in 1644. It is not stated whether the Hempstead group used the cabins. The spiritual leader, and perhaps temporal leader at the outset, was the Rev. Stephen Bachiler, but the leader of the Long Island expedition in MAY1640 is Capt. Howe.
  In 1630 a 'Company of Husbandmen', actually a small group of middling London merchants received a patent from Sir Ferdinando Gorges (the opponent of the Massachusetts Bay Colony and patentee of what is now Maine) for 1600 square miles south of the Sagadahonk River. On the ship, the 'Plough', (after which the settlers and their sponsors are sometimes called the Company of the Plough) they sailed in early 1631. One of the passengers was a John Carman. Often confused with the John Carman who settled Hempstead he is said "to have some authority in the company."[20]
  In MAR1632, The ships, 'William and Francis', and, 'Whale', also set out. If Bachiler had not been on the, 'Plough', he was with this second group. Winthrop, in his journal (6JUL1631) mentions the, 'Plough`, saying that a small ship of 60 tons came with a patent for 'Sagadehock' (where Portland, Maine is now), but came first to Boston, then to Watertown up the Charles River, just outside of today's Boston.)
  Bachiler, Richard Dummer (on the, 'Whale'), and John 'Kerman' arrive in JUN1632 to find the first party failing in their colonial attempts, and they settle at Newton, just across the Charles River from Watertown, then at Cambridge, down river. Bachiler must have done something to concern the religious oligarchy as he was forbidden to preach, (6OCT1632) except to his own people, as he was considered contemptuous of authority. By the time he and his followers moved to Sangus (Lynn), he was allowed to preach again (4MAR1633.)
   In 1635 their was some division amongst his flock, but they temporarily reconciled until JAN1636  when he declared his intention to form a new church with six or seven persons. He was refused permission to do so. About 1637/8, John Carman went to Cape Cod. The ten passengers on the, "Plough", had apparently attempted to settle at the mouth of the Sagadahock River, as G. F. Sanborn credits Bachiler with the founding of Hampton, New Hampshire.
  The parallels between these events and subsequent migrations of the settlers of Lynn (see entries for 1632 and 1640) bear a remarkable resemblance to the religious and political differences in Wethersfield and Stamford; even to the eventual migration to Long Island. The same people do not seem to be involved with each other, except for the odd coincidence of each group having a John Carman in a position of prominence. Nor do I think that the possibility that Bachiler might briefly have been a neighbour[21] of William King in Salem. MA should be given significance.
  Capt. John Mason had a patent dated 1629 from the Merrimack River (northern Massachusetts on the coast) to Piscataqua River (where the Maine, New Hampshire border starts on the coast.) In 1635, when Massachusetts surrendered its first charter, this was enlarged southward to Naumkeag (Salem harbour.) This included Hampton, and came close to Lynn. Thirty-three men were to go to his 'plantation' about 22JUN1632, and also go first to Boston, then Watertown, just as Bachiler's party had done.
  The 29 men at Wethersfield, CT, who, in 1640, agreed to follow Richard Denton to Stamford were, "spoken of as part of Capt. Mason's 500, who came to New Hampshire, in 1631-3." There is no clear connection between Capt. Mason's people and the Rev. Stephen Bachiler's people, except that they were among many in the same area, and that Capt. Mason had authority over the settlements which Bachiler's people tried to create. Mason was involved in matters which had bearing upon the people of  Connecticut, especially the Pequot War. It my have been the many similarities between Stephen Bachiler's group and the Hempstead group which have led to the surmise that they were the same people.
  At the same time that a group from Watertown moved to Wethersfield, a 'Holmes party' built a fort in 1633 near what became Hartford. In OCT1635, the Rev. Mr. Thomas Hooker settled at a place then called Suckiaug on the Connecticut River, with sixty men. The movement to Wethersfield from Watertown was not an isolated incident.
  Wethersfield, Windsor and Hartford formed the River or Connecticut Colony which allied with the Massachusetts Bay Colony, the Plymouth Colony and the New Haven Colony in 1633 into the New England Confederation. The New Haven Colony and the Connecticut River Colony were to be political and territorial rivals for several decades.
  About 1636, Capt. Stone sailed his barque to the Connecticut River from Virginia to trade for furs. The Pequots, led by Sassacus, killed him. The English demanded the surrender of the killers of Capt. Stone, and refused the gifts of wampum and furs offered in compensation. Also at about this time, there was a civil war amongst the Pequots, with Uncas leading a schismatic group which had split away, and were called the Mohegans. Uncas allied with the people of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, and was more faithful to them than they ever were to the natives. Sassacus had reason to be concerned about the settlers as they pushed inland from the coast. They cut down the forests, killed or chased away the game, their hogs destroyed the clam beds and their cattle and scythes destroyed the meadow lands. There were plagues of smallpox and cowpox, and the English were in the habit of capturing natives to use or sell as slaves. The colonies united to follow an aggressive policy
  The Pequot War was a short and brutal series of events which do little to further the reputations of any of those involved, except for Lion Gardiner. Capt. (soon to be Major General) Mason was the chief military officer for the settlers. He was the same said to have brought over the eventual settlers of Hempstead, although, as mentioned above, this is probably a misunderstanding. It is interesting that, once again, the party which eventually settled Hempstead may have had some dealings with him.
  In April of 1637, Sassacus, leader of the Pequots, attacked Wethersfield, CT capturing two young women and killing nine men and women found in the fields outside the town. As they made their way to the mouth of the Connecticut River, they passed Fort Saybrook. Lion Gardiner aimed one of his two sakers and fired a ball at the canoes, smashing the bow off one. Apparently this motivated the Pequots to stop, and Gardiner sent a Dutch boat, which was staying with him, to negotiate the release of the women at the cost to Gardiner of £10.
  Under Capt. John Mason, ninety men from three Connecticut settlements (42 from Hartsford, 30 from Windsor and 18 from Wethersfield[22]) joined with Uncas, Sachem of the Mohegans and his seventy warriors. .
  Shortly after Capt. John Underhill brought twenty men to Saybrook and Gardiner's fort. It was about this time, 1MAY1637, that Capt. Mason and the Mohegans arrived. Lion Gardiner protested that they were only going to stir up a wasp's nest about his ears and then flee to their homes in safety. He had tried, unsuccessfully, to establish some relationship with the Pequots, and had defended Fort Saybrook with only a handful of people through guile and good soldiering, in spite of the incompetence and even temerity of the men he had. In spite of his concerns, Gardiner gave them Capt. Underhill and twenty men, and the party went up river. They went to Sassacus' stronghold, on the west side of the Mystic River near where Mystic, CT is today, and on 26MAY1637 attacked the Pequot village. Sassacus and his warriors were apparently elsewhere, and the slaughter was tremendous with estimates of 300 to 700 Pequot killed.
  Sassacus began moving towards the Hudson River where he hoped to join the Mohawks in a war against the English. Capt. Stoughton and 300 men caught him near Fairfield about JUN1637, The Pequots fled past New Haven to a swamp, where they were caught and many killed. Some, including Sassacus, escaped to the Mohawks, who sent his head to the English.
  Wayandance, a Sachem on Long Island, was concerned about these events. Gardiner assured him that his people were in no danger if they offered no threat and if they refused to aid the Pequots. Wayandance sent Gardiner the heads of the few Pequots that had made there way to Long Island. This was the beginning of a fast friendship between the two which was to lead to Gardiner settling on the island that bears his name on Long Island. This friendship was instrumental in mediating between later settlers and the natives, and on occasion prevented hostilities from becoming fatal.
  Years later, in his account of the Pequot War, Gardiner was to express a sorrow of the treatment of the natives by the English who, ". . . would be thought and called Christians. . ." He decries the fame given to some, where those who, ". . . undertook the desperate way. . .", (Mason, Underhill and Seely) are forgotten. Most of all, he worries about the complacency of the settlers (about 1649) and the possibility that the natives will no longer tolerate their arrogance.
  There is much more which could be said about the Pequot War and its participants. It may seem that I have written too much, and that it has no relevance to the topic of this work. Consider that when Sassacus raided Wethersfield that the nucleus of leaders of the group which settled Hempstead, Long Island were there at the time. I have not described the atrocities committed by both sides, only hinted at them, but every settler and every native knew what it meant to be taken alive. If Capt. Mason and his expedition had invaded Mystic when Sassacus was there with all of his warriors, the outcome might have been vastly different. Capt. John Underhill had much to do about repulsing native aggression on and about Long Island. Lion Gardiner had a great deal to do with creating friendly relationships on Long Island.
  The Pequot War highlights the conditions of the time and does much to allow us to understand the motives of those who settle Stamford, CT and Hempstead in the next ten years. It explains why they were cautious to acquire the consent of the natives, and to effect a purchase of the lands upon which they settled. All the time, there was the threat of reprisals. When Governor Keift treated the local natives with brutality and contempt in 1643, one understands the attack on Mespat. When seven natives are caught stealing pigs in Hempstead in 1644, one can see that the disgraceful treatment which followed was partly motivated by a genuine and justifiable fear. Perhaps, to some degree, the distrust of the English on Long Island for the Dutch stems from the perils into which the Dutch thrust them. From Watertown to Wethersfield to Stamford to Hempstead; these were events of concern to the peregrinating band.


  FROM WETHERSFIELD TO STAMFORD:

Captain Fluellen: . . in the way of argument, look you, and friendly communication; partly to satisfy my opinion, and partly for the satisfaction, look you, of my mind . . . .
King Henry V, Act III, Scene I, William Shakespeare

  Why they decided to leave Wethersfield, CT is not entirely clear. There is some suggestion that it was politically motivated. In 1636 Hartford, Wethersfield and Windsor formed a confederation which contended with Massachusetts for power and territory for several decades, until 1664. In JAN1639 the River Colony of Wethersfield, Hartford and Windsor adopted the Fundamental Orders as its constitutional basis.[23] It may have been the trials of living under another regime, the late hostilities, or even another religious difference of opinion. Even a combination. The Fundamental Orders provided for a more open franchise in the election of officers. One did not have to be a member of a Church. (Those with wealth and social position could be relied upon to be honest in claiming possession by the Holy Spirit; while the less esteemed probably required some examination as to the reliability of their experience prior to admission.) A temporary opponent of the Connecticut confederacy was the New Haven Colony. Connecticut was fairly liberal as to who could vote and hold office, while New Haven demanded church membership as did Massachusetts. Perhaps the easy ways of Wethersfield were not to Denton's taste. It was the Rev Mr. Davenport that recommended that they look to the New Haven Colony.[24]
  A Capt. Nathaniel Turner had purchased some land on the coast for New Haven. A part was offered to the dissatisfied group in Wethersfield and by 30OCT1640 Andrew Ward and Robert Coe (who appears to have been diverted to Stratford soon after, unless there were two Robert Coes) had an agreement for Rippowams, later Stamford, CT. They agreed to pay £33, reserve 20% of the land for New Haven for a year, and ally themselves with New Haven. Sometime about 1636-8 the Rev. John Davenport, who had induced the Wethersfield group south, had brought, with Mr. Theophilus Eaton, a group of settlers and bought land from the natives on the coast between Guilford, through where Stratford was to be, to what is now Wallingford.[25]
  Richard Gildersleeve, who was having financial difficulties in Wethersfield, probably joined at this time, and twenty-nine families, in late 1640 or early 1641, removed themselves to their new home.
  An entry for 1641 in the first record book for Stamford lists those who have made the journey to Stamford.


Ri Denton
Ma mitchell
Thur Rainor
Robt Coe
And Ward
Ri Gildersleeve
Edm Wood
Jo Wood
Jer Wood
Sam Clark
Tho Weekes
Jno Wood H
Jer Jagger
J Jissop
Jo Seaman
Sam Sherman
Hen Smith
Vincint Simkins
Dan Finch
Jo Northend 20


Only twenty heads-of-family are listed, the other nine families arriving by at least 1642, and there are thirty other families as well. The list is repeated by Flint[26] in a somewhat different order, with additional punctuation for the abbreviated names, and 'Finch' becomes 'Fitch', while 'Jissop' is 'Jessop'. 'Weekes' becomes 'Wickes'  and 'Vincint Simkins' is 'Vincent Simpkins'.
  These lists seem fairly complete, and it is worth noting that there is no mention of Jaycocks, Ashmans or Flewellings contained in them. This not to say that persons with these surnames could not have been in Watertown or Wethersfield, and have joined later before 1644 when a number moved to Long Island.

Flint's list of those who moved to Stamford from Wethersfield*
*Mather writes: "the first 29, including Simpkins, were from Wethersfield. ("Picturesque Stamford," p.33)". The list of names he derives from, "(Huntington's "Stamford," p. 25)".

Matthew Mitchell
Thurston Raynor
Rev. Richard Denton
Andrew Ward
Robert Coe
Richard Gildersleeve
Richard Law
John Reynolds
John Whitmore
Richard Crabbe
Jeffry Ferris
Robert Bates
Samuel Sherman
Daniel Finch
Jonas Wood, H.
John Northend
Jeremy Jagger
Edmond Wood
Jonas Wood, O.
Samuel Clark
Francis Bell
Thomas Morehouse
Jeremiah Wood
Thomas Weeks
John Seaman
Robert Fisher
Joseph Jessup
Henry Smith    Vincent Simpkins*
     [correctly, Simkins]
Thomas Armitage
John Ogden
William Mead
John Stevens
Thomas Pop[e]
Thomas Hoyt
Henry Akerly
John Smith, Sen.
John Smith, Jr.
John Rockwell
James Pyne
Daniel Scofield
John Coe
John Underhill
Robert Hustis
John Holly
John Miller
John Finch
George Slawson
William Newman
John Lum
James Swead
Simon Hoyt
Simon Seiring
Jonas Weed
[Henry?] Pierson
John Town [Townsend?]
William Graves
Thomas Slawson
Francis Yates
  Amongst those who have come to Stamford, CT by 1642, there is Thomas Armitage. Later, the possibility that he is Robert Ashman's brother-in-law (and that Robert's wife was Catherine Armitage) will be discussed. It could be said that Thomas Armitage's presence provides a motive for Robert Ashman to join this group, assuming the relationship. On the other hand, if he does, he has little time to do so before the move to Hempstead; and if Thomas Armitage and Robert are that closely associated, why are they not together now? In addition, it would seem likely that Robert Ashman was in Stratford, CT; in 1648, not far away from Stamford, but it is there that the Jaycocks are found by about 1640.
  There are others worth noting. Robert Coe marries an ancestor (Jane, widow of Bartholomew Smith) of the Flewellings. John Smith, Sr. has been said to be the son of John Smith of Taunton and Mespat and the progenitor of the "Blue" Smiths. John Smith, Jr. is supposed to be John "Rock" Smith, and the two are distinguished by 'Sr.' and 'Jr' by reason of their relative ages, not their relationship. This is apocryphal, at best, but it is worth noting their presence. John Ogden is most likely the progenitor of the Ogdens to intermingle by marriage, creed and movements with members of Robert Flewelling's family, at the same time as the Weeks and Haight/Hoyts. There are hints of developing relationships that need to be considered.
     Another thing to keep in mind about the time was that 1642 was the beginning of the conflict between Parliament and the Monarchy in England. While New England was largely in Puritan control, it is interesting to consider the possibility of political contention. It may be that the colonists simply did not care who was in power, and that a sense of independence was actually beginning to develop. Consider Robert Rich, the 2nd Earl of Warwick. He was active in the promotion of the colonies. Until 1632, he was President of the New England Company, in 1628 he help the Puritans get their charter for the Massachusetts Bay Colony. It was he who, in 1632,  granted the patent for Saybrook, CT. A promoter of religious tolerance, he also supported Parliament, and in 1642, as Admiral of the Fleet, placed the English Navy at Parliament's disposal. A powerful Parliamentarian, in charge of English sea-power and shipping, and very active in the colonization of North America; in 1643 he headed the commission which incorporated Providence Plantations (Rhode Island) and Warwick, RI was named after him.[27]
  The issue of the English Civil War relative to behaviour and motives of British colonists is worth considering. I am not competent to do so, and would urge some other, more familiar with the political situation on each side of the Atlantic, to do so.
  Having settled in Stamford, they began to negotiate the purchase of the land from the local native peoples. It was a drawn out affair, but they persevered for several years. Whether they did this out of fear, or from altruistic motives is not clear, but it was a policy that was to be followed in later years. Many did not remain long enough to see the end of those negotiations as by 1643/4, some had begun other negotiations for property on Long Island.


  STAMFORD TO HEMPSTEAD:

  There are several theories as to where Hempstead gets its name. One of the more far-fetched deals with a Robert Hempstead who is supposed to have his origins in Hempstead, Essex Co., ENG and settled first at Hempstead, Long Island before moving on to become of the first settlers of New London, Connecticut.[28]
  For the years 1644 and 1647, are three lists. (See Appendix 2.) The first, by Mather, lists those who are supposed to have settled Hempstead. This is taken from several sources, and Mather mentions Huntington, with additions from Thompson, The Hempstead Records and Charles B. Moore. The other two lists deal will the division of land in 1647. One come from Martha Bockée Flint; and the other, derived from Linda Pearsall Harvey's, Pearsal's Corner Web Page, is reproduced in Long Island Lineage's web site, and originated in  a 1957 issue of, The Nassau Historical Journal. In theory, these lists share the same sources, and should reflect similar conclusions. In fact, they do not.
  While these three lists have a great number of names in common, each has a significant number not shared by all three, and each have a number not shared by either of the others. In theory, they all have the same source or sources. Since they are not sufficiently similar, then they must also have different sources. Mather's and Flint's lists seem to share common sources. They each have several sources, and each seems to have sources the other did not. In Mather's case, we know his list is a compilation. So must Flint's. While I may have made errors in copying and counting, I find it strange that Flint claims 66 proprietors, but seems to list only 65. Pearsall's list (and I understand that she is not the originator, merely the conveyor) has not the 50 claimed, only 49. Perhaps there is a mysterious individual who valued privacy. This could be the mysterious Mr. X who confounds so many genealogists by seeming not to exist.
  Pearsall's list is supposedly based on a single document. The actual list of those who shared in the 1647 division of land in Hempstead. The one with the three (perhaps four) names missing. Presumably, all three lists would share this source, but Pearsall has about 11 names which do not appear on the other two lists. In part, this may be due to misreading difficult script or faded words and interpreting spelling differently. The Pearsall list also has archaisms which would be associated with an earlier source, as in the use of "Mr.", and the listing the persons so indicated before the socially less prominent.  The fact that Flint makes her lists alphabetical suggests derivation of the names from several sources.
  The issue may seem insignificant, except that all three list Robert Ashman, and all three may be wrong in that respect. This is possible for three reasons. It is stated that Robert Ashman's name might be one of those missing from the torn page. There are no Jaycocks present, and it is not unreasonable to expect Robert Ashman to accompany or be accompanied by at least one of them in this new enterprise; if the assumption that his wife is their sister is correct. While Robert Ashman's 1659 deposition in the matter of Armitage and Pine indicates that he was in Hempstead by 1650, a similar notice for 1650 suggests that Robert Ashman was still a resident of Stratford, Connecticut in 1648. The earliest notice of Thomas Jaycocks in Hempstead is 1657. In light of the possibility suggested, it seems reasonable to hold the three lists to be of interest and as guides, but not as conclusive authorities as to who was in Hempstead in 1647; except where they all agree together, and except for Robert Ashman.
  There is the slight hint suggested by a reference to an Elizabeth Ashman in Watertown in its early days. This has been noted as appearing in Bond, p. 908, but that work is not available. Still, it brings to mind the group led by the Rev. Adam Blakeman from Wethersfield to Stratford Connecticut. Could this group have originated in Watertown as well? Other Hempstead settlers who are indicated in various on-line genealogies to have been in or had contact with Stratford, CT are: Robert Coe in Stratford ca. 1640/1, William Washburn in ca. 1655, John "Rock" Smith ca. 1640, Samuel Sherman from Watertown 1636? to Wethersfield 1636? to Stratford 1641 who may have been related to Thomas Sherman of Hempstead, Francis Jaycocks ca. 1640?, and , later, Edward Higbee. There is not enough concrete evidence to pursue this line of thought.


  SALEM'S LOT

  THE SCUDDERS

  Of the families which are being traced here, two seem better recorded than the Ashman/Jaycocks family. These are the King and Scudder families of Salem, Massachusetts. Before I had started writing this, it was my impression that the Massachusetts Bay Colony was essentially begun in 1630, ten years after the struggling Plymouth Colony had been founded. In fact, there was a preliminary settlement at Salem by at least 1629, and that town was the beginning of the Bay Colony. This means that when the Winthrop Fleet arrived in 1630 to settle the Boston area, some of the migrants would wish to take advantage of the development already begun at Salem, making it a popular destination.
  It is unclear as to how the sudden influx of settlers was dealt with. Over the five years, from 1630 to 1635, thousands, if not tens of thousands, of English emigrants flooded the Bay. The provision of food, shelter, equipment, arms, land and stock must have been an overwhelming problem. Added to this the religious/political aspects, the problems must have been incredibly daunting. Land grants, the right to carry out a trade, a share in whatever substance and sustenance was available depended largely on the twin aspects of admittance as a freeman and admittance to a church. The church to which one was admitted must be one of which the colonial administration approved, and they were dedicated to creating, not freedom of religion, but the imposition of a pure Christianity with scripture as its foundation, and a government based on Biblical laws and precepts. In short, the Puritans were the establishment, and others were not welcome.
  The difficulty with basing both religion and government on the Bible, especially the Old Testament, without a formula to distinguish, so to speak, jurisdiction is that legalities become a matter of interpretation. This was a problem which created conflict between the kings and priests in Judea, and has been a problem since the inception of Christianity. A careful perusal of Acts, the letters of Paul, and the dissenting voice in James will illustrate this. The Roman Catholic Church rose as a united front partially in reaction to the various sectarian factions of the first 300 years of Christianity. Having separated from this binding influence, the Reformation was bound to repeat the factionalization of 1,500 and 2,500 years before. In a social environment in which religion was an intensely important matter, disputes were even more likely.  We have seen how in England Francis Jaycocks was in difficulties with the Church court, and can assume that he was not an isolated instance.  In referring to the distinction of John Smiths on Long Island with such additional appellations as "Rock" Smith, "Weight" Smith and "Blue" Smith, it is speculated that "Blue" Smith was the result of one John Smith wearing a blue coat, and historians marvel that such importance should be given to such a minor detail. The Puritans, as do the Mennonites, Quakers, Hassidic Jews today; and the Quakers of the time, believed in 'plain' dress. The use of colour, exceptional cut, expensive material, lace, patterns, precious metals, etc. was an affront as it represented a lack of humility, a self-aggrandizement, a form of boasting, vanity, pride; in short, exuberant clothing was a sin. Most wore dark, even morose colours; browns and blacks, with perhaps a daring dash of grey. A blue coat may will have been exceptional, and a matter of comment. Blue dye was previously rare, wherefore the designation of royal blue; and again blue could be deemed pretentious.
  I could carry on with a sociopolitical analysis of colonial New England, but it is best if you do this for yourself, and I am by no means proficiently versed in the intricacies of the subject. It is enough that you understand that our ancestors sought relief from the difficulties of an ungodly world by creating in the 'wilderness' a new world based on divine law; and were, by that ambition, doomed to dissent and conflict. Salem, the old name for Jerusalem, meant 'peace', and that is what they hoped to find. The events of the next seven decades suggests that another name might have been more appropriate.
  In the appendices I have reproduced various articles on the Scudder and King families. If you read these, you will notice that each chronologically succeeding article borrows heavily from its predecessors. I suspect that much of the original documentation has not been examined for some time, and reappraised in view of the fluctuations of the genealogical theories advanced. In composing the family summaries I have tried to take a conservative approach, while fairly representing the variations. It may seem that I am contradicting myself, when actually I am trying to highlight areas of doubt so that you might find the means to resolve these difficulties.
  In the case of the Scudders, the prevailing and most recent theories identify a family long seated in Kent in England, and in the early 17th century, especially in Darenth. This town or village was quite near London, and is perhaps part of the metropolis today. It is a name still represented there, and a member of the North West Kent Family History Society is Mr. Simon Skudder.
  On the Darent River, between at least two sites of Roman ruins, Darenth would not be an isolated and rustic village, but constantly in touch with events in London. That at least one member of the family, the Rev. Henry Scudder, is indicated as prominent in the religious affairs of reformed England suggests that they were a family of means, education and of some social stature in their community. Thomas Scudder may well have been a brother of this Rev. Henry Scudder, and is indicated as such in some Scudder genealogies. It is also likely that this Henry was the one who married Elizabeth Lowers, daughter of John Lowers; and not Thomas, as has been held in the past. Thomas' wife was Elizabeth, but her maiden name is yet to be found. Thomas Scudder, probably the son of Henry and Elizabeth Scudder, was born about 1586-7, presumably in Darenth, or possibly at nearby Horton Kirby. Some sources have him as from Groton, Suffolkshire, but on what basis is not clear. Perhaps this is tied to the statement that he married Elizabeth there in 1618; although if based on a marriage record, Elizabeth's maiden name should also be available. She was born about the same time with the date of 1586 being given.
  Thomas Scudder and his family are in Salem by 1635. Other members of the Scudder family have also arrived, including his widowed sister-in-law, Elizabeth (Stoughton) Scudder, who has also been suggested as his wife. Elizabeth, however, had married as her second husband APR1627 Robert Chamberlain, and with Scudder and Chamberlain children arrived in the 1640's and it is through them that the Barnstable, Massachusetts branch of the Scudder family begins. A daughter, Joanna, was to marry Capt. Richard Betts, and their daughter, Joanna Betts, was to marry John Scudder, son of John and Mary (King) Scudder. Thomas Scudder is also suggested in one case to have had a wife, Rachel, in 1649; but then his wife, Elizabeth, who definitely survives him, would not be indicated as a member of the Salem church in 1640.
  Thomas Scudder appears to have lived a comparatively quiet, and presumably pious, life for 20 years in Salem. There is some suggestion that he lived in Plymouth until 1642, while other historians affirm his presence from at least 1636 in Salem. That he would be in Plymouth seems unlikely as the Plymouth pilgrims resented the intrusion of the Bay colony. It is less likely that John and Mary (King) Scudder would have met, married and set up a household by 1642 unless the opportunity had existed for their getting to know one another some time before then. A peculiarity is that while his wife, Elizabeth, is listed as a member of the church in 1640, none seem to indicate that Thomas Scudder was either a member of the Salem church or a freeman of the town. This, considering the time, place and purpose of the settlement, is peculiar, and suggests the possibility that he was considered suspect in his beliefs. Since, on the other hand nobody suggests that he had any difficulties with either the religious or civil authorities, if he did not share his neighbour's convictions, at least he did not interfere with them. It may be that as simple a thing as his inability to produce evidence of having experienced a divine visitation (speaking in tongues, bodily possession, etc.) precluded his admittance. He may still have shared their convictions.
  The earliest mention of a grant of land is 1648. He must have had some place to live and conduct his business, and perhaps this later grant was made to his son, Thomas, Jr.
 He made his will 30SEP1657 and it was probated 29JUN1658, suggesting he died early in 1658. The inventory of his estate gives no clue as to his trade or occupation, and if he was the brother of the Rev. Henry Scudder, he did not share in his brother's education as he made his mark upon the will. His estate was valued at about £74 Elizabeth survived him until 1665 when administration of Thomas' estate was passed to his son-in-law, Henry Bartholomew, and to Hillyard Veren "28: 9: 1665", (possibly 28DEC1665.)
  John Scudder, the son of Thomas and Elizabeth Scudder, is said to have been born in 1619, probably in Darenth, although the same doubts, which concern the place of his father's birth, apply to him. Being bout 15 or 16 years of age when his family arrived in Salem, he would have played a major role in establishing the family; building a home, clearing land for crops, caring for cattle and assisting his father in whatever occupation he professed. John is described as a currier, which is defined as someone who dresses and dyes or colours leather (French: cuire = leather.)  Presumably John learned this trade from his father. [Something to watch for is the connection to trades dealing in leather, down to 1800, when at least one member of John Flewelling of Newburgh's family was a cordwainer, or shoemaker.]
  When John Scudder married Mary King, daughter of Dorothy King, in 1642, he was granted a one-half acre lot as a house lot near his 10 acres by King's Cove in "Royall's Neck" (Ryall Side or Rial Side, the spelling varies.) This one-half acre was for "other uses", so it was probably the place of his business as well as his home. Perhaps the 10 acres came from his father's estate, although no one suggests this. If it did, it would further suggest that the Kings (after whom the cove was named) and the Scudders were near neighbours.
  John Scudder and Mary were members of the church by 1647 and several of his children are baptized there, in 1648 and 1649. John and Mary stayed in Salem until about 1651 went he moved to Southold, Long Island. The motivation for the move is not given. Conflict with Salem authorities? A chance for a larger and more profitable portion of Land? It appears to have been a family move as his brothers, Thomas, Jr. and William Scudder, and Elizabeth Scudder (presumably their sister as their mother would still be with their father in Salem); and John are on Long Island by at least 1654. Possibly this move influenced members of the King family as well. They were having religious difficulties, and it is possible that this is a partial motive for John and Mary (King) Scudder's move. It is unlikely that John would have married a daughter of the somewhat rebellious William King if he was, himself, a staunch upholder of the prevailing tenets of Salem. The move was probably of great benefit to his children and grandchildren as they seem to have missed a local disturbance in the 1690's, which might have had fatal consequences for them, and might well mean that I would not be writing this now. (Not necessarily a loss, but I do appreciate the opportunity, considering the alternatives.)
  The family moved to Huntington by 1657, and John was in Newtown by 1660. Robert Coe, one of the leaders of those who moved from Stamford, Connecticut to Hempstead, Long Island, had, in 1652, led the resettlement of Mespat. An attempt to settle the area in 1642 had been curtailed by an attack of the indigenous natives in 1643. The new settlement was first called Middleburg, but eventually was given the practical name of Newtown. This appears to have been a period of expansion on Long Island, the Dutch being more accepting of English settlers. In 1653, persons from Hempstead founded Oyster Bay, for example. It is possible that this was influenced, in part, by the end of the English Civil War and a return to a more pacific state in England, or a movement of those disaffected by that strident period. Some may not have wished to live under Parliamentarian rule, which would have surely applied in the Massachusetts and Connecticut colonies. They may have preferred the slightly more tolerant Dutch. In any case, John, Henry, Thomas and Elizabeth Scudder sell their land in Southold to John Baylis in 1656, and move to Huntington, Long Island; with some later going to Jamaica and Newtown. It was 21MAR1656 when Stuyvesant granted a patent for Jamaica.
  It was about this time, in 1657, that Robert Hodgson, a Quaker, appears in New Amsterdam, and eventually makes his way to Hempstead where he preaches in an orchard and where Richard Gildersleeve arrests him. Gildersleeve sends him to the authorities in New Amsterdam, and two 'goodwives' are fined for attending Quaker meetings. Prior to this, in 1656, eight members of the Society of Friends had appeared in Boston. The captain of the ship that brought them was ordered to take them back again, but six returned in 1657. The violent and inhuman reaction of the colonial authorities was barbaric, and there is some thought that the reaction to their presence may have culminated in the Salem witch trials. Mary (King) Scudder's family were certainly affected by the Quakers, as will be seen below; and apparently so were the Scudders. They probably missed the first contacts with the Quakers as it wasn't until about 1660 that John and Mary moved to Newtown. John's brother, Henry, had married Catherine Este, apparently in Huntington as her father, Jeffery Este, had the doubtful distinction of being the first person to die in that town in 1657. Henry was described as "Dr. Henry Scudder", although a doctor of what is not indicated. The title would suggest some compatibility with the idea that his uncle, also Henry, was a respected and learned clergyman, but is at odds with his father's apparent lack of education.
  In most accounts, Elizabeth Scudder, widow of Thomas, Sr., died in Salem in or about NOV1665. (Some say 1666, but this may be a confusion with Old Style New Style. November 1665 would be the same in both cases, so it is not a case of either-or. Administration of her husband's estate passed to her son-in-law and she is described as deceased in 1665.) By 1664, the English had assumed authority over the Dutch territories, and Governor Nicoll gave a patent for Newtown to Capt. John Coe, Capt. Richard Betts and others. John Coe was the son of the Robert Coe who would marry the mother of William Smith in 1674. Richard Betts was the person who had married the widow of John Scudder's uncle and namesake. Betts may have been part of the motive for John and Mary (King) Scudder moving to Newtown. John Coe may have been the reason William Smith was in Newtown. In any case, on 4JAN1667 William Smith married Hannah Scudder, the daughter of John and Mary (King) Scudder. The fact that there is every reason to believe that this William Smith is the one connected with the Coe family, and that Hannah Scudder is the daughter of John and Mary (King) Scudder becomes significant later.
  In the meantime, the Ashmans and Jaycocks and Flewellings had been to what would become Philadelphia, and had returned to settle in nearby Jamaica.
  John and Mary (King) Scudder are said to have prospered and won respect and status in Newtown, although how that happened has not been made clear. An interesting element of their stay in Newtown is that in AUG1673 four Quakers refused to take an oath of allegiance (possibly to the Dutch as this was about the time they temporarily took control of New York.) Two of these four were John Scudder, Jr. and Samuel Scudder, presumably the sons of John and Mary (King) Scudder. This suggests that the Scudders, the Betts and the Tituses and Washburns were exposed, if not influenced, by the Quakers who had visited Long Island about fourteen years before. On 13DEC1680 John gives his estate to his son, Samuel Scudder, in exchange for the maintenance of himself and Mary for the remainder of their lives. It was about this time that Samuel married Phoebe Titus, daughter of Edmond and Martha (Washburn) Titus; and the arrangement would have been mutually beneficial. Samuel gained property and the means of supporting his family; and the parents the opportunity to care for, and perhaps spoil, any grandchildren, which might appear. There are still Scudders, and Betts, in Huntington as a 1683 ratable list includes Thomas, David, Jonathan and Moses Scudder, and John Betts. Some of these Scudders are in the 1698 census of Hempstead as well.
  On 25NOV1686 the patent for Newtown is confirmed to the freeholders of that town; some 105 persons, including Richard Betts, Thomas Betts, John Scudder, Jr. and Samuel Scudder. John, Jr. had, by 16JAN1683 married Joanna Betts when Richard gave John, his son-in-law, a gift of land; perhaps as a wedding gift. In 1688 Samuel Scudder died, which must have been an unexpected blow to the family. Phoebe (whose mother's sister had married John Ashman and also died early about 1666) married again on 24FEB1690 Robert Field.
  The date of John Scudder's death is variously given as 1690, JUN1692 or sometime before 6JAN1685. That he was not included in the 1686 confirmation of the Newtown patent, but that his sons were, somewhat suggests the latter date, although the JUN1692 date appears to be based on more recent information. It has been said that Mary (King) Scudder died in Newtown 5JAN1667, but this is questionable as John Scudders gift to his son in 1680 suggests that Mary is still living, unless John had taken a second wife after her death.
  A second generation of settlers was being superseded by a third generation. Families were growing, expanding geographically as well as numerically, intermingling, and the relationships were becoming more complex.


  THE KINGS

  The Scudders appear to be part of the new middle class with a prominent clergyman in one generation, a doctor in another, living near London, England; this being contradicted by Thomas' Scudders illiteracy. The Kings, in contrast, appear to come from countrymen in the south of England apart from the burly of metropolitan life. While the Scudders live quietly in Salem, but do not seem to have been accepted as church members, the Kings, easily accepted and also given status as freemen of Salem, are immediately embroiled in the deepest heresies. The paucity of evidence does not really allow too much in the way of  conclusions, but that two families of such apparent contrasts and mysterious contradictions should be allied by marriage is puzzling. It can only have been the geographical immediacy of the two families and love.
  The historians, as indicated in the appendices, and in other unverified offerings, suppose
that William King was the son of Christopher King baptized 2SEP1594 Gillingham, Dorsetshire, ENG, and that Dorothy Haynes (Haynes or Haines?) was the same daughter of Thomas Hayne baptized 20AUG1598 Portisham, Dorsetshire, ENG. It is also suggested that these are the same persons married 17FEB1616 in the Abbey Church of St. Mary at Sherborne, Dorsetshire, ENG. The next assumption is that they are again the same couple whose family is included in a list of those wishing to go to New England dated 20MAR1635. Some take this as the date of departure, but it is more likely the date on which they were indicated as fit (loyal to the King and Church) to go. The ages given (although there is some question in reading William's age) suggests that these are the same persons in the cases of the baptisms and marriage, with some slight divergence. For example William is given as age 40, i.e., b. ca. 1595, after the baptismal date. If the date, 20MAR1635, is New Style, this is not a difficult problem as he was probably born ca. AUG1594, and would still be 40 years of age at the time. If that date is old style, then it is actually in our reckoning 1636, and he was born 1595-6, and the conflict exists. My reading of the available information suggests that the 1635 date is probably New Style.
  For Dorothy, accepting the 1635 date as New Style, she was born ca. 1600-1. This is a conflict, and is made worse by assuming an Old Style date. Having seen, however, the accuracy of such records (census returns, for example) I would not be too concerned, and would consider the possibility that the ages were not totally accurate. It would also appear that the couple in Weymouth were married about 1621-2, another contradiction. These factors, taken with the apparent absence of the baptisms of their children in Dorsetshire, leads most historians to be cautious about assuming that all of these references are to the same persons. It is an interesting puzzle beyond resolution here, and hope that some person might take up its challenge. We can be certain that the family which shipped out from Weymouth in the `Abigail' in 1635 (?) is the same found in Salem, Massachusetts, in later years, particularly on 25MAR1636 when William was admitted as a freeman of Salem. This implies that he was also a member of the church, and he does appear on the lists of the First Church of Salem in 1636. He also receives his first grant of land; 40 acres at Jeffrey's Creek.
  Passengers with them was Mr. Joseph Hull, a minister of Somerset, probably of Weymouth, and his family. Hull was in Salem in 1637, but later went to Southold, Long Island. He is mentioned here in case there is future evidence that he was leading a party of pilgrims to the New World, and may have influenced the move to Long Island later.
    There were many immigrants in 1635, and there was a greater want of shelter and food as a result. The Kings must have had a difficult time for that first year, but they strove and survived. The historians make much of the fact that William King served on a grand jury; although in what capacity, as an appointee, elected official, or as part of his civic duty, is not clear. In any case, it appears that William King was soon accepted, well placed, respected and an active part of the community. One would assume that he would be a very pillar of the establishment, but one would be very mistaken.
   Almost immediately, about 1637, Ann Hutchinson stirred up a hornet's nest in the Bay Colony. We have already seen the frequency of religious differences of opinions, and it was about this time that the schism in Watertown took place, to be soon followed by the division in Wethersfield. In Salem, William King was one of five men who espoused the concept of Antinomianism. Definitions of the term vary slightly, but two aspects seemed involved which are too complex to dwell on here. The first relates, again, to early Christianity where Paul advocated belief in a New Covenant (New Testament) superseding the Old Covenant (Old Testament.) At that time, Paul would have referred to the body of Biblical work involved as the Torah or `Law'. His premise was that those who became party to the New Covenant were not bound by Levitical Law, but were free of it. Some of his flock immediately took this to mean that they were free of civic law (or any form of regulation) and slaves were talking back to their owners, defying magistrates and creating all kinds of mischief. Paul was at some pains to explain that temporal authority derived from the divinity which allowed it, and was to be obeyed.
  As mentioned earlier, many of the immigrants to the Bay probably sought a purer expression of Christianity as defined by the Bible. As in early Christianity, this could be subject to interpretation, and the conflict that developed between what modern scholars call the Nazorean Church (led by James the Just, brother of Jesus) and the Gentile Church (founded by Paul) would be unavoidable in the attempt to revive that older, simpler church. Added to this is that Antinomianism ("against or denying the law") generally went with a denial of priestly or higher authority (i.e., the Gnostic concept that religion was a matter for each individual to resolve directly through a personal knowledge (which is what Gnostic sort of means) or awareness of  God), and the situation would be considered exceedingly grave by both church and civil authorities. They were most alarmed, and saw to it that William King, and probably the others, had their weapons taken from them. William King had been a member of the trainband (a sort of conscript militia/guard) and presumably was relieved of his duties in that regard as well.
  Apparently he was accepted again into the fold of the church and community by late 1639, but in the meantime was still well enough regarded to receive an additional grant of 30 or more acres in 1638, at which time their were seven members is his family: presumably indicating that Mehitable has been born, but that John has not.
  About 1642, the eldest child, Mary King marries John Scudder, who, in recognition of his familial duties, receives a small grant of land to build a house and to conduct his business. This half acre lot is apparently near a ten acre lot, probably part of his father's lands. and is described as near King's Cove, named after his father-in-law. This suggests that the Scudders and Kings were near neighbours.
  William was apparently a cooper, as William, Jr. undertook to teach this, as his father's trade, to his younger brothers. Apparently he stuck to his trade quietly for the next 12 years until his death. He may well have died unexpectedly, as he left no will. His estate amounted to roughly £142, of which about £20 was deemed to be Dorothy's in the form of four cows. Compared to the estate of the quieter Thomas Scudder, about £74, William King had twice as much. Thomas, however, left a will, and may have disposed of his assets by gift previously. For example, the ten acres own by John Scudder.
  By this time, John and Mary (King) Scudder had moved to Long Island. By 1651, they were in Southold. They had had no difficulties being accepted into the church in Salem and were listed as members in 1647. At least three of their children, including Hannah (bpt. 19AUG1649), were baptized there. Elizabeth was baptized MAR1649, which could be our 1650, so the move to Long Island was after that date. The motive for the move is not clear, but it was soon after the death of Mary's father, his estate being probated 27JUN1650. The settlement of Hempstead in 1643/4 had opened up the Dutch territory to the English. Also, about this time, John's brothers and sister (Henry, Thomas and Elizabeth) moved to Southold. It was next year, in 1652, that Robert Coe was to lead the resettlement of Mespat, later Newtown. In 1653, Oyster Bay was founded with the participation, if not instigation, of others from Hempstead. The early 1650's apparently was a period of growth on Long Island, and the Scudders may simply have taken advantage of it; and Mary went with her husband's family.
  The King property in Salem, on the other hand, appears to have been ample and historians tend to give it praise for its prospect and value. Maps of the area do suggest its value as being near various waterways useful as sources of potable water, shelter for small craft,  docking and transportation; and also marshy ground valuable for the availability of water fowl, fur bearing animals, well watered fields and pastures, winter forage, fish, and a variety of bounties that fairly level, well-watered territory allows. Presumably the nearby Scudders had much the same advantages, which may be why John Scudder did not sell his land in Salem until 1665 (this may be a mis-transcription of 1655), at least fourteen years after having moved, although this may have been a disposition of an inheritance from his father.
  In 1652, Dorothy (Hayne) King actually buys her son-in-law's (John Swazey's) land on the South River. Some historians and genealogists have her dying the next year in 1653, in Salem. It is more likely that she lived longer, and that a misconception was created from the sale of her property at that time to Thomas Johnson, Thomas Barnes and Thomas Reynolds. She was mentioned as the widow of William King in the Salem Court Records for 1658.
  In 1655, John Scudder sold his land on `Royall's Neck' in Salem, probably the one half acre house lot, and the ten acres he had before he moved. Next year, in 1656, John, his brothers and sister, sell their property in Southold, and move to Huntington, Long Island. It was about this time that Jamaica (from Xemeco, a native word) was started near Newtown.
  In 1657, William King, Jr. appears to have almost exactly repeated his father's actions of twenty years before. He too was a grand juror, suggesting at least that he was trusted by the authorities, but, on the 6th of June, 1656, the ship, `Speedwell', had landed at Boston with some unusual passengers. There were eight Quakers amongst others; four men and four women ranging in age from 20 years to 40. These were promptly jailed so that their heretical deviations could not be spewed upon a pure and unsuspecting populace. Capt. Robert Lock was ordered to take the filthy, disreputable, godless scum immediately back to England. He stood on his right to carry whatever passengers he wished, possibly feeling that they had paid for their passage to Boston, and he had some obligation to ensure their arrival. He was jailed, and eventually relented. In 1657, however, six of the eight came right back in the `Woodhouse'. Two of them had an ear (each) cut off in 1658. In 1659, four Quakers were hung. By 1666, the terror of these obvious devil-worshippers had grown so great that the witch trials began to develop. These Quakers were obviously a bad, desperate, stick-at-nothing, band of terrorists whose elimination required the most stringent measures. It is probably at least one of these, maybe Dorothy (Waugh) Lotherington, who was very active about Boston, who aroused William King, Jr.'s sympathies. Dorothy Lotherington was the youngest of the eight, was whipped imprisoned, and generally badly treated. In any case, William showed sympathy to these Quakers, and probably to their teachings, was sentenced to 15 lashes, imprisonment a fine and banishment, whether these sentences were carried out is not given, but he apparently died in Salem in 1684, so his banishment at least was lifted in 1661. It was also about this time, 1656/7, that William's sister and brother-in-law, on Long Island, were exposed to the teachings of the Society of Friends, which were to take root, if not then, then in the next generation.
  I cannot properly lay out evidence briefly here; but it seems to me that as Quaker communities and meetings developed, they tended to move, from Massachusetts, Connecticut and Long Island, to Westchester County, New York after 1700. This would explain many movements in the following generations. This movement appears to have continued up the Hudson River to upper state New York. The Hicksite Schism, started by a member of a Hempstead family, on Long Island, eventually had some effect on at least one branch of the Flewellings who moved to the Niagara Peninsula of what is now Ontario. Other Quaker families may well have been leaders in movements to Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, etc. I mention this as I find several instances of branches of families, or families who once were neighbours, coming together again after some separation. The reasons for this happening are not always clear. At least, here, we see the beginnings of such a pattern, and I would like to bring it to your attention.
  About 1661, Samuel King and his brother-in-law, John Swazey, participate in the division of land in Southampton, Long Island.
    In 1665, John Scudder is said to have sold his Salem. MA property, and to be one of the purchasers of Brookhaven, Long Island. I am not certain how to interpret this, except that his purchase of land in Brookhaven, wherever that may be, does not necessarily imply residence there. It was probably near Newtown, and borders were under dispute at the time. It also what not unusual for the leading citizens of a town to purchase together a piece of land to add to their town, and to either divide it, or sell pieces to newcomers. An example can be found in the case of Stamford, CT.
  The Dutch had surrendered the New Netherlands to the English, Col. Richard Nicholl arrived 19AUG1665 in Manhattan as the first English Governor of the new colony of New York, and Connecticut's attempt to annex Long Island had been frustrated. After an exciting year, including an attempt to create a republic on Long Island, things settled down. Robert Coe, and others, receive a grant (although they may well have had one from the Dutch before then) 21MAR1665 (probably 1666 in our reckoning) for Rustdorp, later Jamaica. It is also probably at about this time that the Ashmans, Jaycocks and Flewellings are returning from their Delaware venture, with some settling in Jamaica, Long Island. In short, the characters of this work are gathering within a limited geographical area.
  Back in Salem, William King, Jr. sells 14DEC1665 his half of the Ryall Side property to Robert Stone for £47.
  On 4JAN1667 Mary (King's) daughter, Hannah Scudder, married William Smith.
  It was about 1669 that John Scudder, son of John and Mary (King) Scudder married his semicousin, Joanna Betts, in Maspet (Newtown.) Some confuse father and son here.
  About 1684, Dorothy (Hayne) King has joined her daughters and sons-in-law in Southold, Long Island. It is actually likely that she did so well before 1684, but it is at this time that she is given access to one acre of the common property. Perhaps she still has a cow or two, and needed a place to graze them. This, taken with the four cows said to have been her own property after William's death, suggests an idea that she may have engaged in a small dairy business of her own. If so, she may well have saved the lives of her family as dairy maids often were infected with cow pox and, as a result, rarely were infected with small pox. It was the observation of this phenomenon which led to the development of inoculations. It appears to be that about this time, 1684, that she died. This may have been, in part, the topic of the evidence John Weston gives 1JUL1685 concerning William King, Sr.'s estate. The other reason for Weston's testimony may be the death of William King, Jr., as his wife, Katherine, is called his widow and probate of his estate made 25NOV1684.
  On Long Island, Samuel King raised a family, and two of his children married cousins, children of Hannah (King) and Lt. Richard Brown, binding those two names through three marriages. Deliverance King had married John Tuthill, and died in Southold about 1689. In a census of Southold, presumably in 1698, the families in the following table are found. It attests to the beginnings of numerous descendants of the King family, far beyond the numbers we might expect from knowledge of the Flewellings and their allied families. This census was probably door to door. I have nor recorded them in any particular order, partially to keep the columns even, partially to mark separate families. In some cases, it is not clear whether individuals are living alone, or part of another family with another name.


Census of Southold, Long Island, presumably in 1698[29]
John Tuthill
Sarah Tuthill
Daniel Tuthill
Nathaniel Tuthill  

Jonathan Brown
Eliza Brown
Jonathan Brown Junjr
Ruth Griffing
Jasper Griffing
Rachel Brown  

Samuel King Junjr
Hannah King
Samuel King
Zacharias King
John Swazy
Mary Swazy
Jno. Swazy Junjr
Susana. Swazy
Mary Swazy Junjr
Joshua & Phebe Swazy  

Samuel King
Abigail [Brown] King  

Richard Brown
Dorithy [King] Brown
Richard Brown Junjr
Samuel Brown
Dorathy Brown
Abigail Brown [separated by a space as in different households, but following as if `next door' are:]
Mehitobel Brown
Henry Brown  

John Tutthill Junjr
Mehitobell Tutthill
Eliza Brown junjr
Hannah Brown  

Joseph Sweazy
Mary Sweazy
Johanna Seazy
Joseph Sweazy Junjr
Mary Sweazy
Sarah Sweazy
Samuel Sweazy
Richard Sweazy
Stephen Sweazy
Bathia Seazy  

William King
Abigail King
Wm King Junjr
Hannah King
David King
Sarah Young's
Daniel King  

William Brown
Catharine Brown
Wm Brown Junjr
John Brown
Walter Brown
Silvanus Brown
David Brown
Mary Brown
Thomas Reeue
Henry Tuthill
Batthia Tuthill
Henry Tuthill Junjr
Jonathan Tuthill
Nathaniel Tuthill
Barnabas Tuthill
In other cases, the name changes, but they may be in the same household, next door, or at least close neighbours. For example, the Griffing's are bracketed by the Browns, suggesting that Ruth Griffing's maiden name might be Brown? The family of Richard Brown and Mehitobel Brown are separated by an empty space, suggesting two households, but very close to each other. Sarah Young's is part of William King's household, but as servant or relative?   Thomas Reeve may be living alone between a Brown and Tuthill family, he may be part of the Brown household, this may all be one family, or this may be two families next to each other. In the case of the King-Brown marriages, I have included the wives' maiden names in square brackets. Samuel King appears to be still living, with his son, Samuel, Jr. Deliverance having died 25JAN1688, John Tuthill is a widower, with some of his children. He is to live another 29 years. Not much is said about Mehitabel, but she was loved enough by her family for her name to be given to some of her sisters' children; and William and Dorothy (Hayne) King have their namesakes as well; perhaps even down to this day.


LONG ISLAND FAMILIES

  THE SMITHS

   In the foregoing, I have not often mentioned the origin of some of the surnames discussed. King, for example, might be taken to mean descent from some royal personage, but this is unlikely. The name is more likely to have derived from one's participation in pageants, miracle plays or Christmas pantomimes; perhaps as one of the Three Kings, or as King Herod. Another possibility is as King of Fools on what we now call April Fool's Day. A third is a reference to someone who simply behaved in a regal manner. Jaycocks (in its various manifestations) may mean `cocky John' (Jack cock), but more likely refers to similarities to the jay bird (presumably in a friendly, if not always complimentary sense.)  Ashman is usually given as `shipman' or `sailor' but can mean `pirate', not in the Long John Silver sense, but the older sense of people along the coast of England with an eye for profit. It is most often found in Somerset. Scudder, by the family, is suggested to be of Dutch origin, or possibly a reference to sailing, or possibly to cannonballs. A possibility nobody has considered is shield (Old Norse, skjoldr; Latin, scutum), from which such words as escutcheon and esquire are derived. Smith requires no explanation, and it is the respect for those who practiced the mysteries of that craft that make it such a popular name. So much so that members of the various Smith families find themselves deeply entangled whenever the attempt to practice the mysteries of genealogy. Just as the Flewellings can be relatively certain that at one time one of their ancestors was a Welshman with the name Llewellyn, we can also be sure that amongst our ancestors was a smith, possibly (as trades so significant were kept in the family) several generations of them.
  The Smith families on Long Island were relatively numerous early on. You may have noticed that I have been following the "Blue" Smiths with an eye to building a body of information for future use. The Smith family with which we are concerned, here, fortunately did not overuse the given name, `John'. This has probably made them more easily separated from the other Smith families.
  Outside of the material included in the appendices, there is not a great deal that I can add. Delving in Smith genealogy is not something I would do without considering the matter twice, and it appears that I am not alone in this phobia. The few attempts I have made to gather additional information have not gather anything substantive; so I can only summarize what others have found.
  Bartholomew Smith, son of William Smith and brother of Abraham Smith, presumably an immigrant, was living in 1659 when he purchased land from the natives in Huntington, Long Island. Jacobus claims that William, and Bartholomew, were of Hempstead first, and at least a William Smith does appear on at least two of the lists of early Hempstead settlers in Appendix 2. This William Smith, however, is more likely that William, son of Barnard and Margaret (Rowe) Smith, who married Marie Feavors and Madgalena Hill, and whose son was Wait Smith. Jacobus' contention, then, is at best debatable. Moore, in his summaries of the sixty-six proprietors of Hempstead, states of William Smith:

    47. SMITH, WILLIAM; -- d. before 1684; mar. prob. by license, 4th Jan'y, 1668, to Hannah Scudder. Issue: Thomas, Joseph, Nehemech, Wait; 1656, one at Gravesend; 1658, may 17th; signed application of Huntington to New Haven; 1663, signed Hartf. Pet.; 1666, an inhabitant and landholder of Huntington; 1684, deed by his sons as heirs for land in Huntington.[30]

which undoubtedly added to the confusion as the William Smith who married Hannah is still in Hempstead in 1698, and the sons of William Smith in this notice were clearly born before 1668.
   After his death, his widow, Jane, married Edward Rouse, who died in 1672. She then married Robert Coe, who was in his 80's at the time, on 15FEB1674. She was about twenty years younger than Robert, and they were probably married in Jamaica, or in Newtown, Long Island
   Robert Coe had an enormous influence on the families from which Thomas and Hannah (Smith) Flewelling descend. In most of the places these ancestors can be found: Boston, Watertown, Wethersfield, Stamford, Stratford, Middletown, Hempstead, Jamaica and Newtown; he can be found, or his sons can be found. In almost every case Robert Coe is a leading influence, usually one of the founders of the community in question, if not specifically the founder. This is the closest he comes to a kinship with the family being discussed here.
  It is worth noting, however, that when Abraham Smith dies in Middletown, Connecticut in 1734, and the records of his estate provide us with valuable information, sons of Robert Coe are also in Middletown. This gives some explanation of Abraham's presence there. In some genealogies, Jane (Smith, Rouse, Coe) is given as the widow of John Smith, and Donald Lines Jacobus disagrees with this conclusion on valid grounds. For me, he is supported by the fact that wherever apparent sons of Bartholomew Smith are found, Coe's are found in close proximity. This is sometimes, but not as consistently true in the case of the "Blue" Smiths (which family I presume is indicated by the reference to John Smith), especially in the later years after 1652.
   Something I can't help commenting on, but which is admittedly poor genealogy, are the following `name-is-the-same' coincidences. Henry Smith of Stratford-upon-Avon left a will there in 1638. In it he leaves to his daughter, Ann, wife of William Hickes, the property in the tenure of Mr. Fluellin. In the move from Wethersfield, Connecticut to Stamford, Connecticut in 1641/2 is a Henry Smith. In 1647 a John Hicks, presumably an ancestor of the many persons of that name to be later found nearby, is listed as one of the settlers of Hempstead. In his will of 1660, John James mentions, amongst others, Thomas Jeacocks, Hannah Smith and Richard Hicks. I am probably simply being oversensitive, but I feel that I have missed something here.
  One of Bartholomew and Jane Smith's sons was William Smith who is said to have married  4JAN 1667 Hannah Scudder, daughter of John and Mary (King) Scudder. Again, there is doubt thrown on this by the claim in some Scudder genealogies that Hannah married someone (actually, two someones) other than William Smith. One version has Hannah Scudder, daughter of John and Mary (King) Scudder, baptized Salem, MA 19JUL1649, marry 1st ca. 1668 William Smith; marry 2nd 1DEC1669 Joshua Bangs. The difficulty most apparent with this statement is that, agreeing that Hannah, with parents and baptism as given, married William Smith; the 1698 census of Hempstead suggests that they were still living then, with at least two more children than Hannah (Smith) Flewelling. Even granted that they had only three children, one and a half years would be too short a time in which to have them. The name, Hannah Scudder, while used often enough in later generations, appears to have been relatively rare in the colonial seventeenth century. Another, born ca. 1692, was the daughter of Richard Betts Scudder, grandson of John and Mary (King) Scudder.
  A third, born and baptized ca. 1651 in Barnstable, MA, is also said to be the wife of Joshua Bangs (in her first marriage) and to have married secondly Moses Hatch. This in the same compilation in which the Hannah who married William Smith and Joshua Bangs is mentioned. In this case, the marriage to Joshua Bangs is given the less definite date of ca. 1672. This third Hannah is the daughter of John and Hannah Scudder of Barnstable; and the Barnstable branch of the family is generally held to be that of Thomas Scudder of Salem's nephew, John Scudder, son of John and Elizabeth (Stoughton) Scudder. No information is given on Mssrs. Bang or Hatch. The Scudder/Skudder family seems to have been well researched on both sides of the Atlantic, and it is difficult to believe that such an easily resolved doubt has not been settled. I suspect that if Joshua Bang and Moses Hatch were scrutinized, their associations would be largely with Barnstable and Massachusetts. The Hannah Scudder who married William Smith. On the other hand, appears never to have left Long Island.
  It is my interpretation that Hannah Scudder, daughter of John and Mary (King) Scudder, married 4JAN1667 William Smith, son of  Bartholomew and Jane Smith; and that the couple were together for at least the next 32 years.
  It was 15FEB1674 when Robert Coe married William's mother, now the widow of Edward Rouse. It is probable that this marriage was one in which the elderly Robert looked for companionship and care, and where Jane looked for support. Robert Coe, from the prominence given him by all accounts, could have chosen from a fairly wide field of candidates as his spouse, and it speaks well of Jane that he chose her. It may well have been that they had previously been good friends, well suited to each other. Regardless of such speculation, it would appear that the relationship between the Smiths and the Coes was amicable. For example, when John Coe goes to Connecticut, William's brother, Abraham, goes with him.
   Robert and Jane Coe seem to have been close to, perhaps living with, William and Hannah (Scudder) Smith and 2NOV1677, they are in Jamaica, Long Island, with Robert Jane and William selling land to Edward Higby (that gentleman who seems always nearby, well-known and connected by his marriage (or that of a son of the same name) Lydia Smith, sister of Wait Smith, husband of Phoebe Ashman.) The relationships are already getting complex. In 1679 Robert Coe, probably approaching his 90th year, begins disposing of his estate. On the 26th of June, he gives some land to Abraham Smith of Jamaica, L. I.; and then on the 28th house and land in Jamaica to John Smith, also of Jamaica, in return for maintenance of himself and his wife, Jane, mother of John. Abraham Smith witnesses this latter gift. This is also a measure of the trust and regard Robert Coe held for his stepfamily. It is these actions which show William, John and Abraham to be brothers, and which increase the significance of the disposition of Abraham Smith's estate fifty-five years later.
  John Smith is in Hempstead by 1683. On 5JUN1684 Edward Higby sells the land he purchased from Abraham Smith through Abraham's brother, William. On 5MAY1685, William and Hannah Smith, of Foster's Meadow (i.e., Hempstead) sell their land in Jamaica except what has already been sold to Edward Higby. This is a time of passing of many of the original settlers. Robert Ashman dies in 1683 in Jamaica, Dorothy (Hayne) King dies about 1684 in Southold and, something to be noted, William Smith of Huntington (father of Thomas, Joseph, Nehemiah and Wait Smith) dies about 1684 apparently leaving only one William Smith living on Long Island, presumably the same in the 1698 census of Hempstead. Robert Coe appears to have land in Foster's Meadow (as near as I can determine, somewhere between Jamaica and Hempstead as the two towns debated borders at times) and 9JUN1687 Robert and Jane give to their `Son John Smith late of Jemeco' fifty acres and a house there, in Hempstead. This may explain why, William and Hannah go to Hempstead; to take up land given to them by their stepfather. In is not clear who now cares for Robert and Jane, although it might well be that the extended family, having disposed of the holdings in Jamaica, have moved as a group to Hempstead.
  In a 1688 sort of head-of-household census (see Appendix 9) appear: Nathaniel Denton, Wait Smith, Hope Carpenter, Thomas "Wellen", Benjamin Coe, a John Smith and, of course, Edward Higbee. This shows that Robert Coe and Jane have probably moved with at least Abraham and William Smith to Hempstead by this time. Robert Coe has died by 1690, when 28JUN1690 Jane Coe, living in Hempstead, refers to her son, John Smith, as being in "St. Jonses in Kent Co. upon Dover River in the Province of Penn." and at "St. Johns in Kent Co. on Dover River, Pa."
  In 1692, William Smith of Foster's Meadow, Hempstead, sells land and describes himself as the eldest son of Bartholomew Smith of Huntington, deceased. It was about this time, in June of 1692, that Hannah (Scudder) Smith's father, John, died in Newtown, Long Island. On 28JAN1696 William Smith sells land in Jamaica, which formerly belonged to Joseph and Wait Smith on East Neck River. Thomas "Fflewwellinge" is a witness. Both William and Thomas make their mark with an `X'.
  Apparently a large part of Foster's Meadow is still held in common, and a division is made (probably ca. 1701) in which persons from Hempstead and Jamaica share. These include: Thomas "Welling", Nathaniel Denton, Edward Higbee, the Widow Ashman, Wait Smith, Hope Carpenter and Benjamin Coe. Neither Abraham nor William Smith appear. There are several possibilities for this. William Smith may have died and Abraham Smith may already be in Connecticut. Although some genealogies have William Smith dying before 1684, his presence in the 1698 census and the conveyance of 1696 contradict this. The division may have been only amongst the original owners and/or their heirs. The assumed date of this division (derived as being between the dated documents as it is recorded) may have been much earlier.
  Beyond 1698, not much more can be said of William and Hannah (Scudder) Smith at this time. Hannah may have been living in 1734, but this is by no means certain. In the 1698 census, there are apparently two children living with them, John Smith and a Jhn (Jonathan?; Johanna?) neither of them mentioned in the disposition of Abraham Smith's estate in 1734. It is possible that these could be William's brother, John Smith, and John's son, John (later of Coram on Long Island); or that the John might be the orphaned son of John Smith; or some other possibility. The 1734 records of Abraham Smith do make it clear that they had one child, Hannah Smith, and that this Hannah married a Flewelling.
  The Salem families of the Kings and Scudders have sent branches to Long Island, probably partially in search of escape from religious contention. The families of Jaycocks and Ashmans have also made their way to Long Island for similar reasons. Sometime about the middle of the 17th century they meet and mingle in the marriage of Thomas and Hannah (Smith) Flewelling.


  ROBERT ASHMAN AND KIN

  Historians and Genealogists are agreed that Robert Ashman was one of the original settlers in Hempstead in 1644. As I have indicated above, this is apparently based on the absence of his name from various records and lists. This seems a poor reason to assume his presence, and the few indications available suggest otherwise.
  We have noted that it is likely Francis Jaycocks, Sr. who was an early settler of Stratford, CT. Stratford was the result of similar circumstances as those resulting in nearby Stamford. The Stratford settlers are said to be discontents from Wethersfield as well, so there could well be ties of common origins, friendship, common cause and even kinship between those in both towns. When Robert Coe, John Carman and the Rev. Richard Denton lead settlers to found Hempstead, they may well have induced persons in Stratford to join them. A requirement of the grant from the Dutch for Hempstead was that one hundred families were to be settled there, and by 1647 this was still to be done.  William Washburn is said to have connections with Stratford in the 1660's, although this is questionable. Even so, Hope Washburn was there in 1669. Thomas Armitage appears to have had business in Stratford, although he is indicated as having been only in Stamford. John Smith "Rock" is said to have been in Stratford in 1640 and in Stamford in 1642; but the opportunity for confusion between John Smiths is too great for certainty. Edward Higbee, whose name appears so often in connection with members of the extended family discussed here, was owner of lot 23 in Stratford. There are hints and allegations, but nothing is clear.
  Neither Jaycocks or Ashmans appear in the movements from Watertown, MA to Wethersfield, CT to Stamford, CT. This would suggest that they were not part of that variable, migrating party. I have seen, in an index of a history of Watertown, a reference to a Phoebe Ashman in that place, but have not been able to find it again, and there is no indication of the time or circumstances. The earliest concrete reference is to Francis Jaycocks' possession of lot 38a in Stratford, possibly as early as 1640-1646. He is certainly there in 1647 when he is ordered to post a bond against his good behaviour.
  In 1650, William Parks assigns to Barnabus `ffawer' (Flower?; Fowler?) a note from Robert Ashman of Stratford originally made in 1648. This is the earliest mention of Robert Ashman, and suggests that he was in Stratford in 1648. It is likely that he was married as Martha Ashman, his daughter is said to have been born AUG 1650. Her marriage to Lars Perrson Cock (15MAY1669) supports this. The date-of-birth given for Phoebe Washburn (1633) who married John Ashman does suggest certain intriguing possibilities. For example, that Robert Ashman was married before 1632, well before the Jaycocks could have come to the colonies as they were still in Stratford-upon-Avon in 1634. I am not certain as to how reliable this date-of-birth is. The suggested date of marriage for John and Phoebe (Washburn) Ashman, ca. 1665, rather suggests a date-of-birth in the 1640's for each of them. This would still place John Ashman as born (very roughly) 1645.
  Supposedly, on 10AUG1654, Robert Ashman was nominated as a magistrate for Hempstead, but it is not clear if he was ratified into office. I find this date suspect, the source is not clearly identified, and the date might be an error for 1664.
  When Robert Ashman sells the bulk of his lands and buildings and proprietary rights to Richard Ellison, about 1663 or 1664, he mentions that he bought the land his house was on from Mr. Alexander Bryan of Milford, who had bought it of Daniel Whitehead in 1655. Some other pieces of the various lots being sold had been purchased by Robert from Thurston Raynor. Both Raynor and Whitehead were original settlers of Hempstead. The suggestion is that, in spite of the common agreement of historians and genealogists (each probably taking the assumption from the other), about 1655 Robert Ashman came to Hempstead, bought a piece of land and the proprietary rights that went with it.
  This argument is countered to some degree by the lists of gates, cattle and property in 1657 and 1658 which suggest that Daniel Whitehead still had property in Hempstead at the time, and that there is an indication that Robert Ashman acquired about nineteen acres from Daniel Whitehead in about 1658. This counter argument does not take into account that Robert Ashman bought his home lot from Alexander Bryan, and Mr. Bryan's name is not prominent in even the earliest of Hempstead records. Also, If Robert Ashman had bought land originally owned by Daniel Whitehead, and Whitehead still had property in Hempstead, then they were probably `neighbours' as far as owning land side by side. Should Whitehead have wished to sell any of his remaining property, Robert Ashman displays that strange urge to purchase every small tract available which appears in later generations of the Flewelling family.
  If Robert Ashman was in Hempstead, even as early as 1654, and if he was then nominated as magistrate, he appears with a strange suddenness. Since he suggested in 1663/4 that he purchased from Alexander Bryan Daniel Whitehead's land with `mony', he might have been fairly well-to-do, and it is even more surprising that he escapes notice before then.
  In 1656, Richard Gildersleeve and John Seaman are appointed magistrates in Hempstead. It appears that the townspeople had managed to revert to only two magistrates. On the other hand, on 17MAR1656, five Townsmen are chosen: Richard Brutnal, Richard Valentine, Robert Marvin, Francis Weeks and Adam Mott.
  In 1657 Thomas and William Jaycocks are mentioned in the Hempstead Town Records. Richard Gildersleeve, with Richard Willets, is again a magistrate; but the need has been found for two assistants: John Hicks and Robert Forman (Fordham?.) It was at this time that the Quaker, Robert Hodgson, appears in Hempstead and preaches in an orchard. Robert Ashman was fortunate in not being a magistrate at this time, and the task of arresting the poor man fell to Richard Gildersleeve
  In 1658 Thomas Jaycocks is appointed as one of the Cow Wardens. This custom of herding the cattle of the town together into a commonly held pasturage was the beginnings of ranching and cowboys in America. This tradition still exists on Long Island, and the custom of "brands" (actually, notches, etc., in the cattles' ears) developed to differentiate each owner's property started. Thomas Jaycocks, therefore, was probably one of the first cowboys.
  On 3JUN1659 Robert Ashman gave testimony before Richard Gildersleeve concerning the matter of Thomas and Mannaseth Armitage. James Pine, like Francis Jaycocks, had been in Stratford, CT in 1647; when he also was required to post a bond for his good behaviour. The issue at hand appears to have been that Mr. Armitage had prepared for his son's, Mannaseth's, future by paying for his education at Cambridge University, and by depositing sums or notes with various persons upon which Mannaseth Armitage could later draw. It is probable that his daughter, the wife of James Pine, would also have some claim on these deposits as well, and some of it was held by Pine. Thomas Armitage, however, had taken a new, young wife, and had reason to anticipate a new family who would also require something for the future.
 Thomas Armitage visited James Pine to transfer the claims Mannaseth might have on these deposits to his future offspring or his own present use. Pine objected that Mannaseth had a right to his expectations and was reluctant to acknowledge the changes, particularly as Thomas Armitage meant to deprive his son entirely of any inheritance. Apparently Robert Ashman had given his bond to James Pine for some of the funds or goods involved about 1650, and was a participant in the agreement and a witness to the more recent fracas between James Pine and Thomas Armitage in which some temper was displayed. Robert told Thomas Armitage that he was witness to the fact that Thomas had intended that the funds or goods left with Daniel Whitehead (another prominent and active settler of Hempstead) and with James Pine be for Mannaseth Armitage. After the argument with James Pine, Thomas Armitage went to Robert Ashman to collect that which Robert owed James Pine. Robert said that he hoped that Thomas Armitage would not now deprive his son. Thomas replied that he had more need of it now that Mannaseth had. The discussion degenerated into threats from there and eventually ended up before the magistrate.
  The wording of Robert Ashman's deposition is unfortunate, and incomplete transcriptions have led to two errors. First, that Robert Ashman was an indentured servant, bound to James Pine or Thomas Armitage. In fact, the bond was simply the acknowledgment of a debt. Secondly, it has been taken that Robert Ashman was Thomas Armitage's son-in-law. In fact, the relationship is between that of James Pine and Thomas Armitage, James having married Thomas' daughter. Admittedly the certainties of these relationships are unclear, but genealogists of the Pine family are clear that it is James who married Thomas' daughter, not Robert Ashman. An example is a genealogy prepared by Diane Cukro and found at:


http://www.members.tripod.com/dcukro/pine.htm

  To summarize Ms. Cukros findings, there were two James Pines, father and son. The elder James may have been born 1608 in Woodbury, Devonshire, England, son of John Payne. He died in Hempstead in 1686. He married 1630 Edith Williams. About 1640 he supposedly found in Stamford, CT and is in Hempstead about 1654-6. For a short time, he may have been in Hartford, CT in 1647. The notice of him mentioned above suggests that he was also in Stratford at that time. James Pine is another who's origins are hard to pin down. Ms. Cukros quotes (probably from Hicks,  "Records of the Towns of North and South Hempstead, Long Island, N. Y."),

Hempsteed ye 26th of Feb 1660 - Townesman for Ensueing yeare- Mr. Robert Ashman, James Pine, Timothy Holstead, John Meade, Aron Forman

In addition to the greater honour done Robert Ashman than his nomination as magistrate, he is given precedence and the honorific of `Mr.'.
  James and Edith (Williams) Pine's children were:

Susanna Pine m. Jeremiah Wood
John Pine d. Hempstead 1703, m. Abigail
James Pine will made 25JAN1734, probated 19SEP1737, d. in Hempstead m. Susanna     Armitage
Nathaniel Pine
Jonathan Pine, died in New Jersey
Samuel Pine m. Rachel Ellison
William Pine
Benjamin Pine
Leah Pine
Agnes Pine
Sarah Pine

James Pine, Jr. d. ca. 1737, m. 1652 Susanna Armitage (b. 1632, d. 1673.) Their children were:

Susanna Pine b. 1653 m. Hempstead 10MAY1678 John Searing
John Pine b. 1655
Samuel Pine b. 1663
William Pine b. 1665

From notices posted at Armitage GenForum by Leah Wetherby 25DEC2000 and by Robert Hubbard 3NOV2000 comes the information that Thomas Armitage married first Susan Mitchell, and that amongst their children was Sarah Armitage born ca. 1626, who married Daniel Whitehead (ca. 1603-16NOV1668), son of John and Elizabeth (Alcocke) Whitehead. Also there are some of the dates included above for Susannah (Armitage) Pine and some of her children.
  It may seem that I am giving a lot of excess detail, but knowledge of these families my have a purpose in the future when it come time to expand on the relationship of the Denton family to the Flewellings. Also, I want to clarify that the Armitage and Pine genealogists believe that the above legal action is a family matter, with Thomas Armitage, John Pine and Daniel Whitehead all related by the marriage of the latter two to the daughters of the former. Robert Ashman's participation is only as a witness and through business, not through marriage.
  The town clerk of the time, from 1657 to 1659, was John James, from Glamorganshire in Wales. He apparently died about 1660 as his will bears the date of that year. Consideration of his will indicates that he also acted as a schoolteacher, was unmarried, and left his belongings to his pupils. Amongst these were John Rock Smith, Jr., Hannah Smith, apparently John's sister, the children of Thomas Jaycocks, the wife of Thomas Champion, believed to be Thomas Jaycocks' sister, Frances, John Bedell and others. His bequests include his books of Arithmetic, which he gives to Mr. Hicks. He also orders "wine or drams" so that his friends might drink to his passing. Through this sad document is the glimmer of one who may have been an unusual and altruistic man. He also tells us that in addition to William Jaycocks, Thomas Jaycocks is in Hempstead, and that he has children. This suggests that they are brothers.
   From the fragments available, it would seem that Robert Ashman, Thomas Jaycocks, William Jaycocks and possibly Thomas Champion, all brothers-in-law, had been in Stratford, Connecticut sometime between 1639 and 1650 (roughly.) Moore (p. 9) places Robert in Hempstead by 1650, but the basis for this is not given. It is probable that during this time that Robert Ashman and Thomas Champion met and married the daughters of Francis Jaycocks. Apparently kept from church membership and freemen status, they responded to an invitation to settle in Hempstead to make up part of the one hundred families needed. They may, in part, have assisted thereby in the finalization of the patent for Hempstead
  On 15DEC1661 and 25FEB1661 (1662) Robert Ashman had been nominated again as magistrate. He attempted to decline the nomination on the basis of his illiteracy. Peter Stuyvesant had repeatedly requested that Hempstead should send each year six names from which he would chose three. Although in 1653 there were three magistrates; John Strickland, William Washburn and Richard Gildersleeve, the people of Hempstead would only send two or three names. Stuyvesant was quick to deny Robert's withdrawal, and added Richard Gildersleeve to make up three with John Symons. Stuyvesant probably wanted three to avoid split decisions.
  Most genealogists and historians seem to think that this was a sign of trust and respect of the people of Hempstead for Robert Ashman, and the esteem Stuyvesant had for Robert Ashman. More likely the people of Hempstead wished to stay on good terms with the Dutch, but resented any interference and avoided it by grudgingly offering as few candidates for office as possible, and especially those who could be spared from other tasks. More important would be the church and town meetings that any Dutch officials. Nevertheless, that the people of Hempstead nominated Robert Ashman indicates that they trusted him to avoid creating any unnecessary complications. This appointment might have had some influence in Robert's movements in later years, as Dutch officials would not have been too popular in 1664 when the English took over and created the province of New York. An example of Hempstead wanting to maintain good relations with the Dutch was their offer, in 1654, of fifty guilders to assist with the construction of a Dutch Reformed Church on the corner of Flatbush and Church Avenues in Brooklyn. It is unlikely that many would have need of that particular church (they having moved to Hempstead to found the first Presbyterian church in the New World.)
  Another factor derives from those few pages of the records of Hempstead as compiled by Hicks available to me. Part of the problem is that John James, who was the town clerk at the time, states that he is using "New Style" dating. That is with the new year beginning January 1st as we do now. Then he refers to events, in an entry dated prior to those events, as if they had taken place; or within the same entry contradicts himself. For example he seems at one time to indicate that it is 1661, and that a decision has been made for the remainder of 1660. While the dates he gives are precise, when he is dealing with the period of any year from January 1st to 25th March, it is not always clear if he regards this period to be part of the previous year (Old Style) or the present year (New Style.)
  In any case it appears that on 13MAY1661 Robert Ashman is one of the town of Hempstead's magistrates. Amongst other business, the townsmen for the next year are chosen to be: Mr. Robert Ashman, James Pine, John Mead, Aaron "Forman" (Fordham?) and Timothy Holstead. The magistrates object to this slate of candidates, apparently because they were selected by the previous townsmen (making it a self-perpetuating body) rather than elected at a regular town meeting. In other words, they object as the procedure is undemocratic; an important point as it gives some idea of the political values of Hempstead. This is also unusual as the magistrates are usually held to be subservient to the townsmen except in certain narrowly defined areas (i.e., land grants and admittance as inhabitants) while the acts of the townsmen are subject to ratification by the people at a town meeting. This relationship is sometimes uncertain as the magistrates usually are sworn in as owing allegiance to the townsmen, and the townsmen take office at the approval of the magistrates, and the townsmen are further subject to the approval of the town meeting. It is very English in a way as, although England has been under a feudal system since the Norman Conquest, the Saxons used to have similar local lawmaking bodies (`Things' or `Althings' or `folkmoots') in which the free, landowning males of a district participated and to which the local Jarl or Earl was responsible. This custom was, in some respects, revived as the parliamentarian system evolved. Indeed, at that very time, England was coming out that period in which Parliament had assumed authority and predominance after a bloody civil war; and was only just reinstating the monarchy which would mutate from this time until now into a largely symbolic role.
  In any case, at a following meeting which John James dates as 26FEB1660 (I told you he was confusing) the slate of candidates was accepted. Robert Ashman (who seems as magistrate to have voided his own election as townsman on the basis of irregularity) was now a townsman. The whole point of this is that Robert Ashman probably attempted to refuse the appointment, later in 1661, to magistrate as it was essentially a demotion. His willingness to participate in municipal politics seems well established before then. It is also worth mentioning that when his 'signature' is indicated on documents, his name is invariably first. This suggests that he had a leading or chairman's role amongst the townsmen. It is also significant that he is almost always referred to as `Mr. Ashman', the honorific being an important measure of social rank and stature.
  Another feature that comes from the few records available to me is how they made a living. Thomas Jaycocks, for example, acts as cow herd and does other jobs for the town gathering fiscal credit against the rates or taxes he owes. He several times rents to 'home lot' or parsonage lot, puts it to crop and pays the rent out a portion of the harvest. Coinage would likely have been scarce, and Dutch guilders and stivers were as valid as the English shilling, pound and pence. Wampum was always valued as money and the relationship between it and coinage was carefully controlled by the Dutch and later the English.
  Both Thomas Jaycocks and Robert Ashman participated keenly in the ownership of cattle. Robert Ashman often had one of the largest counts of cattle, and Thomas Jaycocks, often had more than average. In 1657 Robert had eleven cattle with only John Smith Rock having more at twelve head. At the same time, Thomas Jaycocks owned 14 gates of the barrier across Cow Neck, Robert Ashman had twenty gates and Thomas Champion had six. Only three or four others had as many as twenty gates, and the three (presumed here to be brothers-in-law) had together 40 of 526 gates. There were about 61 gate owners, so one-twentieth of the gate owners had about one-thirteenth of the gates. This may suggest a co-operative effort within the larger family, and an attempt to acquire wealth through livestock.
  Another feature in Robert Ashman's sale of the bulk of his real estate to Richard Ellison in 1663 or 1664 is his ownership of a variety of portions of land from half an acre here, to three acres there or a larger plot other where. Some of it a hollow on this side, or a meadow yonder, or a share of a neck used for pasture, perhaps an orchard or ten acres of wood lot and other such portions. This suggests that, in addition to agrarian purposes, he acquired land for its own value; as speculation.
  There is mention, but it is not clear to me how significant it was, of sheep herds. These were valuable animals in Britain, sometimes more valuable than tenants to larger landowners. They gave wool for clothing, tallow for candles, meat for food, fertilizer for gardens and hide for a variety of uses. Even so, there seems to have been an attachment to cattle which is generally held to have been the seed from which western ranching grew. Thomas Jaycocks, in care of a fair-sized herd, probably rode a horse to move them, and may well be regarded as one of the first American cowboys. It is doubtful if he actually yelled, "Whahoo!", or, "Yippee!"; as his neighbours would have considered that suspicious behaviour, and such terminology was probably left for wider ranges than Hempstead offered.
  A map of 1683, drawn by Philip Welles, called, "Draught of Land on the East Side of Cow Neck on Long Island", is supposed to be a map of Hempstead Harbour, and shows the fenced portion of the neck. This map is at the New York State Archives, but can be seen at:


http://www.sunysb.edu/libmap/img0021.jpg

First, look at the north on the compass rose to be aware that, unlike to be aware that unlike the convention of most maps, north is not on the top of the detail given. It is unfortunate that not all of the map is not given, and it is also unfortunate that the method of copying and presenting it gives no clear definition of written portions, and does not allow zooming in to examine the writing and drawing more closely. The map shows a wedge of water coming in from the north side of the island between Hempstead to the east and Cow Neck to the west. About half way into the stretch of water appears to be a narrow piece of land from the Neck almost to the shore of the other side. This could be a breakwater, weir, causeway, road or some other construction as tidal movements would not create such a bridge. Possibly the open end of this "bridge" was forded, or bridged to allow easier access to the west side of the water. On the west side of the water are scalloped markings possibly suggesting cliffs or steep sides, enclosing a flat wedge through which a creek runs from west to east. To the south of the creek are semicircular objects supposed to be native wigwams, but I think this unlikely first because the settlers would never graze cattle so close to the natives who were in the habit of killing them for there own use, and secondly because by 1683, the natives were pretty well shoved into limited areas. More likely they were shelters built in the longhouse or wigwam style for cattle, or for their keepers. In essence, barns and shielings; two large and one small near the creek. To the north of the creek is a fenced off area which matches the descriptions of the common pasturage mentioned above. The pasture, shelters, wedge of low, flat land, and some of the higher land are bounded by property lines. This is the purpose of the map, to show these lines. These appear to begin just north of another creek, to go due west 484 rods (7,986 feet or 121 chains, or about 1½ miles, or 2.434 Km), then due south a distance cut of in this image but approximately 65 chains (about 260 rods, 4290 ft., 0.81 miles, or 1.308 Km.), then due east to the water. This would contain roughly 786.5 acres. It is possible that the west side of this property is the west side of the neck. The visible part of the text suggests this as it seems to indicate an area of 930 acres and two "roods" (perches?) indicating that the west boundary is `flared'.
  On the east side of the harbour is, just against the end of the causeway (or whatever it is) a building on the shore. A dwelling, ferry house, or something else? To the north are other dwellings on the shore, with what appears to be a pier, breakwater, or natural bar providing shelter for small craft?; with a small creek running by them. Further north is some writing I cannot make out, but which might be the mill river or creek. There is a scale on the map in chain. (a chain is 66 ft.) and 10 chain units. (80 chains = 1 mile, 10 chains = 1 furlong, 1 chain = 4 rods, 10 square chains = 1 acre; the chain was the basic unit for surveyors as late as the early 1900's.)
  Another map at:

http://www.sunysb.edu/libmap/img0058.jpg

is called, "Hempstead Bay", `The country Twenty-five Miles Round New York Drawn by a Gentleman from that City, 1777'; and which shows western Long Island at the time of the Battle of Long Island, and is held by the Library Company of Philadelphia.
  At first glance, Hempstead Bay, on the south of the island, seems to be the Hempstead Harbour on the first map. The former, however, runs east and west, where the harbour runs north and south. The first map more likely represents that wedge of water on the north of the island just above the first `E' in `QUEENS COUNTY'; to the west of Oyster Bay. Hempstead is on the east edge of the map between Hempstead Bay and Oyster Bay. Some scale is indicated by the faint circles of five mile intervals. Hempstead is about 23.5 miles due east of downtown New York.
  On 4FEB1662, Robert Ashman is again nominated as magistrate; as he is again 18JAN1663, and he is probably one of those deposed by the eighty Connecticut men who attempt in November of 1663 to annex Long Island to Connecticut. The exact year of these nominations is in questions (due to the potential of confusion between Old Style and New Style) and they lead to some contradictions, especially as it seems that if 18JAN1663 is Old Style, then it would be 1664 New Style, but it appears that Robert Ashman has left Hempstead before 1664 (our reckoning.) Nevertheless, it appears that about 1661 to 1663 he was nominated for three years running, suggesting that his illiteracy was not a barrier to his intelligence.
  On 20AUG 1653, Queen Christiana of Sweden had granted 1000 acres of land at Passayunk to Lieutenant Sewn Schute, his wife and heirs, presumably in recognition of his services to the crown. It was Governor Keift, the cruel and deposed ex-governor of the New Netherlands who led an expedition to what was then called New Sweden. Two years later, the Dutch end the possible competition by taking control of New Sweden in 1655. After the interesting events on Long Island in 1663 and 1664, the British assume control over Dutch territories in the area, and create New York Province. These events may have had something to do with the following movements of Robert Ashman and his relatives.
  In 1663 (see MAY1640) William Jaycocks sells his division of land on Madnans Neck to Jonah Fordham. At about the same time, Robert Ashman appears to dispose of most of his property at Hempstead, except for some rights and property reserved for the benefit of his son, John Ashman. Robert, on 4DEC1663, acts on behalf of his brother-in-law, Thomas Jaycocks, in selling Thomas' on the neck of meadow below the mill called `Jeycocks Neck'. This would appear to be almost the same time that Robert Ashman sells most of his property to Richard Ellison. This includes the right to seventeen of his twenty-one gates on the `North neck' (the one in the map described above?) The photocopy of the relevant records I have is incomplete, but what there is shows an accumulation of a wide variety of parcels of land of various sizes; and that it is Robert's intention to dispose of the bulk of these holdings, including his home. Richard Ellison is probably the father of Sarah Ellison, said to later have married Joshua Jaycocks, son of Francis Jaycocks, Jr. A `second' Thomas Ellison is said to have married a daughter of Thomas Champion; and as Thomas Champion appears to have also been a brother-in-law of Robert Ashman and Thomas Jaycocks, the Ellisons are connected fairly closely (or will be) to Robert's family.
  It is clear that Robert Ashman is again on the move, and he appears to have motivated his brother-in-law and others to join them. It is not clear if this is motivated by the deposal of the magistrates of Hempstead by Connecticut in NOV1663, but the timing suggests it. Another motive may be that, as England was in the process of assuming control of Dutch territories, that the prospect of beginning again on the Delaware River attracted him. In this, Robert had the example of others, such as Robert Coe, who had led settlements of Oyster Bay, Jamaica, Newtown and elsewhere. Until recently, it was thought that Robert Ashman had simply moved to Jamaica, but it is clear now that he had something more ambitious in mind.
  It is my thought that some of the early settlers were land speculators. That they would move to a new settlement, develop it, sell it and move on. This may have been a motive for the move. Robert led some of his kin to the same 1,000 acres granted by the Swedish Queen at Passayunk, on the Delaware River, where Philadelphia now is situated. This adventure does not appear to have lasted long, one reason being that it is said (without any justification being given or sources cited) that John Ashman married about 1664 or 1665 Phoebe Washburn, daughter of William and Jane Washburn; that they had a daughter, Phoebe Ashman, and that both the wife and child died soon after, again about 1667. This all appears to have occurred on Long Island. Also, in 1666, John Ashman is charged with carrying for a mare bequeathed by a lady to her granddaughter.
  Again, we run into difficulties with Old and New Style dating. On 1JAN1667 (which could be our 1668) Governor Richard Nichols granted ten 100 acre lots (of the 1,000 acres mentioned above) to Robert Ashman, John Ashman, Thomas Jaycocks, Caleb Carman, Thomas Flewelling, Fredrick Anderson, Joshua Jaycocks, Thomas Jaycocks, Jr., Duncan Williams and Francis Walker. While this would appear to be well after Robert Ashman and Thomas Jaycocks sold their Hempstead holdings, it is probable that they were on the Delaware prior to the date of the grant. Of the ten, seven are identifiable as relatives of Robert Ashman. The other three, Frederick Anderson, Duncan Williams and Francis Walker, have not had their origins been made known to me.
  Thomas Jaycocks, Sr. is believed to have stayed in Passayunk until his death about 1677 when his widow, Ruth, is mentioned in September of that year. Caleb Carman appears to have disposed of his 100 acres (Lot 3) to Jan Classon by 25DEC1678; but he returned to the mouth of the Delaware, on Cape May, New Jersey, to participate in the growing whaling industry. Two of Robert Ashman's daughters married Swedish settlers in the area. Martha Ashman married Lars Persson, whose father, Pers Larson, originally of Bingsta in Sodermandland, Sweden, adopted the surname, Cock. Lars was also known as Lawrence Peterson Cock. They had a large family of thirteen children, and Lars was later to be prominent in the affairs of Pennsylvania. Lydia Ashman married Olaf Svennsson (son of Svenn), nicknamed `Woola'; and they were the progenitors of the family said to be surnamed afterwards Swanson, and to have still been in Philadelphia in 1693. Short as Robert Ashman's expedition to the Delaware might have been, the effects were lasting. It is also considered possible that The Jaycocks in the southern states may have been members of the Delaware River family who moved further south.
  Perhaps the most significant point in the land grant of 1JAN1667 is the mention of Thomas Flewelling. This work is intended to discuss the origins of the Flewelling family, and there has been a lot of wordage between the start of this small endeavour and the earliest (so far) introduction of the progenitor of the Flewelling family. There are a number of questions which arise. Was this the first time Thomas Flewelling was introduced to Robert Ashman's family? Is this when he met and married Robert's daughter, Hannah? Was he, like Lars and Olaf, pleased to see the arrival of unmarried ladies accustomed to pioneer life and quick to pay his respects? There is nothing that answers these questions, but where Olaf and Lars stay in what is to become Philadelphia, Thomas Flewelling goes to Jamaica, Long Island. It is clear that the move to the Delaware is largely a family thing, and there is no reason that Thomas Flewelling might not have already been a member of that family, unnoticed as he was living with his father-in-law, fairly recently married. There is no hint of when he arrived, or from where, except for the vague theories discussed above.
  Another factor to be considered is that Thomas Flewelling, Jr. is usually considered as having been born ca. 1673. This date is arrived at by noticing that he has three children in 1698, giving 1½ years between the birth of each child, adding a year before the first child and adding twenty years as the probable age at marriage. This makes him roughly 25½ years old in 1698, or born ca. 1673. Since it is now clear that Thomas Flewelling had very likely married Hannah Ashman before 1667; even before 1663, then Thomas, Jr. may be even older than the estimate which has achieved the near status of fact.
  A so called "1680" census of the Delaware River includes John Ashman, Frederick Andrews, Robert Ashman, Caleb Carman, "Lass Cock" (Lars Cock), Wilte Dunke (Duncan Williams?) Thomas `Fflaye', Thomas `Jacobson', Thomas `Jacobson', Thomas `Snelling', Thomas `Snerling' and Ffrancis Waker. The obvious difficulties with spelling raise some interesting questions. Thomas Fflaye would appear to be Thomas Flewelling, but what if he is actually Thomas Snelling? Then there appears to be two of them. The Jacobsons appear to be the Jaycocks, father and son. Evidence, related to the sale of property and movement of some of the persons mentioned, indicate that several had left the area before 1680, and the census is considered to be as early as 1671.
  It was shortly after this that Francis Jaycocks left his son-in-law, Thomas Champion, his property in Hempstead (20FEB1672) in return for care. This is considered to have been Francis Jaycocks, Sr., with whom this work began in Stratford-upon-Avon, and he is presumed to have died soon after, possibly almost eighty years old. It is also possible that he left his property to his son-in-law as his sons were elsewhere, although members of the Jaycocks family are found in and about Hempstead in later years as well as in Connecticut.
  It was also about this time (21JUL1672) that Capt, John Underhill, whose life was peripheral but influential on the lives of those discussed here, died in Southampton, Long Island. After an active life in which he gained a reputation as a warrior, he had joined the Society of Friends and become a peaceful Quaker.

  Ruth Ashman, in her deposition of 1677, stated that John Ashman sold his 100 acres 30JUL1670, and had left the colony; that is, returned to Long Island. This was the same time (13JUL1670) that Robert Ashman sold his Lot 10 to Andries Banskon. This may not have been the 100 acre lot at Passayunk as Thomas Jaycocks had Lot 11, next door, and there were only ten lots in the 1,000 acre grant. "Olle" Svenson had Lot 4, and "Lasse" Cock had Lot 2. In 1670, Robert Ashman was elected a Townsman for the northeast section of Jamaica, Long Island, and it was about this time that his daughter, Phoebe Ashman, married Wait Smith. The length of Robert Ashman's stay on the Delaware is not certain, but it was at most from 1664 to 1670. The reason for the return is not clear. It could not have been difficult settling the area as it was already partially settled. Perhaps he received a tempting offer to sell out and move back to where his acquaintances were building another new town, Jamaica. It could also be that Robert Ashman had developed an attachment to Long Island. In other words, he may have been homesick. Long Island had been such a special place in the colonial period, that this is not improbable. His property in the 1,000 acre grant he appears to have sold to his son-in-law, Lars Cock, as 29MAY1678, Lars purchased it from Robert. This lot had been next to Peter Rambo's lot, and was to be Lars and Martha's home. If he had made a profit from the sale of his property, he had made the same error that members of the family have made for 300 years, not holding on to the land long enough. One might consider the value of land today in Hempstead and Jamaica on Long Island, or in Westchester Co., or on the Hudson River. One might also consider the value of waterfront land in Philadelphia even five years later when Penn created the Province of Pennsylvania.
  A curious incident took place in late 1670 in which John Ashman became entangled. It needs to be understood that it was not uncommon for indentured servants (an euphemism for slaves, albeit for a fixed term) to flee from their obligations to another colony. These were hunted by hue and cry, and there were people who made a business of tracking them down. When a hue and cry was issued (an all-points-bulletin) law officers were required to watch for and arrest the escapees, and they could call upon others nearby to assist, which the bystanders were required to do.
  It appears that their was such an escapee from Maryland, one William Argent (although the surname is given in different versions) who not only fled his master, but took his master's wife, and, during the flight, stole jewellery from a chest. In Maryland, Corporal Rosse brought news of the hue and cry issued the previous April. Noting a nearby William "Urgent" who had come from Maryland, the local  Justices-of-the-Peace (Captain Collier and Captain Thomas Howell) ordered John Ashman (possibly as a constable) to arrested this William, which he did. William Argent was outraged, and in the Mayor's Court in New Amsterdam (2JUN1668) produced witnesses who stated that they knew him to be a freeman; and that his wife, who had been his servant, was now his legally married wife. William Argent entered a charge of "disfamation" against John Ashman, and sued for damages and loss of reputation. The court adjourned for two weeks, and John was asked to post a bond against his appearance.
  It was the 20th of October, 1668 when the matter (which had been referred to the Mayor's Court in New York by the Court of Assizes) was reconsidered. John Ashman, possibly unable to attend or to find anyone to represent him; or recognizing that he had no friends in this court, and that his cause was lost before it started, did not appear. The court ruled that John had slandered William Argent, and used the bond of £10 left on the 3rd of June, 1668 to pay the damages. One can only hope that John Ashman, who appears to have only done his duty based on the best information available, and at the orders of his superiors, was at least reimbursed. Nevertheless, it seems fairly shabby treatment; but the incident does show that John Ashman was back on Long Island by early 1668, and in an office of responsibility. His residence is not stated, but it was near New York City; possibly Jamaica. It is possible that the incident took place in what is now Pennsylvania (Maryland being not far off); but why was it dealt with in New York? Was there no court or authority nearer. If the area of which Howell (a Long Island name) and Collier were Justices-of-the-Peace could be identified, the location would be clearer.
  Probably by April, 1669, Thomas Jaycocks and William Jaycocks were in Hempstead, continuing the annual rental of town lands for agricultural purposes. Possibly the Thomas Jaycocks was the younger, as both he and his father were included in the grant at Passayunk; and Thomas Jaycocks, Sr. is supposed to have died in Pennsylvania before 1677. The William may have been an uncle or a brother. It at least indicates that some of the Jaycocks returned to Hempstead, and that the family was represented there afterwards. Another reason why the so-called 1680 census of the Delaware was probably taken earlier.
  On 6OCT1670 Richard "Bull" Smith defends his title to his lands near Huntington, Long Island, and the jurors consist of James Pine, William Jaycocks, a Searing, a Doughty, several Smiths (Sympathetic to the plaintiff, no doubt) who were probably of the "Blue", "Rouse", "Rock" and "Weight" Smith families. These were Hempstead people, either from there at the time, or resettled in Jamaica or Newtown. Robert Ashman had sold his 100 acres on the Delaware by 13JUL1670, and about this time was probably settling into Jamaica, where he would spend his days. It was supposedly in 1670 that Wait Smith married his daughter, Phoebe, and that he was chosen as a Townsman for Jamaica.
  On the 16th of January, in Hempstead, the town gave some land to Thomas Champion. This land was next to his father-in-law's, Francis Jaycocks. On the 20th of February, Francis gives Thomas Champion his property.
  In 1673, it is said that Thomas Flewelling, Jr. was born in Jamaica, Long Island; although this date is doubtful and unsupported. If so, it was an exciting time on Long Island for the Dutch were back and had seized New York and the surrounding area. Perhaps it had been John Underhill's death the previous year that had emboldened the. Edward Rouse had also died in 1672, and later, in 1674, she was to marry Robert Coe. Meanwhile, the family of Thomas Flewelling, Jr.'s future mother-in-law were infuriating the Dutch by refusing to take an oath of allegiance as they were Quakers. Whether other Englishmen took the oath as a matter of temporary prudence, the Dutch had been ousted by 1674. By now, the immediate ancestors of Thomas and Hannah (Smith) Flewelling had been gathered into one, small, geographical area.
  On 30NOV1674, a petition was sent from Hempstead to Governor Andros asking for a clergyman. Hempstead seemed to have difficulty keeping clergymen, and not because of differences of opinion so much as the inability to collect enough funds to properly pay them. Bernice (Schultz) Marshall's book, "Colonial Hempstead", has a chapter which deals with these and similar matters in depth. It appears that from about 1670 to 1682, there were no ordained clergymen in Hempstead. The petition was signed by Thomas Champion, William Jaycocks, James Pine, Simon Searing, Richard Gildersleeve, Richard Gildersleeve, Jr, and Jeremiah Wood; probably the Townsmen and Magistrates of the time. Marshall tells of the Rev. John Thomas, and Anglican Priest formerly associated with Christ Church of Philadelphia and recently ordained, and his arrival on 27DEC1704 in Hempstead.[31] He is to stay and attempt to form and Anglican (Episcopalian) congregation if he can. He has some success, but it is the relative large proportion of illiterate children that distresses him. He is to remain there for at least the next fourteen years at St. George's Church. The significance of this is that Thomas Flewelling, Jr. was in Hempstead at this time, and the presence of the Rev. Thomas may have some bearing on the apparent growth of literacy in the family (while Thomas, Sr. was apparently illiterate, the Flewellings from Thomas, Jr. down appear to have been not only able to read, but intensely religious.) It might also explain the devotion to the Anglican Church in at least one line of Thomas Flewelling, Jr's descendants.
   In addition to the absence of clergy, suggesting that religion was not as strident an issue on Long Island as elsewhere, there is an apparent absence of schooling. It would seem that since about 1661, when John James left his will, no attempt had been made at organized education. I have read that visitors commented on the remarkable degree of the lack of education in Hempstead. This suggests a parochial, even isolationist, attitude on the part of the people of Hempstead, perhaps explaining their settlement of the place in 1643. This is not to say that the people of Hempstead were an ignorant, stubborn and backward people; but to suggest that they were independent, determined and, in their way, open-minded; refusing to be held to one set of ideas or system by either religious or political authorities. This may further explain why, in the War of Independence, Long Island people and their descendants took fervent roles on both sides of the issue.
  In 1678, Deborah Ashman is said to have married Nathaniel Denton. Denton Genealogies suggest that they were the parents of James Denton (married Martha) who was the father of another James Denton (married Martha Preston.) James Denton, Jr. is said to be the father of Deborah Denton who married John Flewelling, Jr., grandson of Thomas and Hannah (Smith) Flewelling. Presumably, Deborah (Denton) Flewelling's name derives from her great grandmother. James Denton, Sr. is said to have gone to Newburgh, Ulster Co., NY in later years, as did John Flewelling, Sr. This is consistent with continuous hints that Flewelling movements in later years were often in company with an extended family.
  On 8MAR1681 William Jaycocks is granted 200 acres in Hempstead, but does not live on it; and on 29MAY1683 he is involved in a land sale with Edmund Titus. On 1APR1683 Thomas Jaycocks married Abigail Hall in Stratford, CT. These suggest the continued presence of the family in Hempstead; and possibly that a line had remained in Stratford.
  After about thirteen years in Jamaica, Long Island, Robert Ashman had reached the end of his life. It is indicated that he died 15MAR1683. Joseph Smith, Jonathan Wellman and John Colman were to state that he made his will orally shortly before his death. There is also the question of New Style and Old Style dates, and there is the vague possibility that this took place in 1684 as we reckon the years now; or that someone has `corrected' a date of 1682 to 1683. The records indicate that at least a preliminary administration of the estate was granted to Catern as early as 13MAR1683, and this date may have been when he made his will, and the bequest of a large portion of his estate may have been assumed to have been her appointment as administratrix.
  A peculiarity of Robert Ashman's oral will was that his grandson, Thomas Flewelling was to have a double share, usually reserved for the eldest son. This has been taken (by myself included) to suggest that Thomas Flewelling. Jr.'s parents had died prior to 1683, and that he had been left, as a youth estimated usually as ten years of age, in the care of his grandparents. In the naming of Robert Ashman's children and their spouses, Hannah (Ashman) is apparently still living, and her husband, Thomas Flewelling, is mentioned. She is not described as a widow; nor is there any indication that either has died. Then why is Thomas Flewelling, Jr. so favoured? There are two possibilities: first, that it was by then unlikely that John Ashman was to have any surviving children and Thomas Flewelling was Robert Ashman's eldest grandson; second, that Thomas Flewelling, Jr. was of an age where he could support his grandmother, and care for her (and she is recommended to his care.) This further suggests that he may have been born as early as 1663; which we have seen is a possibility. The question arises as to why he apparently has no siblings.  That he had three children in 1698 has led to the approximation that he was married ca. 1693, but this does not allow for children who died young, for example. It may also be that in his care for his grandmother that he held back on matrimony for some time, although this seems very unlikely indeed, especially for the time.
   This may seem like a great deal of hypothesizing, but it is the purpose of this work to test previous guesses and to advance new ones for further examination. It is also the purpose to confuse the reader into scepticism so that you might examine such offerings as there are carefully.
  In spite of the statement that Catern was given administration of Robert Ashman's estate in 1683, it was necessary for her (with her sons-in-law, Wait Smith and Nathaniel Denton, Jr.) on 10APR1689 to apply for letters of administration. In this application, she is named as Katrine and Katrina, which may well have been closer indications of her nick-name. She had been baptized as Katheren. Her name, in modern terms, may have been Catherine, and she was called Catrina or Catrin. The spelling, Catern, may have been a phonetic anomaly. However, in 1698, Thomas Flewelling, Jr.'s daughter is apparently also called Catern, and this seems a good way to give her some degree of individuality.
  Nathaniel Denton, Sr. and John Everett took an inventory of Robert Ashman's estate and presented it on 13JUN1689. The total value was less than £50, which meant that at that time, the estate would not have to go through an extensive probation process, but that administration could be immediately granted to the executors. I cannot help but suspect that the valuation was `fixed' for this purpose; but Robert Ashman may well have distributed much of his possessions prior to his death for similar reasons. Why they had waited so long to apply for letters of administration is not clear, and presumably there was some immediate need for them. Generally, such a need is generated by the desire to sell some of the inherited land or property.
  On 10JUL1689 Thomas Hicks, Esq. Judge of the Court at Jamaica, granted administration of Robert's estate to Catern and her sons-in-law. If there had been any unseemly `fiddling' with the valuation of the estate, it is doubtful if he would have missed it.
  It is curious that, as he is apparently charged with the care of his grandmother, that Thomas Flewelling is not one of the administrators. This supports the argument that he was relatively young with Robert died; at least that he was probably not twenty-one years of age in 1689.

  The inventory of Robert Ashman's estate is peculiar in that no land is mentioned, although it appears that a final settlement of his bequests was made much later and it is made clear that he died in possession of land. The available land transactions also indicate that he had some holdings in Jamaica. This may further suggest that he gifted his real estate prior to his death. Amongst his possessions are mentioned a `gun' (presumably a musket) and a sword. It would have been of interest to know what sort of sword it was. It may well have been usual to issue swords to all military age males (for defensive purposes), but there has been no indication that Robert Ashman had actually been involved in any combat; although the opportunity my well have presented itself. Perhaps the Pequot War led him, and the Jaycocks, to settle in Connecticut for a time. Generally, the possession of a sword suggested that the owner was a gentleman, in the social sense. This was much less true in the 17th century with the development of cavalry troops, the use of cutlasses by seamen; and was probably less true in the New World where, after having fired one's musket in combat, a readier means of defence might be immediately needed. Perhaps it is a clue to Robert Ashman's social status before coming to America, or perhaps it was simply standard issue. If the type of the sword was known, some judgement might be possible. The question arises in conjunction with his early appellation as "Mr." Robert Ashman, and the hint that he was wealthy enough to purchase land in Hempstead with "mony".
  If we can differentiate Thomas Flewelling, Sr. from Thomas Flewelling, Jr. by the apparent ability of the latter to sign his name, while the elder made his mark; then it appears that Thomas, Sr. was in Jamaica in 1694 and 1696. In the latter case, a Thomas Flewelling witnessed a land transaction by so making his mark. It has been said that Thomas, Jr. had by 1693 married Hannah Smith, daughter of William and Hannah (Scudder) Smith, and that his daughter, Mary (or May in the 1698 census of Hempstead) was born about that time. This may only be an estimate, but it is a reasonable one. If it is most likely that Thomas, Jr. met his wife in Hempstead (as, although William Smith had connections to Jamaica, and may have well have lived there) it seems that his parents-in-law were residents of Hempstead about that time. He is not in a rate list of Jamaica in 1683, and his brother, John Smith, is supposed to be in Hempstead in that same year. Also, a William Smith is in a 1683 rate list of Hempstead; as is an Abraham Smith (presumably his brother.) The other William, in Huntington, Long Island at the time, died there about 1684. There are also the usual contingent of John Smiths. It would appear that, in order to meet and marry Hannah Smith, Thomas Flewelling would have to go to Hempstead. Perhaps this was the need for letters of administration in 1689. Perhaps Thomas, still carrying out his duty to his grandmother, took her with him to Hempstead to live on the remnants of Robert Ashman's property there.
  On 5JAN1684 Edward Higbee is involved in William Smith of Foster's Meadow, brother of Abraham Smith; and on 5MAY1685 William and Hannah Smith, of Foster's Meadow, sell what land in Jamaica they haven't sold to Edward Higbee. Robert Coe, and his wife, Jane, give a house and fifty acres on Foster's meadow to their `son', John Smith, late of Jamaica,  on 9JUN1687. By 28JUN1690 Jane (Smith, Rouse) Coe is in Hempstead, and her son, John Smith, is in Pennsylvania. In 1692, William Smith of Foster's Meadow identifies himself as the son of Bartholomew Smith.
  In 1698, Thomas and Hannah (Smith) Flewelling, and three children, are in Hempstead (probably next door to William and Hannah (Scudder) Smith) ; as are members of the Champion family, some of the Scudders, David Jaycocks (apparently son of Catern's brother, William who has died by 1694), a Grace Jaycocks who might be Francis, Sr.'s widow and Catern`s mother, a Benjamin Jaycocks living alone and possibly another of William's sons, a variety of Dentons and Smiths, as well as Carpenters, Goldings, Motts, Cornells, Sands, Griffins, "Blue" Smiths, and other surnames which will appear associated with the Flewelling name by marriage or by movement to remoter climes.
  About 1701, a division of land on Foster's Meadow takes place. Although William Smith is supposed to be a resident, he is not included in this division. Those who do participate include Thomas Flewelling, the Widow Ashman (twice) Wait Smith, Nathaniel Denton, Jr., Edward Higbee and Hope Carpenter. There may be people from Jamaica involved as well as names obviously associated with Hempstead. It is my understanding that Foster's Meadows lay between these two towns, and may have been the subject of boundary disputes. This division appears to be the settlement of commonage rights due to early proprietors and inherited from them, or acquired by purchase. This may explain why Catern receives two lots, as Robert Ashman may have acquired several shares by purchase and by right. This would explain why Nathaniel Denton, Jr.,  Wait Smith and Hope Carpenter (although apparently in Jamaica at the time) share in this division; as heirs of Robert Ashman.
  This is the last clear mention of Catern (Jaycocks) Ashman, and in 1706 and 1707, Thomas Flewelling and the sons-in-law and grandsons of Robert Ashman enter into several transactions apparently meant to confirm their various rights to their inheritance of his property, and to acquit each other of any further charge or obligation in relation to Robert's estate. This has been suggested as indicative of Catern's death about this time. Her generation had almost passed completely, and two generations had grown and a third was growing. From the vicissitudes of creating a society in a strange country had been created a bustling and sometimes aggravating mix of strangers, now bound by a spreading kinship. It was a beginning and it is to be hoped that the end will be very long in coming.


  POST AMBLE

  This work originated from an attempt to outline what little I knew of Robert Ashman. To mind it is crude work; partially because it is my first attempt to deal with the topics covered, partially because new things were discovered as it was built and partially because I hate re-writing. In it, the appearance, personalities even the biographies of the persons involved do not appear. Perhaps it is too late to do so. I have noted that amongst the Flewellings and their kin certain traits. Rarely are there statesmen (although cousins include presidents, vice-presidents, etc.; one of the less distinguished being Nixon, a Scudder descendants), great scientists, philosophers (Ralph Tyler Flewelling an exception) or other famous people. Some are well off, but rarely wealthy. In spite of this relative obscurity, they have played a part in the politics, development, ideology and creation of two nations in a significant and meaningful manner. If something was happening, one of Thomas and Hannah (Smith) Flewelling's descendants was around.
   There is a sort of restlessness in the family, and it seems difficult to stay put. Of course, some parts of the family have been where they are for several generations; but again, where the name, or a variation, was once common, it is now rare.
   There is a commitment to religion which appears to be unique, and there have been priests, ministers, deacons, lay preachers, sextons, vestrymen, missionaries in a number unprecedented in other families.
  There is a wariness about change or strangers. Not a reluctance to accept progress, or a lack of courtesy and hospitality, but a cautious analysis of new things before accepting them.
  There is a general tendency towards values that rate honesty and propriety highly.
  These are things which I believe are traceable to the ancestors considered in this work; and if their features and deeds are hidden to us, a reflection of them is in ourselves. I hope that this is a family skeleton which you can hang flesh upon. It is a brittle, old thing so treat it gently; but it is for you.
  As I mentioned near the beginning of this work, Shakespeare had several effects on the Flewelling family. One was to popularize the `F' version of the name, Llewellyn. The other was to be one of the influences that `fixed' the spelling and grammar of the English language. One thing we have noticed is that in colonial records any convention in terms of grammar and spelling was slow to develop. Shakespeare was probably not big in 17th century North America, although one of the other major influences, the Bible, was. Puritans didn't like the theatre anyway. Gradually, the standardization (aside from slight peculiarities which differentiate American English and English English) did develop. In Great Britain, the Llewellyns set the recorders of records straight as to how they wanted the named spelled. In North America, we never really got around to doing that.