Barnabas Hatch

Joseph married Amy Allen on 7 Dec 1683 in Falmouth, Barnstable, MA. Amy (daughter of James Allen and Elizabeth Partridge) was born on 14 Aug 1663 in Sandwich, Barnstable, MA; died on 24 Feb 1710 in Falmouth, Barnstable, MA. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

Notes:

JONATHAN HATCH, (Thomas), From all that we learn of him, Jonathan Hatch,
whose descendants we shall follow, was a man of great energy and force of character
with a decided will of his own which brooked no unseemly restraints.

He was a pioneer in the march of civilization in the stirring times of the early history of
New England, a man of daring enterprise and romantic adventure, only a part of which is
known to us now. He was born in England about 1625 and came to Mass. Bay Colony
with his father in 1634. Even as a boy he was a lad of spirit and perhaps somewhat willful
and disinclined to conform to all the austerities and restrictions of the intolerant age in
which he lived. The most of his early struggles with society came from this cause
and not from any natural depravity in the boy or man and from the further circumstance
that as a boy his lot was cast largely among strangers where he was deprived of
the loving counsel of good friends. The theory has been advanced, and with apparent
good reason, that his father's wife, Grace, was a second wife, and not the mother of
Jonathan and his sister, Lydia, and that she and the children did not get along well
together as a reason why the children did not apparently live much at their father's house.
At that time in Plymouth and Mass. Bay Colonies it was the custom of those who assumed
leadership in any community to look askance and with disfavor upon any one who had no
regular occupation or permanent place of abode. Such persons were the subjects of
special attention and closely watched and either ordered out of town or appointed by
the Court or Town Meeting to reside with some family of known probity to watch over
them and keep them employed and out of mischief.

This was due partly to the austerity of the time, and the responsibihty of training
the twig as the tree should stand, but partly also to the fact that in their hand to
hand conflict with the wilderness and the savage the colonists could not afford to have
any impecunious person come into town who might become a public charge on the
community or set a bad example for others. Sobriety, industry and frugality were
prime virtues at that time. The austerity of the time frowned upon all amusements as
a device of the Devil. The Sabbath must be sacredly and religiously observed.
They were perhaps too prone to meddle in private affairs and opinions, to put a straight
jacket upon everyone's conduct, public and private. Even the clothes one might wear
were subject to regulation by Puritan law. (See Laws of Massachusetts, 1634 and later).
But with all their drabness and austerity perhaps we should not judge those stern
old Puritans too harshly. They were human and had their faults but they were a
conscientious, God-fearing race, sternly doing their duty as they saw it; erring
sometimes doubtless, sometimes in their zeal cruel and intolerant, but always we
may well believe, actuated by what they conceived to be the good of their religion
and, their respective communities.

In view of all these circumstances and perhaps also in the belief that the discipline
of the soldier would benefit the boy, Jonathan was at about the age of 12 apprenticed
to Lieut. Davenport of Salem, Mass.There is little doubt that the free spirit of
Jonathan chafed and fretted under the strictures and discipline of the soldier and
perhaps a home-sick longing to be near friends and after serving him for about two years
he could endure it no longer and deserted and made his way to Boston with the probable
intent of seeking passage by boat to Yarmouth where his father then resided. A strange
boy wandering around the streets and wharves of Boston was at that time, a sufficiently
grave matter to be inquired into. It probably did not take long to acertain the
true state of affairs. Sept. 2, 1640 he was arrested as a fugitive from service and
"was censured to be severely whipped and for the present is committed for a slave to Lieut.
Davenport." (*)

[*Slave at that time in New Engand meant a bond servant or person bound to service for
a specified length of time. There were not many of them.]

But Jonathan did not wait for any whipping nor did he return to Lieut. Davenport.
He had a good head and two good legs and the spirit and will to use them and they
brought him safely to his father's home at Yarmouth.

Although his conduct in this case could not be justified by the law of that time,
we cannot but admire his brave manly spirit in his resistance to the strictures
and intolerant spirit of the age and for his courage and daring, boy though he
was, in striking out for liberty, alone and unaided.

Though he gained his liberty in a practically hostile community and arrived safely
in Yarmouth, his troubles did not end there. Dec. 1, 1640 Capt. Nicholas
Simpkins had him arrested and charged with slandering him. When the case came up
for trial in the General Court at Plymouth, Jonathan evidently proved the truth of
his charges for Capt. Simpkins was fined 40 shillings and Jonathan was set free.

Still his troubles did not end. His father moved to Barnstable in June, 1641, but
Jonathan apparently lived on in Yarmouth earning such a Undisclosed as he could with no
settled occupation or place of residence. That of itself was a sufficient
reason why those stern old Puritans of that time should have him under observation.
Undoubtedly they did. Mar. 1, 1642 he was "taken as a vagrant and for his misdemeanors
was censured to be whipped and sent from constable to constable to Lieut. Davenport, at
Salem." His misdemeanors, aside from his desertion from Lieut. Davenport
were probably nothing more than the natural disinclination of a spirited and exuberant
youth to conform to all the austerities and restrictions of the strict age in which
he lived. The above sentence appears not to have been executed. Jonathan may
have protested he would never stay there if sent. Knowing something of the spirit of
the lad may have been cause for second thought. At the session of the Court held about
a month later, April 5, 1642, this sentence was reconsidered. Jonathan was in Plymouth
Colony while Lieut. Davenport was in Mass. Bay Colony. It was held Jonathan could
not be sent back into the service of a master residing in another colony.
And so Jonathan escaped again. But the Court appointed him to reside with Mr. Stephen
Hopkins of Plymouth, who was enjoined to have a special care of him.

Mr. Hopkins died about two years later. In 1644 we find Jonathan in Barnstable
where he was on the list of those able to bear arms. In 1645 he was one of four men
forming the quota of Barnstable who with men from other towns went forth Aug. 15 in
an expedition against the Narragansett Indians. They returned Sept. 2 and were
disbanded the next day.

April 11,1646 he married at Barnstable, MISS SARAH ROWLEY, daughter of Henry
Rowley by his first wife Ann, who was widow of Thomas Blossom and daughter of William
Palmer, Sr., and his wife Frances. William Palmer came to Plymouth Colony in
1621 and in 1630 was one of the original first settlers of Yarmouth. Both Blossom
and Palmer were of the Pilgrim element. Ann Palmer married Thomas Blossom in
England in 1615 and went with him to Leyden, Holland where they were a part of the
Pilgrim settlement. In 1620 they came to Plymouth, England in the Speedwell
intending to take passage on the Mayflower for America; but for some reason found
it impractical to do so and returned to Leyden, where they formed a part of the Pilgrim
group.

While in Leyden, Blossom held some correspondence with Gov. William Bradford of
Plymouth Colony and in 1629 he and his wife and son came to Plymouth, Mass.
Blossom died soon after and Oct. 17, 1633 his widow married Henry Rowley as his first wife. Their first child was Sarah, who at about the age of 13 married
Jonathan Hatch. After his marriage, Jonathan lived for some years at West Barnstable.
Oct. 7, 1651 he and Samuel Hinkley, father of Governor Hinkley, were brought before
the grand jury on a charge of hiring land from the Indians. Not a very heinous offense
it would seem now, but rather as an evidence of their energy and enterprise. But
at that time it was felt that enterprises of that kind should be discouraged as likely to
lead to misunderstandings and trouble with the Indians.

In Feb. 24, 1652 he was appointed one of a commission that was to "choose and lay
out a common highway between Plymouth and Sandwich, according to your best judgment
where you shall find it most convenient for the country's use," showing that at that
time the Court had confidence in his integrity and good judgment. This road was at
that time one of the most important roads in the colony. But Jonathan found it
difficult to suppress his natural instinct for trading wherever he found it advantageous
and Mar. 2, 1652 he was again before Grand Jury on a charge of "furnishing an
Indian with a gun, powder and shot."

It is probable that heretofore he had worked for others or had farmed land on shares
and that he now felt he wanted and was entitled to land of his own and that he applied
to the town for a grant of land. At a town meeting held Oct. 27, 1653, it was "ordered
that ye land measurers shall lay out Jonathan Hatch land as they shall conceive most
convenient for him and least prejudical to ye other inhabitants who are to have
their lots laid out afterwards." It is probable at that time there was no unallotted
land except in the outskirts of the town, for his land was laid out to him in quite
the southeast part of the town, known at that time as "Sepneset on ye South Sea."
(Now Lewis Bay.) The Indian name was Sepneset.

After his land had been laid out to him he went there and built a log house and on
Oct. 7, 1654 moved there with his family. There were 50 acres of upland and a parcel
of marsh adjoining and 8 acres of meadow and some land on an island. Feb. 14, 1655
he had the grant of his land recorded and at the same time, probably in answer to
questions, expressed his satisfaction of the division of the lands. All that part of the
town was then an unbroken wilderness inhabited only by Indians.The wigwam of
Paup-Mun-Muche, Chief of the Massapees was only a mile away. There were no white
settlers within several miles of him for several years. Rather a dreary and dangerous
situation one would think. But it was characteristic of the man that no difficulties
or dangers daunted him. It is not known that he had any trouble with the Indians during
all the time he resided there. He was friendly with them, traded with them and treated
them well. That he was able to get and retain the good will of these wild denizens
of the wilderness speaks well for his courage, tact, and good sense. If by his conduct
towards them he had excited their hostility they could have done him much harm.

At this time oysters were abundant in the waters near Jonathan's residence at
Sepneset and many barrels of them were annually pickled by him and his family and
sent to market. The shells of the oysters were burned in kilns into quick lime
of a superior quality and for many years all the lime used for building purposes was
manufactured from the shells of oysters at this place. Some time subsequent to
the grant of his land at Sepneset he sold one-half his farm (probably an undivided
half interest) to Mr. Thomas Shaw. Whether Shaw came there to live does not appear
but it would seem not.

At first all the freemen of the Colony met annually at Plymouth in a General Court
for transaction of the general business of the Colony. In 1638 a representation
of the towns by Deputies was adopted. In 1657 Jonathan took the oath of fidelity, which,
as the head of a family and a taxpayer entitled him to vote for Deputies and any other
town business though he was not yet a freeman. He was made freeman later. It was
well known that Jonathan had the good sense to be on friendly terms with the Indians.
Perhaps it was sometimes thought he was too friendly with them. In June, 1658
it was proved in Court that an Indian named Repent had threatened to shoot Gov.
Prence on his return from Plymouth. Jonathan was also in Court at the same time on
suspicion that he had "justified" Repent; but of this there was no proof and he was
by the Court admonished and released.

The vacant lands in his vicinity were not being settled upon and it is evident Jonathan
did not find here in this isolated locality the opportunities to satisfy his enterprising
spirit. In the summer of 1659 he went in search of more promising prospects to
Martha's Vineyard and elsewhere. It was about this time that an old Indian Chief,
Notantico by name, knowing that Jonathan was a good friend of the Indians and
that he was looking for land, freely gave him a tract on that neck of land between
Woods Hole and Buzzards Bay, about two or three miles southwest of the present village
of Falmouth. Jonathan did not go there to live. It was too far away from even the
nearest settlement with no prospect of others coming there for a good while. Years
afterwards Jonathan remembered this gift and claimed it as we shall see.

June 7, 1659

"Liberty to view and purchase a tract at Succonnesset and arrange with the Indians for
the same" was granted to six men from Barnstable and one from Sandwich. These men
apparently did nothing towards making the purchase; but it served to direct attention
to the place and Jonathan may have gone there prospecting. Succonnessett
was the Indian name of the place meaning in their language the place of the black clam
shells, which were found there in abundance. It was on the sea shore southwest of
Barnstable, near Woods Hole.

Mar. 5, 1660

"Liberty to purchase land at Succonnesset and adjacent" was granted by the Colony Court
to another and different company of seven men, John Howe, Anthony Annabel,
Nathaniel Thomas, Samuel Fuller, Abraham Pierce, Peter Blossom and Isaac Robinson.
Isaac Robinson was son of John Robinson, the Leyden preacher and a friend of
Jonathan Hatch. June 4, 1660 were added to the above purchasers of Succonnesset
and places adjacent, Samuel Hinkley, Henry Cobb, John Jenkins, who were of the company
which applied June 7, 1659 and Mathew Fuller, John Cooper and John Dunham, all
of Barnstable and William Nelson and Thomas Burman (now Bowerman) of Plymouth.
The purchase was made of Qua-cha-tis-set and other Sachems of the Succonnesset
and Massapee tribe of Indians.

Here seemed to be the promising prospect that Jonathan was in search of. Here he could
be in the midst of things and a part of it. Just what day and month the purchase by
the Company was consummated does not appear but that same year (1660) Jonathan Hatch
and Isaac Robinson went there and built each of them a log house; whether before
or after the purchase by the Company is not known but probably after and that they had
the permission of the Company.

Land could not be purchased of the Indians except by permission of the Colony Court
and as the Court had already permitted the purchase by a company it seems unlikely
they would grant permission to purchase a part of the same land to an individual.
It is improbable permission would have been granted previous to the purchase by
the company for the Colony laws required that no settlement be made remote from a
place of public worship unless the settlers be strong enough to support a minister of
the Gospel. Barnstable was the nearest place of public worship about 15 miles away.

Jonathan built his house on or near that narrow neck of land between Fresh and Salt
ponds (see map) about a half mile south or southwest of the present village of Falmouth.

Robinson built his a little further south. They probably moved there with their families
soon after they built their houses though no precise date is known. Jonathan placed
his family and goods on a small skiff and sailed away down the coast till they came
to Salt Pond, entering which, they sailed up to the neck where they landed. Jonathan
Hatch and Isaac Robinson were the first white settlers in Succonnesset, now Falmouth.
Jonathan's son Moses was the first white child born there-named Moses it is said because
so many bullrushes grew near his father's house.

May 27, 1661

Jonathan and Mr. Shaw sold their farm at Sepneset to Mr. John Thompson who sold
about 1674 to John Lovet some of whose descendants still hold the old Hatch farm.
Nov. 29, 1661 the proprietors or purchasers of Succonnesset held a meeting which
extended to Dec. 3rd following, and agreed upon an allotment of lands. The meeting
appears to have been held at Jonathan Hatch's house so that they might view the land
and make an equitable allotment. The land by the Herring Brook was to be "in general."
Each of the proprietors was allotted about 80 acres. Commencing at the sea shore as a
base these lots ran straight back into the interior. Nine of them were l6 rods broad,
three were 17 rods broad, two were 8 8 1/2 rods broad and one (that to Isaac Robinson)
was 18 rods broad. These lots were just east of the Herring Pond and the lines of the
lots were to run to "the same point of the compass as Jonathan Hatch's 80 acres upon the
sea," showing that Jonathan had his farm there of 80 acres previous to this first allotment.
He probably selected and laid out his land soon after he moved there and it was not by his
house, but by the sea. For the better accommodation of all some other small allotments
of 4 to 8 acres were made and "Jonathan Hatch and Isaac Robinson because they have
built their houses shall have their lots by their houses, that is to say Jonathan Hatch
to have 10 acres by his house, lying against the neck, leaving a sufficient way
into the neck; and Isaac Robinson shall have 4 acres by his house and 8 acres next
adjoining Jonathan Hatches." Apparently upon second thought "because we questioned
whether we should get water on These lots we laid out 4 acres to a share along by the pond
***a sufficient way to be left along by the pond side above or below the houses." What
pond this was is not stated.

It was "also agreed that the proprietors shall not keep above 20 head of cattle each
upon the great neck for a share." This great neck was probably that land by the Herring
Brook which was to be be "in general" and used in common by all as pasturage.
Again "we have laid out 20 acres to a share next to Jonathan Hatches ground abutting
upon the sea and running 200 rods towards the woods. This work is now concluded
and the agreement signed I)ec. 3, 1661." Jonathan Hatch is one of the signers.
Jonathan Hatch's father died in Barnstable in 1661 and Mar. 3, 1662 Jonathan
and his sister Lydia, who married Henry TayIor Dec. 19, 1650 applied for and were
granted letters of administration upon their father's estate by the Plymouth
Colony Court. Isaac Robinson and Thomas Ewer were appointed to make an inventory and
appraisal of the estate which they did May 27 and it was sworn to by the widow.
The new settlement at Succonnesset not being strong enough at that time to stand alone
it was ordered bv the Court in Mar. 1663 "that Succonnesset shall for the present
belong to Barnstable."

The first purchase of land at Succonnesset by the original company in 1660 was
probably not largely in excess of that allotted to the proprietors in Nov. and
Dec., 1661. Sometime subsequent to the first purchase the company
obtained additional land; a tract extending along the seashore from Woods Hole to
Five Mile River and extending inland four or five miles, apparently completely
surrounding the first purchase except on the sea side. In July 1677 it was agreed to
lay out additional lands of 60 acres to a share, also meadows. John Howland and
Thomas Lathrop acting for the company appointed Bernard Lumbert, William Gifford and
John Smith a committee who laid out 12 strips or lots which were assigned to
Moses Rowley, Sr., Joseph Hull, Thomas Griffin, John Robinson, Samuel Tilley,
Nathaniel Skiff, Thomas Johnson, William Gifford, Thomas Lewis, John Jenkins,
Jonathan Hatch, Sr., William Wicks or Weeks, and Thomas Ewer. There were also
other 10 acre lots laid out to the same individuals. The balance of the tract was
held in common to be sold later to others. Jonathan Hatch and Isaac Robinson
were appointed a committee to sell the lands of those who did not wish to settle there.
It was about this time when settlement was extending and land was becoming
valuable that Jonathan remembered the land the old Indian Chief had given him
some years before. The old Chief was not Undisclosed then but his son remembered the
gift and confirmed it by the following deed dated Jan. 15, 1679, signed by Job Notantico,
Indian of Succonnesset.

INDIAN DEED TO JONATHAN HATCH

"To all people to whom these presents may come, Job Notantico, son of Thomas Notantico,
Indian of Succonnesset in the Govt. of New Plymouth, sendeth greeting etc.
Know ye that I, the said Job Notantico, understanding that my father, the said
Notantico, Sachem, many years ago, about or since the beginning of the Succonnesset
Plantation, did freely and absolutely grant and give unto Jonathan Hatch, Sr.,
of the said Succonnesset all that tract or neck commonly called Woods Hole Neck,
excepting a part which he, the said Notantico reserved for himself which afterwards he
exchanged with Succonnesset men and accepted in lieu thereof 40 acres at little
Sipperwisset, with liberty to cut sticks and wood in the commons. The fins and tails,
whales cast ashore to be mine, etc."

This deed was witnessed by Shearjashub Bourne and Bathsheba Bourne and acknowledged
by Job Notantico, alias Attuckoo, before Thomas Hinkley, Assistant.

There was preaching at Succonnesset-often at the house of Jonathan Hatch-but there
was no regular church organization till the autumn of 1708. The business meetings of
the proprietors were held more often at his house than elsewhere. When strangers arrived
they were often entertained at Jonathan Hatch's till his house became a place of public
entertainment for travelers and others and was finally licensed as such with the privilege
of selling liquor for their use. When any of Jonathan's good friends among the Indians
were present it was doubtless a little difficult for him to refuse them a little "fire water."
June 7, 1670 he was fined L3 for selling them liquor; but knowing the Indians as he did it
is not likely he gave them enough to make them dangerous.

Shortly after King Phillip's War Jonathan Hatch bought of Capt. Church three Indians,
a man, wife and child, probably prisoners, many of whom were taken near the close of
the war, for the apparent purpose of liberating them. June 3, 1679 Jonathan and
the brothers of the woman appeared in Court where it was agreed that "for L6 the man
and woman should be released and the child should remain with Goodman Hatch till 24
years of age and then be released forever."

In Colonial times the local Inn or Tavern often became the Civic Center of the community
and excepting the meeting house was the most frequented place in town and the tavern
keeper the best informed man in the community. People flocked there to learn not only
the local gossip but the news of the outside world from travelers. When in June 4,1686
Succonnesset was detached from Barnstable and incorporated as a separate township and
given the name of Falmouth, Jonathan Hatch's public house was the logical place
for holding town meetings for the transaction of town business and all public affairs.
From this time on Jonathan became more prominent in the affairs and business of the
town. He was often engaged in running the lines of lots, attending to the sale of
lands and transfers of titles. Age and experience had toned down the fire and impetuosity
of youth and he had become an honored and respected citizen and a religious man.
June 24, 1690 he took the Freeman's oath and was admitted as a Freeman of the Colony
at the County Court at Barnstable; which was something of a distinction at that time as none
but men of known probity and integrity and generally church members could attain
to that honor.

Jonathan Hatch acquired a large land estate and was regarded as among the wealthy
of those times. In his later years he became the venerable patriarch of a large and
esteemed family of children and grand children. He apparently gave away all his land
to his children previous to his death as shown by the following:

LAST WILL OF JONATHAN HATCH

"I, Jonathan Hatch, Br., of Falmouth, in the county of Barnstable in the Province of
Massachussets Bay, in New England, being now, through the mercy of God in complete
health and of disposing mind and memory, yet being aged and calling to mind the
uncertainty of this life, I am desirous, according to my duty to settle things in
order before I go hence, and therefore do make this my Last Will and Testament,
hereby revoking and disannulling all former will and wills by word or writing
heretofore by me made and hereby constitute and declare this to be my Last will
and testament, in manner and form following, viz: My desire is to commit my soul to
God in Jesus Christ, who gave it and my body to decent burial when God shall please
to call me hence. And as touching my worldly estate which God hath beyond my
deserts bestowed on me, my will is to dispose of it as follows:

"Imprimis, I will and bequeath to my six sons, viz: Thomas Hatch, Jonathan Hatch,
Joseph Hatch, Benjamin Hatch, Samuel Hatch and Moses Hatch, to each of them one
over and above of what they have already had to be paid out of my estate.

"It.-I will and bequeath to my two daughters Mary Weeks and Sarah Wing to each, of them
three shillings over and above of what they have already had, to be paid out of my estate.

"It.-I will and bequeath to my daughter, Marcy Rowley, all and singular my movables
and debts and twenty pound of the thirty pound to be paid six years after my
decease by my two sons, Samuel Hatch and Moses Hatch as may appear by obligations
under their hands and seals bearing date, March the twentieth, One thousand seven
hundred (1700) and I do hereby ordain, constitute and appoint my daughter, Marcy
Rowley (wife of Nathan) to be my sole Executrix to this, my Last Will and Testament
to administer upon all my estate. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand
and seal the fifteenth day of September, Anno Domini, One Thousand seven hundred and
five."

Signed, sealed and declared to be his last will and testament, in the presence of us:
John Weeks, William Weeks and Thomas Bowman, Proved 4 Jan., 1710-11, Attest, William
Bassett, Regtr.

His son Nathaniel and daughter Lydia were possibly not then Undisclosed, as they are not
mentioned in the will but there are reasons for believing that Nathaniel married and
left descendants.There is ample evidence that Jonathan continued to do business till
the time of his death. As one of the agents of the proprietors he was often called
upon to look after their interests and they could not have been confided to more faithful
hands. He died at Falmouth in Dec., 1710, aged 84, honored and respected by the
community among whom he had lived for the last fifty years.

Jonathan Hatch was the progenitor in America of a numerous family of Hatches which are
now to be found in nearly all the Northern, East, Central and Western states. Some
of these Hatches I personally knew and they, and probably the most of them, still retain
the traits of business abilitv, energy and force of character that distinguished their
ancestor, Jonathan Hatch.

I wish to say here that much of the information on which the above sketch is based
was furnished to me by Mrs Ruth A. Hatch Hale, Recorder of the Hatch Genealogy Society
of Salt Lake City, Utah, after many years of painstaking research and investigation among
the records of the past, and to whom due credit should be given. I have prepared the sketch
at her request to assist the work ready for publication.

SPENCER E. SMITH

One of Jonathan Hatch's descendants

ISSUE:

Mary Hatch, b. 16 July, 1647 at Barnstable, Mass., Md. William Weeks, Jr.,
second wife, he having married Mercy Robinson 16 Mar., 1669, so records say, who
probably died early. Mercy Robinson was bapt. 4 July, 1647 according
to Robinson Genealogy

Children of William Weeks:

1. Mercy, b. 16 Jan., 1670.
2. Mehitable, b. 16 Oct., 1671.
3. Sarah, b. 6 May, 1674.
4. Experience, b. 24 June, 1677-8. Married Timothy Robinson, 3 May, 1699
5. Mercy, b. 24 April, 1679.
6. Jonathan, b. 6 May, 1681.
7. Benjamin, b. April, 1685.
9. Lydia, b. 30 June, 1687, d. young

Jonathan married Sarah Rowley on 1 Apr 1646 in Barnstable, Barnstable, MA. Sarah (daughter of Henry Rowley and Ann Sarah Palmer) was born about 1625 in England; died in Dec 1710 in Falmouth, Barnstable, MA. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

Other Events and Attributes:

• Alt. Death: 23 Jul 1714, Chilmark, Dukes, MA; Alt. Death

James married Elizabeth Partridge in 1662 in Duxbury, Plymouth, MA. Elizabeth (daughter of George Partridge and Sarah Tracy) was born on 14 Feb 1644 in Duxbury, Plymouth, MA; died on 7 Aug 1722 in Chillmark, Dukes, MA. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

Other Events and Attributes:

• Alt. Death: 7 Aug 1722, Tisbury, Dukes, MA; Alt. Death

Notes:

1. THOMAS HATCH of family "B" is supposed to have been born about 1603.
Of his life previous to his removal to New England, not much is known to us. He married
a young woman by the name of GRACE, probably as a second wife. Her family name
seems not now to be known but she is said to have been of Welsh extraction, and in
this connection there is a pretty little romance which has been preserved among his
descendants to this day. "Miss Grace, it seems, was a very winsome and popular young
woman and Thomas had more than one rival for her heart, and hand. But the contest finally
simmered down to Thomas and one other, and Miss Grace found it difficult to decide which
she liked the better. Finally, as they were farmers, it was agreed by all concerned that fate
should be determined by a reaping match, he who could reap a certain equal measured
portion of a field of grain, to get the prize. And Miss Grace, being herself a farmer's
daughter and a skillful reaper determined that she also would have a hand in the
contest that was to decide her fate. Consequently she, with true feminine diplomacy,
had her equal portion staked out between the other two and the contest began.
Reaping grain at that time was done by the hand sickle. In the meantime as her fate was
so near a determination, Miss Grace did some vigorous thinking as is apt to be the case
when events of serious consequences are imminent and having concluded that, on the
whole, she rather liked Thomas a little the better, she slyly cut over a little onto
Thomas' portion, thus enabling him to finish slightly ahead."

It was probably early in the year of 1634 that Thomas Hatch removed with his family to the
wilderness of the New World, during the great Puritan emigration from England to the
Massachusetts Bay Colony. May 14, 1634 he was by vote of the court of General Assembly
made a freeman of Massachusetts Bay Colony. The court at that time was very strict as to
whom they admitted the right to vote and have a voice in the management of the public
affairs of the Colony. To become a freeman of the colony one must be 25 years of age,
a man having a family, a freeholder (or land owner) and be a member of the Puritan or
Congregational church. They admitted no vagabonds or irresponsible persons into public
affairs at that time.

Thomas Hatch was a public spirited citizen and a man of business ability and during his
residence in Massachusetts Bay Colony must have acquired some propertv and been a
man of influence in the locality where he lived. According to the town records of
Dorchester, Mass., under date of December 29, 1634,. "It is ordered that John Philips and
Thomas Hatch shall have, each of them, two acres of land that lies betwixt the ends of the
great lots and three acres that is granted to Alexander Miller, if so much there be, provided
they leave sufficient highway at their great lots." These two acres were apparently some
remnants of land that did not come within the bounds of "their great lots" as laid out.
January 7, 1639, Thomas Hatch and nine others whose names are given applied to
Plymouth Colony for grant of leave to purchase land and form a new township at a place
now known as Yarmouth on the Cape Cod peninsula. The leave was granted and Thomas
Hatch and the other grantees at once went there and built themselves log houses.

The town was incorporated January 17, 1639 and named Yarmouth. A committee was
soon appointed to have charge of the division or allotment of lands and the sale of
the same. These first settlers were people of strict moral and religious character,
they had no intention of admitting into their new settlement any persons who might
be a disturbing element in it. In March 1640 the committee for the sale of Iands
was instructed to have a strict care to admit no settlers into the town except such
as bring certificates from well known men as to their "religious and honest carriage"
in the places from whence they came. By the close of 1640 about 25 families had
settled the new town.

It would seem that some difficulty arose over the first grants or division of land
among the incorporators. The early records of the town were destroyed in a fire so that it
is difficult now to determine just the nature of the dispute. At the court held at Yarmouth,
June 17, 1642 by three of the Governor's Assistants an attempt was made to straighten
matters out but it appears was only partially successful. It was during and probably on
account of this dispute over these lands that Thomas Hatch moved to the town of Barnstable
June 1, 1641. Thomas Hatch was an upright man and he may have felt that he had not been
fairly dealt with or at any rate that he would prefer to reside where he could live amicably
with his neighbors and in undisputed possession of his property. That his lands were
included among others in the dispute is evident from the records of a hearing held before
Capt. Miles Standish in 1648 by order of the Court designed to clear up and put an end to
such differences as still remained, for among several other names that of "Thomas Hatch"
is mentioned. At this time, too "Anthony Thacher claimed 80 acres in the west field in
Yarmouth that had been bought of Thomas Hatch."

Thomas Hatch resided in the town of Barnstable for the balance of his life and was
probably a member of the church of the celebrated Rev. John Lathrop. In l643 his name
appears on the roll of those "able to bear arms in Barnstable." He was at this time about 40
years of age. In Jan. 1644 his name is on the list of approved inhabitants of Barnstable"
showing that he was a man of good character and influence and held in esteem by his fellow
townsmen. It seems evident that he must have acquired some landed estate in this town, for
we know he acquired land at other places where he resided in Massachusetts Bay and
Plymouth Colony. The records of deed and transfers of land in Barnstable previous to 1700
were destroyed by fire so there is now no official record of the lands owned by any of the
early settlers but everything points to the conclusion that he must have been a land holder
in the town.

He died in Barnstable in 1661 probably in April or May. May 27, 1661 an inventory of his
personal estate was taken by Isaac Robinson and Thomas Ewer and sworn to by his widow
Grace. It amounted 17 pounds 18 shillings. Authorities are agreed that he was of exemplary
character and a very pious man. What became of his widow, Grace, seems not be known."
(Furnished by Spencer E Smith, a descendant of Thomas Hatch.)

Inventory of the Goods of Thomas Hatch of Barnstrable, Lately Deceased. (Taken by
Isaac Robinson and Thomas Ewer, 27 May, 1661).

lb. s. d.
Imp.'s his working tools 02 14 00
It. for a cubbert not fully finished 01 10 00
It. for wearing cloyes 03 00 00
It. for bedding and bedstead 06 00 00
It. for potts, pewter and brasse 01 02 00
It. for books 00 06 00
It. for other lumber 01 12 00
It. for timber and glew 00 14 00
It. for an Instrument called a violen 01 00 00
15 58 00

Grace Hatch late wife of the above Thomas Hatch was deposed to the truth of the above
mentioned Inventory this 27 day of June, 1661, before me, Thomas Hinckley, assistant.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---
THE THOMAS HATCH ENIGMA
....An examination from a different perspective, of the relationship
of Thomas Hatch of Barnstable, Plymouth, Massachusetts, to
Arthur Hatch of Aller, South Molton, Devon, England............

Myron W. Hatch
St. George, Utah
©25 April, 1999
Contact the author at
The "Enigma" is copyrighted.
Before downloading a copy, please contact the author. His permission is given freely.

Sources
Kayes Home Page

There has been much research done and much written about Thomas Hatch of Barnstable, as evidenced by the information sources listed below. Many of the researchers of the Hatch line in America have long been confused when trying to separate and identify the Thomas Hatches who lived in New England in the 1630's.(2) These researchers, relying on information at hand or being limited by missing information, have unknowingly added to the confusion. It is possible to find several Thomases of that period Undisclosed in close proximity who may or may not have been related.(2,3,9) Too, the custom of handing down family given names, resulting in the repeating of names within a family line, only further confused the matter. In my research, I have used I, II, III, IV, etc., to identify different versions of Thomas.

For years I have tried to separate them, and if possible, identify our Thomas' place of origin, his date of birth, the name of his first wife if indeed there was a first wife, and to find more information about Grace who accompanied him and his children to America. As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS), we Hatches feel it essential that we know as much about our ancestors as possible. As a result of my studies, I now believe that these facts have not yet been discovered, although they may be in the possession of some Hatch descendant Undisclosed in America, or perhaps stored away in some library. Possibly, the truth may lie in places not yet searched. But I feel that even without this information we can eliminate many of the errors and much of the confusion.

THOMAS II, or "Thomas of Scituate" as he is known genealogically is definitely not our ancestor. His ancestry is well documented as are his descendants.(3,7) He was born in Wye, Kent, about 1596 as a son of William, and Ann Tilden also of Wye. Thomas, his wife Lydia, nee Gyles or Giles, and children came to Plymouth along with a brother, William. Both families settled in Situate, a few miles from Boston prior to 1638 when he was propounded a Freeman. This designation meant that he was a person of known virtue, he owned land, he was a member in good standing of the Church, and he had pledged his fealty to the King. A Freeman was allowed to bear arms in what was probably a militia or homeguard, and the Freeman status was likely the equivalent of today's citizenship. His descendants are clearly identified and documented. Some confusion arises from Thomas's son William, his brother William, and Thomas's father, but close attention to dates clears up the matter. Upon Thomas' death in about 1654, his wife Lydia married a John Spring. We can eliminate THOMAS II from our considerations.

THOMAS III emerges from the Hache-Hash Genealogy by Lella Gertrude Saylor.(10) Thomas Hache, a Huguenot, and a lad of 17, came to America with Captain John Smith of Pocahantas fame in 1619, on the ship "Duty" when Captain Smith made a return voyage to America after a visit to England. Thomas is said to have met a young lady on the voyage and they married, her name being given as "Miss" Osborne. Virginia records show him as Undisclosed in the "Flower de Hundred" in 1623. At that time the term "hundred" was used to designate a community or group of families. But since he and his wife dropped from the records of Virginia, Saylor thought him to have migrated north and become THOMAS I. I believe this to be incorrect as Thomas Hache was likely French and no references to a French ancestry are found in any of the sources of information concerning Thomas I. So much for THOMAS III.

THOMAS IV arises from references by Lewis M. Hatch(9) and Charles Lathrop Pack(3), all probably drawing from the same sources. Thomas IV was thought to have been from the vicinity of Biddenden, in Canterbury, Kent, and Pack enumerates a myriad of Hatches and shows many wills from Kent, but none that look to account for Thomas I. If he was from Kent, no hard evidence has yet been found. Lewis states that Thomas', wife Grace, and children Jonathan and Lydia, came to America prior to 1634. Exactly when and how is not certain. He was reported to have come on the ship "Mary and John", under a Captain Squeb (Squibb?) arriving in 1630. In the book "The Search for the Passengers of the Mary and John"(8),Thomas is listed as a person "not known to have been on the voyage", but that he was listed at all must have indicated some evidence of his presence in New England after 1630 and before 7 May 1634, when he was propounded a Freeman in Dorchester. The documentation for that assumption is not available, and I think it could have been an attempt to account for his presence, absent any facts.

Actually, the passengers of that particular voyage of the Mary and John were all from Devon, Sussex, or Somerset(8); none were from Kent. Another writer(14) believed Thomas arrived on the second vessel of Governor Winthrop's Fleet on 24 July 1633. But I have searched the records of the fleet and found no trace of Thomas. However, if it were correct, Thomas would have been in Dorchester at a time that would account for his being named a Freeman in 1634. That this Thomas IV from Kent is our Thomas is possible, but without more definite information, it can only be considered speculation. If our Thomas was from Kent, possibly he could have been a relative of Thomas II, though nothing in any of the existing information indicates any such relationship, even with the two Thomases Undisclosed only a few miles apart. All of the above notwithstanding, there is at least a possibility of Thomas I having originated in Kent, but I believe we can also turn from THOMAS IV

THOMAS I, traditionally identified as our Thomas, was thought to have come from Aller, South Molton, Devon, England(1,2,6), and an entire history has been built around him. Many LDS Hatches have maintained that Thomas was the son of Arthur Hatch and Margaret Mallet of Aller, and thence back to Jeffery de Hatch.(1,2,3) The Hatch Family History set forth that premise beginning in the late 1800's, and that assumption still persists.(6) Clearly our Thomas was in Dorchester, Falmouth, and Barnstable, with a possible second wife Grace and children Jonathan and Lydia, and certainly most of the LDS Hatches descended from him, of that there is no doubt.(1,2)

The identity of Thomas's first wife is not known, and in fact, she may not have even existed. But the stories seem to indicate that the children were not close to Grace, and after Thomas's death in 1661, they were not reported to have had contact with her, giving rise to the premise of a first wife. Neither Jonathan nor Lydia named a daughter Grace as might have been expected had Grace been their natural mother.

Although Grace (and Isaac Robinson) filed Thomas's inventory after Thomas' death, it was Jonathan and Lydia who went to Boston to prove his estate.(3) Since both Jonathan and Lydia named daughters Mary(6), and no Mary existed in Jonathan's wife's family or Lydia's husband's family,(2) it might be surmised that their natural mother was named Mary. A Doctor Edwin T. Hatch from Denver, quoted by Lewis M. Hatch(9), believed that the first wife might have been a relative of Isaac Robinson.(9) What facts he based this on are unknown, but references to Isaac do occur in Thomas', Grace's, Jonathan's, and Lydia's activities. Isaac was born in Leiden, Holland, of English parents, but investigation of his family discloses no sister nor cousin named Mary, although his two wives were so named. Jonathan and Lydia may have named their daughters Mary out of respect for Isaac's wife.

One other interesting bit of information did surface although no corroborating details have yet been found. The IGI(13) and the Parish Records of Ugborough, Devon(15) show the birth of a Thomas Hatch being born to a "Thomae and Grac" Hatch in 1631; that Parish being located in the southern part of Devon. In the records of Ugborough as in other parishes, names often appear in Latinized versions and so we might well presume Thomae is a Thomas, and Grac was Grace. Was a son Thomas born to Thomas and Grace as a child of Thomas' second marriage? Were Thomas and Grace passing through Ugborough, or perhaps Undisclosed there temporarily while awaiting passage to America? Or, was Thomas actually from one of the Hatch families in that part of Devon? In the records of the Parish no record of the death of a Thomas, son of Thomas, can be found in the relevant time period, nor any further information concerning Thomas and Grace. If this was our Thomas, the baby Thomas must have died in a place other than Ugborough. perhaps before Thomas and Grace went to America, or on the voyage over, as no existing records mention a third child. Indeed, there have yet been found no factual records of a marriage of a Thomas to a Grace, of the births of Jonathan or Lydia, of Thomas' place of origin, or of his arrival in America. It is as if he and his family suddenly materialized in Dorchester in 1634. After Thomas' death in 1661, Grace married Ralph Smith and lived with him until his death in 1685. But given the existence of the Ugborough parish records, I believe we must accept the presence of Thomas and Grace in Devon in 1631.

The Hatches of Aller did go back to Jeffery de Hatch, that connection being well documented.(1,3,4,5) and it is to this family that our Thomas has long been linked. Arthur's great-great-grandfather William was said to have purchased Aller about 1530(5), which then became the ancestral home of that branch of the family. However, William Drake(5) writes that Aller came to the Hatch family with the marriage of Jeffery's second son Gilbert to Alicia, or Clais, the daughter of William de Aure or Aller in about 1262.(1) Alicia/Clais was also identified as Clara, daughter of William Northaller. This version is likely to be the correct one as pedigrees show Hatches in Aller several generations prior to William. Arthur was born in about 1577, married Margaret Mallet about 1596, and had several children. The eldest, Thomas, was born in 1598, possibly on 1 May, and was baptized at the Barnstaple Parish 14 October, 1599.(16) Why he was baptized there is not known as Barnstaple is a fair distance from South Molton, but the Parish records are quite clear as to his identity.

Thomas, as the eldest son was the heir to Arthur's lands and fortune under the Law of Primogenitor. When the first son is born, his role is determined by law and tradition, and his preparation for that responsibility begins in his childhood. His father Arthur, assumed that same role at the age of seven upon the death of his father Thomas, even though his mother was still Undisclosed. In all probability an older relative acted as Aller's steward until Arthur attained adulthood. Upon Arthur's death on 7 June 1625, Thomas probated his father's will and ascended to his rightful place as head of the family and Lord of the Manor Aller.(5) Margaret, Thomas' mother, died in 1645. (1625 is the same year that Jonathan, Thomas of Barnstable's son, was born.) In the Parish records of South Molton(11), Arthur Esq. was named as a Churchwarden in 1609, apparently a lifetime office; in 1633 Thomas Esq. was so named, and in 1683 John Hatch Esq., probably the son of Thomas' brother John, was named to that office. As a Warden, usually a prominent man of means, one was involved in the financial and administrative matters of the parish. To imagine that Thomas of Aller would abandon the life of a landed gentleman and his place and responsibilities as head of the Hatches of Aller to take up life in the rough, crude, American colonies simply cannot be believed. In fact documentation exists showing Thomas' presence in South Molton in 1641. That year all members of the Church of England were required to swear allegiance to the "true reformed Protestant Religion expressed in the Doctrine of the Church of England." Those who so swore were listed in the "Devon Protestation Return 1641", and Thomas Esquire is listed on page 448 of Volume II (17).

Accounts of Thomas I describe him as a man of integrity, but not prominent, and certainly not wealthy. Some historians, examining Thomas's inventory at the time of his death in 1661, believed him to have been a cabinetmaker, and one thought him to have been a tailor. The value of his estate was set at about 16 pounds, not including his home and lands.(2,3,5) If Thomas of Aller had come to America, it is certain he would have arrived as a man of means, probably with an entourage of servants, and he would have lived an entirely different life than did Thomas I. Too, Thomas I, having been propounded a Freeman in Dorchester in May 1634, surely had to have been there earlier to merit the title. Thomas of Aller was serving as a Warden of the South Molton Parish in England in 1633, at the same time that Thomas I would have had to have been Undisclosed in Dorchester establishing himself to qualify for the title of Freeman.

At this point let me weave a scenario from the information I have gathered about the Hatches of Aller. I am drawing from several of the sources listed below, but primarily the Boyd's Marriage Index and the Parish Records of the Births, Marriages, and Deaths of South Molton. Of course this story is colored by my interpretation of the data, but I am drawing on original records.

Arthur Hatch of Aller married Margaret Mallet in about 1596 and they had twelve children, eight of whom lived to adulthood. In 1625 Thomas, upon Arthur's untimely death at the hands of a murderer in London, succeeded his father and became the head of the family and Steward of the Lands of Aller. As Thomas' brothers and sisters grew and began looking for mates, they left Aller to find others of their status. South Molton was a rather small Parish, the records showing there to be only thirty to forty baptisms and ten to fifteen marriages a year, and apparently there were no others in the parish who were suitable. John, the second son, married Ellen Pearse from Plymouth in 1620 and was Undisclosed in Oxford by 1625; the third son Hugh, married Cecily Rice of Shirwell in 1625. Cecily Hatch married a John Ashford in 1638, and Francisca married Charles Wellington of Marwood in about 1635. The others also moved away to marry and start their lives elsewhere.

Thomas did not marry, thus, he produced no heir. Upon Thomas's death on 1 June 1680, his brother John's eldest son John, returned to Aller and became the family head, John senior having died in 1674. John Esq. was named a Church Warden in 1683. Thereafter the line of succession for the Hatches of Aller was through John Esq., the son of John, the second son of Arthur. The Hatches maintained possession of Aller until 1750, when another Thomas Hatch, also unmarried, died without an heir, and his sister sold the lands and manor of Aller to Earl Fortescue from the nearby parish of Filleigh. The Fortescue Estate still owns Aller to this day.

Thomas of Aller lived in England, he died in England, and he was buried in England.

In the research for this study I have read numerous wills. They have one thing in common: upon the father's death the eldest son assumes his responsibilities as the head of the family. In wealthy or landed families, younger sons left home to seek their fortune elsewhere, or if the family had other properties, younger sons would have managed them. Some went in the Army or Navy, some became clergymen or attorneys, perhaps even scholars. If the eldest son produced no male heirs, the office of head of the family went to the second son or his descendants, to a brother or his descendants, or in some cases back to a brother of the father, or a descendant of that brother. Being the head of family was a serious responsibility and belonged to a male.

If and when we ever discover Thomas I's background, I feel sure we will find him to have been a second son or younger, in a family of modest means, from somewhere in Devon. I believe he took whatever settlement he received upon his father's death, together with what money he had accumulated, and struck out for America where he could build for himself and his family a new and better life. If Thomas was a younger son, it might be that he did not bear his father's name, as that name is often given to the heir. Could his father have been named Jonathan, and Thomas so named his son to honor his father? Or was Jonathan the given name of his mother's father? The name Jonathan is not nearly as prevalent as Thomas and so might offer a clue.

However, I believe there are other clues to his origin. A story, credited to a grandson of Jonathan, tells of a contest between Thomas and another, the winner to get Grace, referred to as a Welch girl. Devon is south of Wales, across the Bristol Channel, and a likely location for a Welch family to relocate. Or, Thomas could have visited Wales and there found a wife.

Also, the record at Ughbourgh must be taken into account. In no other place has any record of a Thomas and Grace yet appeared. These two clues strongly speak to a Devon origin for Thomas I. Kent, the other suggested location, is far from Devon and Ughbourgh, and any proximity to Wales. There were many Hatches Undisclosed in various parts of Devon and I believe Thomas to have been from one of those families. But, why are there no records of Thomas, his birth, marriage, or of the births of his children? At that time in England, even though most people left the Catholic Church and followed the Church of England, it was by no means universal. Many formed independent churches, remained Catholic, or joined the Methodist, or Presbyterian churches. Few of those records have survived, and those that do cover later time periods.

Let me here weave another scenario which could explain the mystery. Thomas Hatch was born about 1600, though the exact year is not known. He married, and his first child Jonathan, was born about 1626 indicating Thomas could have been born as late as 1605. Since Thomas' family were non-conformists, or of those refusing membership in the Church of England, his birth, marriage, and the births of his children were not entered into Parish records. Neither was the death of his wife. After the birth of Lydia in about 1628, Thomas' wife died. A year or two later, Thomas married Grace, whose last name could have been Lewis, and in 1631 they had a son Thomas whose birth was registered in the Ughborough Parish records, Grace being a member of the Church of England. The son Thomas died before they emigrated to America after leaving Ughborough, or on the voyage over. In America, Thomas, Grace, and the two children lived as history records them.

In light of all the above, Thomas of Barnstable could not possibly have been Thomas of Aller, the son of Arthur, and sadly, we do not descend from that family in any way. The proud coat of arms we have all cherished is likely not ours except in the most general way, and our true heritage is not yet known. But we can take pride in Thomas' having been motivated to make such a drastic move, whatever the reason and from wherever he originated as most of the Hatches in the LDS Church, and many of the American Hatches are the beneficiaries of that courageous decision.

Without question, some LDS Hatch family members will take issue with my conclusions and the above scenario, and I must say that I myself am not too pleased. I have been well satisfied with the connection of our Thomas of Barnstable to Arthur of Aller as it has long been recorded in our family and in church records. To deny that traditional relationship now is certainly not comfortable, but the facts as I have found them are not to be ignored, and I feel I must make them known. It is to be hoped that the search will continue and perhaps records will be found to finally identify our Thomas of Barnstable.

Unfortunately, it is easier to disprove Thomas I's connection to Arthur, than to identify his true ancestry. He certainly was not Thomas II. But what of Thomas III, or Thomas IV? Did he actually come from somewhere in Devon, or, from Kent? Did he, a Huguenot come to Virginia with Captain John Smith and later re- establish himself in New England? Was Thomas some relative of Thomas of Aller but not sharing the wealth or status of the Aller Hatches? Or did he originate elsewhere in Devon as that record in Ughborough suggests?

Truly, our Thomas Hatch is an enigma.

Myron W. Hatch
325 S 200 E
St George, Utah 84770
Email

Myron W. Hatch>Elden>Perry Orin>Orin Perry>Orin>Ira Stearns>Ira>Jeremiah>Meltiah>Benjamin>Jonathan>Thomas

Sources:

(1) Family Group Sheet Records submitted by Mrs. Edith Hatch Elkins
(2) Various Thomas Hatch histories by several writers
(3) Book "Thomas Hatch of Barnstable" By Charles Lathrop Pack (LDS film 1036366)
(4) Book "Devon Notes and Notices" By William Richard Drake (LDS film 1419452)
(5) Excerpt from book "Devon Families" Author unknown
(6) Book "Genealogy and History of The Hatch Family" Compiled by The Hatch Genealogical Society (LDS film 1035692)
(7) Book "Immigrant Ancestors" By Frederick Adams Virkus (LDS Library Book No. 973.W2VA)
(8) Book "The Search for the Passengers of the Mary and John" by Burton F. Spears
(LDS fiche 6010918)
(9) Treatise by Lewis M. Hatch included in "History of Edith Hatch Elkins" (LDS film 1597843)
(10) Treatise by Lella Gertrude Saylors "Hache-Hash Genealogy and Allied Lines" (LDS film 0896971)
(11) Records of the Parish of South Molton, Devon, England (LDS films 0917529, 933372, and 0917530)
(12) Boyd's Index of marriages in Devon (LDS fiche 6054174 and 6026870)
(13) LDS International Genealogical Index
(14) W

Thomas married Grace Lewis about 1625 in , Kent, England. Grace (daughter of Emanuel Lewis) was born about 1605 in Wales Or England; died about 1686 in Eastham, Barnstable, MA. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

Henry married Ann Sarah Palmer about 1624 in London, Middlesex, England. Ann (daughter of William Palmer and Frances Blossom) was born about 1603 in Parham, Somerset, England; died on 17 Oct 1633 in Plymouth, Plymouth, MA. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

Other Events and Attributes:

• Alt. Birth: Bumpstead, Steeple Par, England; Alt. Birth
• Alt. Death: 26 Aug 1671, Windsor, Hartford, CT; Alt. Death

Samuel married Ann Whitmore in 1632 in England. Ann (daughter of John Whitmore) was born in 1610 in England; died on 13 Nov 1687 in Braintree, Norfolk, MA. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

Notes:

George Partridge / Tracy
Research Resources, Notes and Questions

-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------

Resources Notes and Questions On-Line Resources

-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------

Resources
History of the Town of Duxbury, Mass, with Genealogical Registers, Justin Winsor, 1849. Gives a nice complete history of Duxbury with some limited genealogies in the genealogy section, including George Partridge (Ralph Partridge not here). There is an eight page biography of Ralph Partridge. Any descendant of his should get a copy of that biography. (But, are George descendants related to Ralph?)
Settlement and Growth of Duxbury, 1628-1870, Dorothy Wentworth, Duxbury Rural and Historical Society. This has late 19th century photographs of the locations mentioned in the book and a very descriptive idea of the geography and who was where, describing the history of different homes and properties in the town. Wonderful reading.

Directory of the Ancestral Heads of New England Families 1620-1700, Compiled by Frank R. Holmes, Genealogical Publishing Co, 1964.

"First minister, Duxbury, Mass., came from Sutton, County Kent, Eng., to Boston, Mass., 1636."
"Partridge, George, brother Rev. Ralph, resident Duxbury, Mass, 1636, proprietor Bridgewater, Mass, 1636, proprietor Bridgwater, Mass, 1645, original proprietor Middleboro, Mass, 1662."

Note, it says under George, he's a brother, under Ralph silent as to George.

A Genealogical Register of the First Settlers of New England, By John Farmer, Reprinted by Samuel G. Drake, Genealogical Publishing Co, 1989, Pg 219.
"Ralph, the first minister of Duxbury, arrived at Boston, from England, 14 Nov 1636, soon settled at Duxbury, where he died a. 1658, having been a preacher 40 years."
Partridge, George, Duxbury, 1636, was one of the proprietors of Bridgewater in 1645."

Note: This book doesn't indicate any relationship between the two.

The Great Migration Begins, Robert Charles Anderson, New England Historic Genealogical Society, Boston, 1995, Pg 1256:
No article on either Ralph or George Partridge (ie not arrived by 1633), but Stephen Tracy is listed.
The surname is referred to often in the book. Six references for a Ralph, 3 for George.....

Ralph is referred to as pastor at Doxbury, some land deals, pg 1888 refers to Mr. Christopher Wadsworth sent to England to "fetch" Ralph Partridge, etc.

Tracy Genealogy, being some descendants of Stephen Tracy of Plymouth Colony, 1623; also ancestral sketches and chart, by Sherman W. Tracy. 242p. 1936. $37.00. I saw this book on the day I am inputting this in the Higginson On-Line Book Store. This is the book cited in Anderson's Great Migration Begins.
Stephen Tracy. Mary Walton Ferris treated Stephen Tracy in 1931 (Dawes Gates 2:799-802), and Donald Lines Jacobus has twice prepared accounts of this immigrant (Waterman Gen 1:688:90, Ackley-Bosworth 37-38). (Citation from Great Migration Begins.

The Adventurous Tryphose (Lee) Tracy, Article in American Genealogist, by Robert S.Wakefield (TAG, Vol 51, No. 2, Pg 71, April, 1975.) - Gives sources for stay of both Stephen and Tryphosa in Leiden, Holland, as well as Stephen Tracy's parents family's parish register entries in England.

Return to top of page

-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------

Research Notes and Questions
Who Were the Parents of George Partridge?
There seems to be some confusion about who the parents of George Partridge were. A popular choice seems to be the Rev Ralph Partridge of Duxbury. However, that has not been documented and should not be shown in your genealogy.
Rev Ralph mentioned no George, or in fact, no sons, of the Reverend in his will.
The History of the town of Duxbury has an eight page biography of Ralph Partridge, with a rather detailed description of people named in his will and how the daughters husbands were known. George was not mentioned in that sketch. George had a smaller sketch in the book. No mention was made that he was related to Ralph. This book was written by a person very familiar with who was who in Duxbury.
DIRECTORY OF THE ANCESTRAL HEADS OF NEW ENGLAND FAMILIES 1620-1700, Compiled by Frank R. Holmes, Genealogical Publishing Co, 1964. Shows a George Partridge as a ** brother ** of Ralph, and indicates that that George was the George Partridge on the list of "proprietors" of Bridgewater, Mass.
A GENEALOGICAL REGISTER OF THE FIRST SETTLERS OF NEW ENGLAND, By John Farmer, Reprinted by Samuel G. Drake, Genealogical Publishing Co, 1989, Pg 219. Partridge, George, Duxbury, 1636, was one of the proprietors of Bridgewater in 1645." Note: This book also shows a preacher Ralph, but doesn't indicate any relationship between the two.
See a A Study on Ancestry of George Partridge by Dennis Partridge on this subject.

Summary of Parents for George Shown by Various Web Pages

Web Page Father Mother
The Cape Cod Page James or Ralph Partridge (1) (2) Christian Sims
The Partridge Tree Data Base Both G & R in file but not connected Not shown
The Joyner Page Ralph Partridge Patience
The Ingersoll Page Ralph Partridge Patience
Pete & Joan's Country Page Ralph Partridge Patience

(1) But gives vital stats for Ralph, ie dob, dod.
(2) I've not seen any reference to Christian Sims as a wife for Ralph. Wife in will was Patience.

Reference to Ralph and George Partridge in the History of Bridgewater:
"THE FOLLOWING WERE NOT RESIDENTS IN BRIDGEWATER, BUT MOST OF THEM WERE ORIGINAL PROPRIETORS, AND OTHERS OF THEM CONNECTED WITH THE EARLY SETTLERS OF THE TOWN: OF WHOM AND THEIR FAMILIES IT HAS BEEN THOUGHT NOT IN APPROPRIATE TO INSERT HERE THESE FEW BRIEF AND LIMITED SOURCES:
PARTRIDGE: George Partridge and the Rev. Ralph Partridge both of Duxbury were both original proprietors of Bridgewater. The Latter was the first minister of that place, and came over 1636, and George was there the same year; his D. Sarah m. Samuel Allen of Bridgewater about 1658, she was born 1639, Whether they were brothers or in any way connected we know not. The Rev. Mr. Partridgeís share in Bridgewater was finally owned by Jonathan Hill of Bridgewater. The late Hon. George Partridge of Duxbury, High Sheriff of Plymouth County, &c., was a descendant of the first George. There are not many of the name now in the county.--Mary Partridge m. Jonathan Brewster, and was Undisclosed in Conn. 1733."

Note: I haven't been able to place the Mary Partridge referred to above- nmt

Top of Page.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------

Extract of Sarah (Tracy) Partridge's Will

Saray (TRACY) PARTRIDGE's will: I give and bequeath unto my eight daughters, Sarah ALLEN, Tryphosa WEST, Elizabeth ALLEN, Ruth THATCHER, Mary SCRIF, Rebecca FISHER, Lydia BREWSTER, and Mercy COBURN, all my linen and woolen clothes" etc. My will is that my money should be equally divided between my ten children. Son John to have my great Bible as a gift of his father. The sheep at the Vineyard are my son James ALLEN's by bargain.
This will was dated November 28, 1702 and probated October 6, 1708.
This will was found in _Partridge Genealogy_ by George Henry PARTRIDGE, 1915. He referenced Plymouth County Probate Records, Volume 1, p. 225

George married Sarah Tracy on 16 Nov 1638 in Plymouth Colony, MA. Sarah (daughter of Stephen Tracy, Jr and Tryphosa Lee) was born in 1621 in Leyden, Zuid-Holland, Netherlands; died on 16 Nov 1708 in Duxbury, Plymouth, MA. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]