F 3 
 .D14 
 Copy 1 
 
 --Kfti 
 
 {3u ]4^!ji^ ^ CcLurL^Ju n.^cdi/. 
 
Glass _ ' 
 Book. -^ 
 
 S 
 
 ^ IL^ 
 
GENEALOGICAL NOTES AND ERRATA. 
 
 P. ^ 
 
 
 •1 
 

GENEALOGICAL NOTES AND ERRATA. 
 
 Communicated by Mrs. Caroline H. Dall, for the N. E. H. & G. Reg. for April, 1873. 
 
 Genealogical science stands at this disadvantage. When an error has 
 been discovered, there seems no way of recording it, for the benefit of 
 others, so that there shall be no possibility that any future student may be 
 misled, by a wrong base, a wrong figure, or a worn-out tradition. 
 Genealogical registers themselves, teem with long refuted assertions, and 
 every inquirer has to begin at the beginning and work his way through the 
 confusion. 
 
 I have for a long time thought of suggesting to this journal the propriety 
 of publishing a couple of loose pages or more, quarterly, upon which, under 
 the head of errata, old mistakes miiiht be corrected and references mi^ht be 
 given, and these pages, easily detached, might in time constitute an in- 
 valuable volume. 
 
 A great deal of matter would accumulate if those who are in the habit 
 of using Savage's Dictionary, would check the errors they detect, and 
 forward them to the editor to be ranged under such a head. 
 
 No genealogist should be over-sensitive in such ar matter. His work is 
 of a kind that requires many auditors. Let him be never so careful, yet if 
 he is human, he must now and then lose the thread of the old story, or may 
 at any absorbed moment permit the misprint of a numeral, — which he 
 knows so well, that he will instinctively read it right, however it is printed. 
 
 I wish now to draw attention to a few items, some of them errors, some 
 of them discoveries, which may be of value to other students, and which I 
 have encountered at different times during the last few years. 
 
 Francis, Richard. Mr. Savage speaks of Richard Francis as once of 
 Dorchester. The records of that town contain no allusion to any Francis 
 who was a married man. At the age of 39, Richard is found in Cambridge, 
 married to Alice (probably Wilcockes), in the year 1G44. He had no son 
 Richard in Cambridge. If he had a son by an early marriage in England, 
 it might have been such a son Richard, who, living in Dorchester in 16G1, 
 signed a petition for the continuance of religious liberties after the 
 restoration of the Stuarts. In 1GG9 the constables were ordered to look 
 after sixteen young men, who could not prove an "orderly living." First 
 on the list was Richard Francis, of Dorchester. This orderly living might 
 
be translated "constant employment." If a man remained unmarried he 
 was a legitimate object of public concern. Savage gives an unmarried 
 Richard Francis in Northampton in 1G75. He " came from the East," and 
 was clerk of Turner's company in King Philip's war. He wrote a very 
 good hand, and if he was Richard, of Dorchester, would have been then 38 
 yearg old. 
 
 Richard Francis, of. Cambridge, is afterward registered in Medford, and 
 his will is proved in Boston. This does not prove that he changed his 
 residence. William Heley, recorded first in Roxbury and then in Cambridge,, 
 seems to have lived, from the first, in Newton, near to what we now call 
 Brook Farm. I have instances of families registered in Ipswich in 1G38 ; 
 in Rowley, 1660 ; Boxford, 1680, and Andover, 1700, who do not seem to 
 have left the land they first settled on, in all that time. 
 
 Whittingham, John. This person, who married the sister of Hubbard, 
 the historian, was in Ipswich at a very early date. Even Savage is found 
 asserting that he was the son of Baruch, a posthumous child of the 
 translator of the Geneva bible, and his wife Katharine, sister of John Calvin. 
 
 Surtees gives a careful pedigree of the Whittinghams, and another may 
 be found in the publications of the Camden society. 
 
 No such person as Baruch is known, nor did John Calvin ever have a 
 sister Katharine. John Calvin married a widow, Idolette Storder nee 
 DeBures. Idolette had a sister Katharine, daughter of Louis Jacqueman, 
 of Oi-leans, heiress, in her mother's right,- to the Lords of Turvyle and 
 Gouteron. It- was she who became the wife of William Whittingham, 
 dean of Durham. The dean left two sons. Sir Timothy and Daniel, — the 
 first the oldest, the other probably the youngest of a family of six children. 
 Daniel, born Nov. 12, 1571, was living in 1590, and received estates under 
 his mother's will in Kingsgate, Durham, which were probably those which 
 the American family inherited. He was not married at that time, and is 
 lost sight of in Durham. It must have been his son John who came with 
 his mother to Ipswich, and did a man's duty there in 1640. 
 
 In the Rogers memoranda, in the fifth volume of the Register, there 
 is a confusion, easily cleared up, concerning the wife of the Rev. John 
 Rogers. In January, 1687, John Rogers, farmer, was married in Ipswich 
 to a Mrs. Martha Smith. Children were born to this pair many years 
 after the Rev. John Rogers married Martha Whittingham ; and his name is 
 always entered Mr. John Rogers, farmer. 
 
 The names of AVhittin^ham and Hubbard have been left in inextricable 
 confusion by all the early chroniclers. It was so common for two or more 
 children of one family to receive the same name in baptism, that only a full 
 record will dissipate the obscurity. This has been gleaned chiefly from the 
 probate court. William Hubbard, flither of the historian, came to Massa- 
 chusetts in the Defence in 1635, with his wife Judith, and two daughters, 
 Martha and Margaret. His other children were: John, aged 15 ; William, 
 aged 13 ; Nathaniel, aged 6 ; Richard, aged 4. Hl^bbard removed from 
 Ipswich to Boston in 1662, and died in 1670. He is said to have sold his 
 property in England for the advantage of the infant state, reserving only 
 an income of £100 for himself and family. 
 
 About the same time, from Southerton, now Sutterton, in Lincolnshire, 
 came John Whittingham, who married Martha Hubbard ; and possibly a 
 brother Thomas, who was lieutenant of the Ipswich company in 1645. 
 
 Their mother was the widow of Daniel Whittingham, the youngest of 
 the six children left by William Whittingham, dean of Durham. 
 
Daniel was born Nov. 12, 1571 ; lie was living in 1590 and unmarried, 
 inheriting property under his motlier's will. There is no record of his 
 marriage or death in Durham, but it is possible both might be found in 
 Southerton. It is he whom JMrs. Partington has chosen to record as 
 Baruch, but why she should describe him as a posthumous child is best 
 known to herself. 
 
 John Whittingham married Martha, daughter of the first William 
 Hubbard. Her sister Margaret was already married to Ezekiel Rogers, 
 and Ezekiel's sister Margaret, the beloved daughter of the Rev. Nathaniel 
 Rogers, subsequently married his brother by that marriage, the Rev. Wm. 
 Hubbard, the historian. 
 
 John and Richard died unmarried in England, where they went to look 
 after property, perhaps at Tendring Hundred in Essex. 
 
 As Nathaniel is never mentioned after his arrival, he probably died 
 early. 
 
 William Hubbard, the historian, born in England in 1622, graduated in 
 the first class at Harvard in 1642. He was invited to the Ipswich pulpit 
 in 1656, and soon after married. He died Sept. 25, 1704, at the age of 
 83 ; having written more than any man in behalf of the colony, if we except 
 Governor Winthrop, whose material he doubtless had leave to use as if it 
 were his own. 
 
 Of Marijaret Rosrers Hubbard we hear little. She devoted herself to 
 her fother in his last illness, and with his dying breath, the Rev. Nathaniel 
 Rogers blessed the three children of his only daughter. She had no 
 children after 1655. 
 
 John Whittingham, the sole survivor of his family, married Martha 
 Hubbard, and they had: John, dead before 1653; Martha, Richard, William, 
 Elizabeth and Judith. 
 
 According to the testimony of their nephew Samuel Clarke, John, 
 Richard, Elizabeth and Judith died without issue, and as John Whittingham . 
 himself died in 1649, his grandchildren seem never to have known his 
 name, but to have taken it for granted that it was William. 
 
 The sole surviving daughter, Martha, married the Hon. John Clarke, 
 about 1667. This Clarke was the oldest son of the famous old surgeon, 
 lumber merchant and cattle dealer, who had married Martha Saltonstall, 
 and came from Newbury to Boston in 1651, a man who excelled in 
 everything, from trepanning a skull and cutting for the stone, to inventing 
 economical wood stoves. As this second John Clarke was not made a 
 freeman of Boston till 1673, he may have been educated abroad, and 
 probably came from Newbury to Boston. 
 
 The Hon. John Clarke married Martha, daughter of John Whittingham 
 and Martha Hubbard, about 1667. They had: 
 
 John, born 1668 ; 
 
 William, born 1670; married to Mary, dau. of Wm. Whittingham; 
 
 Samuel, born 1677, who wrote the Gordon and Hubbard legend, and 
 inherited the Gordon tankard ; and 
 
 Elizabeth, born 1 680 ; married first to a cousin " Hubbard " who was a 
 mariner, and afterward the third wife of the Rev. Cotton Mather, who 
 considered her "a great spoil!" In 1818 one of her descendants, Hannah 
 Matber Crocker, dedicated to Hannah More some " Observations on the 
 Rights of Women," probably the first book on that much vexed topic ever 
 printed in America. 
 
 William Whittingham, brother of Martha Whittingham Clarke, married 
 
Mary, daughter of John Lawrence, who went from Ipswich to New-York 
 in 1662. By her he had at Rowley, near Ipswich : 
 
 Martha, married March 4, 1091, to the Eev. John Rogers, of Ipswich; 
 
 Mary, married first, to the Hon, Wm. Clark, of Boston, a cousin on the 
 Whittingham side ; second, to the Hon. Gurdon Saltonstall, governor of 
 Connecticut, a distant cousin of her first husband ; 
 
 Elizabeth, married first, to the Hon. Samuel Appleton, of Ipswich ; second, 
 to the Eev. Edward Payson, of Rowley ; 
 
 Richard, graduated at Harvai'd in 1689 ; 
 
 William, who died early in the "West Indies. 
 
 It ought to be said here, that few of the families coming to Massachusetts 
 Bay could properly be called puritans. 
 
 The Rogerses, Hubbards and Whittinghams were all what is called 
 conformists, though some of them lived to repent of their conformity. 
 
 Further corrections in reference to the families of Rogers and Wise, I 
 defer to a future article, but wish to record an interesting discovery made 
 by myself recently in Ipswich, which affords a confirmation of the entry 
 found by Col. Chester on the Candler MS. (Register, xxii. 47). Among the 
 children of Nathaniel Rogers in this MS., Col. Chester finds this item: 
 
 " Mary married to Wm. Heley." 
 
 When this item was published, hardly a descendant of William Heley 
 credited it. Nathaniel Rogers made no will proper, and no one knew that 
 he ever had a daughter Mary. The Heley family had no associations with 
 Ipswich. The item was doubted altogether. 
 
 Recently, in making some family investigations in Ipswich, connected 
 with the name of Symonds, I determined to read every line of the records 
 till I exhausted them, and I came unexpectedly upon the following entries. 
 
 Elizabeth Heley married Jonas Gregory, May 10, 1672. 
 
 Mary Heley married John Wood, May 1, 1676. 
 
 It will be observed that the spelling of this name is the same as in the 
 Candler MS. The family have not preserved it, either in this country or 
 in England. 
 
 These girls may have been brought up by their grandfixther. At all 
 events they appear to have been married from their uncle's house, that of 
 the Rev. John Rogers, afterward president of Harvard College. 
 
 Although the descendants of William Heley, who bear his name, are 
 now very few, there must be many persons interested in it, and as his 
 various marriages have confused many investigators, I should like to 
 conclude this article with an exhibit of recorded facts. 
 
 At some future time I wish to speak of the family registers ordered to 
 be kept by the Massachusetts Company, and of some interesting matters 
 relating to the posterity of Reginald Foster. 
 
 William Heley, b. 1613, probably in Devonshire; m. first, Grace, dau. 
 of Miles Ives, of Watertown, 1643, and had: — 
 
 i. Hannah, bap. July 7, 1644. 
 
 ii. Samuel, bap. Feb. 14, 1646; d. early. 
 
 iii. Elizabeth, bap. Nov. 14, 1647. 
 
 Grace (Ives) Heley died in childbed, Nov. 8, 1649, and William Heley 
 m. second, Mary, dau. of the Rev. Nathaniel Rogers, in 1650, and had : 
 
iv. Sarah, bap. Feb. 2, 1G51 ; d. Oct. 10, 1653. 
 V. William, bap. July 11, 1G52. 
 
 He m. third, Grace, dau. of Nicholas Buttrice, 14. 8. 1653, and had: 
 
 vi. Grace, b. 1654. 
 
 vii. Mary, b. Nov. 4, 1657. 
 
 viii. Nathaniel, bap. Feb. 5, 1659. 
 
 ix. Martha, bap. Sept. 9, 1660. 
 
 He m. fourth, Phoebe, dau. of Bartholomew Greene, 15. 6. 1661, and had : 
 
 X. Samuel, b. 16. 9. 1662. 
 xi. Paul, b. April 3, 1664. 
 xii. Mart, b. Oct. 29, 1665. 
 
 He m. fifth, Nov. 29, 1677, widow Sarah Brown, of Hampton, the mother 
 of the 3Iiss Sarah Brown, married by his son William in 1682. 
 
 It will be seen that neither of the daughters married in Ipswich were 
 the childi'en of Mary Rogers. Nor does the circumstance that two Maries 
 were born and named in 1657 and 1665, prove that either died. I shall 
 at some time give some curious facts to show this. 
 
 The date of Mary Rogers's death is not known. She appears on the 
 records simply as " wife Mary." 
 
 The elements of confusion in the above record are many ; but a copy of 
 it may have this use — it may preach patience. 
 
 Students who found children born to William and Grace in 1647, to 
 William and Mary tn 1651, and to William and Grace again in 1654, 
 naturally enough thought that there were two William Heleys, a delusion 
 which only the probate record has disjielled. 
 
 Again, William Heley, 2d, who married Sarah Brown in Hampton in 
 1682, returned to Cambridge, where he died in 1689, and his children by 
 " wife Sarah " have been imputed to William Heley, 1st, who died at the 
 age of 70, in less than a year after his son's marriage. 
 
 I expect to find the pedigree of Wilham Hele among the descendants of 
 William de la Hele of South Hele in Devonshire. 
 
 He seems to have been an unfortunate man, perhaps an oldest son who 
 had lost his inheritance in the civil wars. 
 
 He was evidently admitted to the best families, yet it is not uncommon to 
 find his name recorded in the wills of the period, as one to whom "that 
 deat that is in his hand " is remitted. 
 
 He was never very fortunate, but all his sons did well. 
 
 In 1679, the county court of Middlesex, Mass., issued an order requiring 
 certain statistical returns from the several towns. In the Cambridge return 
 we find: — "30. 1. 1680. For English, our school dame is Good- Wife 
 Heley at present but nine scholars." 
 
ll 
 
I 
 
i*