Chris & Julie Petersen's Genealogy

Jane

Female Bef 1621 - 1662  (> 41 years)


Personal Information    |    Notes    |    All    |    PDF

  • Name Jane  
    Born Bef 1621  , , England Find all individuals with events at this location 
    Gender Female 
    Died 10 Sep 1662  Windsor, Hartford, Connecticut, United States Find all individuals with events at this location 
    Person ID I1779  Petersen-de Lanskoy
    Last Modified 27 May 2021 

    Family Thomas Barber,   c. 25 Dec 1612, Stamford Saint George, Lincolnshire, England Find all individuals with events at this location,   d. 11 Sep 1662, Windsor, Hartford, Connecticut, United States Find all individuals with events at this location  (Age ~ 49 years) 
    Married 7 Oct 1640  Windsor, Hartford, Connecticut, United States Find all individuals with events at this location 
    Children 
     1. John Barber,   b. 24 Jul 1642, Windsor, Hartford, Connecticut, United States Find all individuals with events at this location,   d. 17/17 Jan 1711/2, Springfield, Hampden, Massachusetts, United States Find all individuals with events at this location  (Age 69 years)
     2. Thomas Barber,   b. 14 Jul 1644, Windsor, Hartford, Connecticut, United States Find all individuals with events at this location,   d. 10 May 1713, Simsbury, Hartford, Connecticut, United States Find all individuals with events at this location  (Age 68 years)
     3. Sarah Barber,   b. 19 Jul 1646, Windsor, Hartford, Connecticut, United States Find all individuals with events at this location,   d. Aft 1680, Simsbury, Hartford, Connecticut, United States Find all individuals with events at this location  (Age > 35 years)
     4. Samuel Barber,   b. 1 Oct 1648, Windsor, Hartford, Connecticut, United States Find all individuals with events at this location,   d. 12/12 Mar 1708/9, Windsor, Hartford, Connecticut, United States Find all individuals with events at this location  (Age 60 years)
     5. Mary or Mercy or Marcy Barber,   b. 12 Oct 1651, Windsor, Hartford, Connecticut, United States Find all individuals with events at this location,   d. 29 Dec 1725, Suffield, Hartford, Connecticut, United States Find all individuals with events at this location  (Age 74 years)
     6. Josiah Barber,   b. 15/15 Feb 1653/4, Windsor, Hartford, Connecticut, United States Find all individuals with events at this location,   d. 24 Dec 1733, Windsor, Hartford, Connecticut, United States Find all individuals with events at this location  (Age 79 years)
    Last Modified 28 May 2021 
    Family ID F1106  Group Sheet  |  Family Chart

  • Notes 
    • RESEARCH_NOTES:
      1. FHL book 929.273 B233bd, "The Connecticut Barbers, A Genealogy of the Descendants of Thomas Barber of Windsor, Connecticut," 2nd Ed., Donald S. Barber:
      "A deep mystery surrounds Jane, wife of Thomas. He married her in 1640, but the written record by Matthew Grant gives only the name Jane or Joan. Two of Thomas' sons married Coggin ladies, but there is little sign that Jane was a Coggin, as some have suggested. One report (LDS record) has it that Jane Coggin, b. Bedfordshire, Eng., was the dau. of John Coggin, b. in Bedford, Bedfordshire about 1593. It has also been suggested that Thomas Barber married Jane Bancroft, widow of John Bancroft who died in 1637. Jane Bancroft had ties to Windsor thru her daughter Anna, b. 1627, who married 1647 to John Griffin of Windsor and Simsbury, and her son John, born about 1620, who married in 1650 Hannah Dupper and had a family in Windsor. But Jane Bonython who married John Bancroft was born in 1573, and would have been way too old to have borne Thomas Barber's children. This theory against the wife being Jane Bancroft was written up in 'The American Genealogist,' v. 37, p. 164 [sic: 154], in 1961 by George E. McCracken and more or less disproved at that time. He points out that she would have had to have borne children for too long a time span - highly unlikely, and also she would have had 2 sons named John and 2 named Thomas - also unlikely. Another account has John Bancroft born about 1596, died 1637, m. Jane about 1622. that would have meant that she was born about 1606 or before, making her about 47 in 1653 when Thomas' youngest child Josiah Barber was born - not impossible, but very unlikely. It has been said by some that Thomas may have married the daughter of one of the Dutch traders at Old Saybrook, or Hartford, and also that the one he married was 'the first white woman to land in Connecticut.' One of Francis Stiles' sisters was name Jane, born 1605. She married in England and presumably remained there. There was a Jane Morden or Worden, age 35 (in 1635), on the passenger list of the 'Christian'; however I know nothing further about her. It seems she was too old to have borne all of Thomas's children. There seems as yet no way of knowing who Jane was (an all too frequent problem in genealogy). (Sources: Windsor Hist. Society, Jay Mack Holbrook, 1992; 1909 Barber Gen.; Barbour Index; Lyman Barber Gen., Stiles: Windsor; Lure of the Litchfield Hills.)"

      2. Henry R. Stiles, "The History and Genealogies of Ancient Windsor, Connecticut," 1892, v. 2, p. 50: "Barber, Thomas, first of name in New England, came to Windsor 1635, with the Saltonstall party under Mr. Francis Stiles; was then ae. 21 years. The Court at Hartford, 28 Mch., 1637, 'ord. that Mr. Francis Stiles shall teach George Chapple, Thomas Cooper and Thomas Barber, his servants, in the trade of a carpenter, according to his promise, for their service of their term, behind 4 days in a week only to saw and slit their own work.' He was made freeman 1645; was a soldier in the Pequot fight (see p. 69, Vol. I.); 1648, dft. in Ct.; Sgt. Barber, for his disorderly conduct striking Lieut. Cook, was adjudged to forfeit his office and pay £5. He rem. to Simsbury, where he contracted to build the first meeting house. He m. Jane ___, 7 Oct 1640 (Old Ch. Rec.); he d. 11, she d. 10 Sept., 1662 (Col. Rec.). Land gr. W. prob. 1640 (see p. 151, Vol. I.) Ch. (Old Ch. Rec.):
      A. John, bp. 24 July 1642.
      B. Thomas, b. 14 July 1644.
      C. Sarah, bp. 19 Jul 1646.
      D. Samuel, bp. 1 Oct 1648.
      E. Mary, bp. 12 Oct 1651; m. a Hale; set. Suffld. [No Hale in book.]
      F. Josiah, b. 15 Feb. 1653.

      3. Partial excerpt from the biographical sketch of Thomas Barber included in the book "Great Migration," which is a highly dependable modern research publication (see Thomas' notes for full transcript):
      "Thomas Barber
      Origin: St Mildred Breadstreet, London
      Migration: 1635 on the Christian
      First Residence: Windsor...
      Church Membership: Either he or his wife was a member of the Windsor church since their children were baptized there...
      Estate: ...A will, written or not, is implied in the probate of Thomas Barber, but none has been found.
      On 4 February 1662[/3], the distribution of Thomas Barber's estate was as follows: "to John and Sarah jointly as their father willed," the house and barn and all the home lot, land over the river, half the 24-acre lot, half the marsh, and to John a cow, as well as £20 more to John and Sarah. Thomas Barber's share comprised "a mare that he claims as a gift from his father," half his father's tools, the 14-acre upland lot, half the out lot, half the marsh, and his proportion, being £33 15s "Sam[ue]ll Barber" received £33 15s, as did "Mercey" and "Josias." "And what the estate amounts to more than the inventory when debts are paid shall be distributed betwixt the four younger children Thomas, Sam[ue]ll, Mercey and Josias and if any child die before they come to age sons 21 years daughters 18 years the portion of the deceased shall be divided amongst the survivors equally" [RPCC 263]. (The land owned jointly by Sarah and John is more fully detailed in the holdings of Timothy Hall, Sarah's husband [WiLR 1:87].)
      On 4 February 1662/3, "Samuell Barber manifesting his desire thereto was then placed an apprentice unto his brother Thomas until he accomplish the age of twenty-one years [RPCC 262]. On the same day, "Mercey Barber with her consent and desire is placed with Lt. Walter Filer and his wife until she be eighteen years of age unless she marry before" (RPCC 262]. On the same day, "Josias Barber according to his desire is placed with Deacon John Moore until he accomplish the age of twenty-one years" [RPCC 262]. On 30 January 1664[/5?], "Mercy Barber made choice of Lt. Walter Fyler to be her guardian" [RPCC 264].
      The inventory of the estate of Thomas Barber, taken 20 October 1662, was exhibited 4 February 1662[/3] and totalled £132 14s....
      Marriage: Windsor 7 October 1640 Jane ___ [Grant 24]. She died at Windsor on 10 September 1662 as "[t]he wife of Thomas Bar Ber" [CTVR 21; Grant 83]. In the inventory of Thomas Barber, taken 20 October 1662, "his wives apparel deceased" was valued at £15 [RPCC 273-74].
      Children:
      i John, bp. Windsor 24 July 1642 [Grant 24; CTVR 33]; m. Springfield 2 September 1663 Bathsheba Coggins [CTVR 10; Grant 25].
      ii Thomas, b. Windsor 14 July 1644 [Grant 24; CTVR 33]; m. Windsor 17 December 1663 Mary Phelps [Grant 25; CTVR 10], daughter of William Phelps [GMB 3:1446].
      iii Sarah, bp. Windsor 19 July 1646 [Grant 24; CTVR 33]; at Windsor 26 November 1663 Timothy Hall [Grant 62].
      iv Samuel, bp. Windsor 1 October 1648 (Grant 25; CVR 33]; m. (1) Windsor 1 December 1670 Mary Coggins [CTVR 12; Grant 25 (surname of bride not .given)]; m. (2) Windsor 25 January 1676[/7] Ruth Drake [CTVR 14; Grant 25].
      v Mercy, bp. Windsor 12 October 1651 (published as "Mary" [CTVR 33]; m. Windsor 8 July l669 John Gillett [CTVR 12; Grant 40], son of Jonathan Gillett [GMB 2:768].
      vi Josiah, b. Windsor 15 February 1653/4 [CTVR 40]; m. (1) Windsor 22 November 1677 Abigail Loomis [Grant 74; CTVR 14]; m. (2) by 12 March 1701/2 Sarah (___) Drake, widow of Enoch Drake [Manwaring 1:551]...
      Comments: ...Grant, in his list compiled 17 August 1677, reported that "Thomas Barber Snr." had six children born in Windsor [Grant 90]..."

      4. FHL book 929.273 B695bo "Ancestral Lines, Third Edition," compiled by Carl Boyer, 3rd [Santa Clarita, CA; 1998], pp. 69-70:
      "Thomas1 Barber, born perhaps in Bedfordshire, England, in 1614, died in Windsor, Connecticut, 11 Sept. 1662.
      On 7 Oct. 1640 he married Jane or Joan, whose last name is not known. It has been said that she was a daughter of one of the first Dutch settlers of the Connecticut River Valley, and was the first white woman to land in Connecticut. She died 10 Sept. 1662, the day before her husband...
      In 1641 he was granted about 600 acres in an area known to the Indians as Massaco. In the town meeting at Northampton, Mass., 24 June 1661, it was voted to ask him to move there, but apparently he chose not to do so. When he died at Windsor a little over a year later he left an estate valued at £132.14s. The probate records showed that his daughter Mercy (Mary) was placed with Lt. Walter Fyler and his wife, and Josias (Josiah) was placed with Deacon John Moore.
      Children, born in Windsor:
      i. John2, bapt. 24 July 1642; d. Suffield, Mass. (now Conn.), 17 Jan. 1712; m. (1) Springfield 2 Sept. 1663 Bathsheba Coggin, m. (2) 1 May 1669 Mrs. Hannah (Gardner?) Bancroft.
      ii. Thomas, b. 14 July 1644; d. Simsbury, Conn., 10 May 1713; m. 17 Dec. 1663 Mary Phelps.
      iii. Sarah, bapt. 19 July 1646; m. Windsor 26 Nov. 1663 Timothy2 Hale.
      iv. Samuel, bapt. 1 Oct. 1648; d. 1709; m. (1) 1 Dec. 1670 Mary Coggins, m. (2) 25 Jan. 1677 Ruth3 Drake.
      v. Mary, bapt. 12 Oct. 1651; m. 8 July 1669 John2 Gillett.
      vi. Josiah, b. 15 Feb. 1653; d. c. 1731; m. (1) 22 Nov. 1677 Abigail Loomis, m. (2) 5 Nov. 1701 Mrs. Sarah (Porter) Drake."

      5. The periodical "The American Genealogist," 71[1996]:111-12, "The English Origin of Thomas1 Barber of Windsor, Connecticut," by Donald S. Barber:
      "It has long been known that Thomas1 Barber, with several others, was apprenticed to Francis Stiles, who was paid by Sir Richard Saltonstall to bring them to Windsor to build houses for those who would come from England later.[1] They were on the 16 March 1634/5 shipping list for the "Chrystian" of London,[2] which arrived in Boston on 16 June; the party reached Windsor about 1 July 1635. The shipping list gives Thomas's age as 21. Further details about Thomas1 Barber and his family are given in my book, "The Connecticut Barbers,"[3] published in 1992, before I became aware of his English origin.
      Francis Stiles was a carpenter and London freeman, so it seemed reasonable to search the appropriate guild records in London. Frances Markham, a London researcher, recently found the following entry for me in the records of the Worshipful Company of Carpenters at the Guildhall. The entry is part of the minutes for a meeting held on 18 December 1634:[4]
      "Received of Francis Stiles for apprenticing Thomas Barber, son of John Barber of Stamford in the County of Lincoln, yeoman, deceased, from St. Thomas's day next for 9 years. 2s 2d."
      This led to the International Genealogical Index [IGI] for Lincolnshire and then to the appropriate parish registers in Stamford and to the Bishops' Transcripts for the adjacent parish of Uffington:
      St. George, Stamford, co. Lincoln:[5]
      Rebecca, dau. of John Barber, bp. 17 April 1609.
      Rebecca, dau. of John Barber, bur. 6 Aug. 1609.
      Sara, dau. of John Barber, labourer, bp. 16 Sept. 1610.
      Thomas, son of John and Elizabeth Barber, bp. 25 Dec. 1612.
      All Saints, Stamford:[6]
      Elizabeth, dau. of John Barber, bp. [10 or 11] Nov. 1616.
      John, son of John Barber, bp. 4 Aug. 1620.
      John Barber, bur. 21 April 1620.
      Elizabeth Barber, widow, bur. 8 March 1632[/3].
      John Barber, son of Widow Barber, bur. 22 March 1632[/3].
      Uffington, co. Lincoln:[7]
      Elizabeth Barber m. William Fowler, 8 June 1590.
      Margaret Barber m. John Preeste, 2 Oct. 1607.
      John Barber m. Elizabeth Lumley, 17 Oct. 1608.
      SUMMARY
      JOHNA BARBER was born probably in the early or middle 1580s and was buried at All Saints, Stamford, county Lincoln, on 21 April 1620. He married at Uffington, county Lincoln, on 17 October 1608, ELIZABETH LUMLEY. She was buried at All Saints, Stamford, on 8 March 1632[/3]. He was called a "labourer" in the baptism of his daughter Sarah.
      Children of JohnA and Elizabeth (Lumley) Barber:
      i REBECCA BARBER, bp. St. George, Stamford, co. Lincoln, 17 April 1609, bur. there, 6 Aug. 1609.
      ii SARAH BARBER. bp. St. George, 16 Sept. 1610.
      iii THOMAS1 BARBER, bp. St. George, 25 Dec. 1612, d. Windsor, Conn., 11 Sept. 1662;[8] m. Windsor, 7 Oct. 1640, JANE ___,[9] who d. Windsor, 10 Sept. 1662.[10] [St. Thomas Day is 21 December, and that may be the day of his birth and the source of his name, as well as the day on which his apprenticeship began.]
      iv ELIZABETH BARBER, bp. All Saints, Stamford, 10 or 11 Nov. 1616.
      v JOHN BARBER, bp. Alt Saints, 4 Aug, 1620, bur. there, 22 March 1632[/3].
      No relevant probates were found in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury or the Consistory Court of Lincoln.
      More research in records in the Stamford area (including nearby sections of Rutland and Northamptonshire) might be helpful in showing the origin of JohnA Barber and of his wife Elizabeth Lumley.
      I am grateful to Frances Markham for finding the key entry in the records of the Carpenters' Company in London, and to Dr. Neil D. Thompson, CG, FASG, for checking my readings of the pariah registers, for confirming the IGI entries for Uffington in the Bishops' Transcripts, and for searching for relevant probates."
      Footnotes:
      1. Henry R. Stiles, "The History of Ancient Windsor, Connecticut, ..." [1st ed.] (New York, 1859), 19-22; [2d ed.], 2 vols. (Hartford, 1891-92), 1:44, 151, 2:50.
      2. John Camden Hotten, "The Original Lists of Persons of Quality…" (New York, 1874),
      42-43.
      3. Donald S. Barber, "The Connecticut Barbers" (Middlefield, Conn., 1992), 1-2.
      4. Worshipful Company of Carpenters, Court Minute Book 1618-35, Guildhall Library MS
      4329/4.
      5. Family History Library [FHL], Salt Lake City, film #1,450,474.
      6. FHL film #1,450,472.
      7. FHL film #509,002, Item 2.
      8. Edwin Stanley Welles, ed., "Births, Marriages and Deaths Returned from Hortfirrd, Windsor, and Fairfield ..." (Hartford, 1897), 21; hereafter cited as Welles.
      9. "Matthew Grant Record," "Some Early Records and Documents of and Relating to the Town of Windsor[,] Connecticut, 1639-1703" (Hartford, 1930), 24. For the unlikely claim that Jane (___) Barber was a widow Bancroft, see George E. McCracken, "Bancrofts in the Connecticut Valley," TAG 37(1961):154-60.
      10. Welles, 21."

      6. The periodical "The American Genealogist," 37(1961): 154-60, "Bancrofts in the Connecticut Valley," by George E. McCracken, F.A.S.G.:
      "In the middle of the seventeenth century we find living in the towns in the valley of the Connecticut River the following three persons named Bancroft:
      1. Anna or Hannah, d. Windsor between 17 Dec. 1684 and 4 Apr. 1694; m. there, 13 May 1647, Sergeant John Griffin, to whom she bore Hannah, Mary, Sarah, John, Thomas, Abigail, Mindwell, Ruth, Ephraim and Nathaniel.
      2. John, ferryman, d. Windsor b Aug. 1662; m. there 3 Dec. 1647, Hannah Dupper, who bore to him John, Nathaniel, Ephraim, Hannah and Sarah.
      3. Thomas, d. Enfield 14 Dec. 1684; m. (1) 8 Dec. 1653, probably in Springfield, Margaret Wright, mother of Lydia, Margaret, Anna, Thomas, Anna and Samuel; (2) ca. 1668 Hannah, said to have been a Gardner, mother of Samuel, Ruth, Rebecca and Nathaniel.
      While we lack positive evidence to prove relationship between the three, striking repetitions of the same names among the children of all three, and proximity of time and place, make it seem probable that we have here to deal with a sister and two brothers.
      A woman named Jane married Thomas Barber at Windsor on 7 Oct. 1640, her surname not being stated in the marriage record set down by no less a person than Matthew Grant. (Here it may be stated parenthetically that in Grant's record there are several instances in which the marriage date for a couple is given but not the bride's surname. I am inclined to believe that the explanation may be that the marriage took place elsewhere, and that Grant's primary concern in learning the date was to show that enough time elapsed before the birth of the first child, a point on which the Puritans were even more sensitive than are we.) The claim was made by Charles Edwin Booth, "One Branch of the Booth Family" (New York 1910), p. 44, that the said Jane had been Jane Bancroft and the widowed mother of the three Bancrofts mentioned above, but no proof is adduced and we have found none.
      That their mother was, indeed, named Jane had been claimed a little earlier by J. Henry Lea [New England Hist. and Gen. Register, 56:84-87, 196 f.), but he knew nothing of any marriage of Jane to Barber. Now between 1642 and 1654 Thomas and Jane (___) Barber became the parents of John, Thomas, Sarah, Samuel, Mary and Josiah, and it would have been physically possible for a woman who had previously given birth to Anna about 1629 and to John and Thomas within the next ten years, to have become the mother of the six Barber children after that. It involves, however, the conclusion that she had two sons named John and two sons named Thomas living at the same time, which although possible would have been unusual, and until actual evidence is produced that Jane Barber had been previously a Bancroft, we feel unable to accept the claim set forth in the Booth book. If some proof were now found that Jane had been a Bancroft at her marriage to Thomas Barber, it would be more probable that she was a sister to Anna, John and Thomas, than that she was their mother.
      The article by Mr. Lea, cited above, also assigns, on the authority of Hinman, two other brothers to Anna, namely Samuel and William, but Royal R. Hinman, "A catalogue of the names of the early Puritan settlers of the Colony of Connecticut" (Hartford, 2nd ed., 1852), p. 123, actually fails to assign either Samuel or William as stated, but includes an Ebenezer whom Lea overlooks. On the next page, however, Hinman does mention Samuel and William Bancroft as early at Windsor, but he says nothing more of them and suggests no relationship to anyone. Suffice it to say that neither the present writer nor Mr. Donald L. Jacobus has found evidence for Samuel, William, or Ebenezer, and unless contemporary evidence can be submitted for their existence, we are inclined to dismiss them as fictitious.
      According to Mr. Lea, all of these children, with the exception, of course, of Ebenezer whom he omits, were those of a John Bancroft with wife Jane, the father a native of Derbyshire. He claims that this couple came early to Boston and removed thence to Lynn where John died, and that Jane, and presumably her children, then migrated to Southampton, Long Island, whence the family once more removed to the valley of the Connecticut where we have found three of them.
      The evidence from Derbyshire wills is extensively and impressively presented by Mr. Lea. It goes back three generations behind a Thomas Bancroft, yeoman of Swarkston, Derbyshire, who died at Chellaston in the same county, testate, leaving a will dated 13 Dec.1626 and probated 11 Oct. 1627, in which he names Rebecca, eldest son John, second son Ralph, third son Thomas, and daughters Dorothy and Elizabeth, both of them married. The third son Thomas is described as a resident of Bradley, then married and with issue, and his death is dated by Lea in 1658. How much of this comes from the will and how much is deduced from other sources is not quite clear, but the said Thomas the younger is identified as a poet who in 1639 published at London a quarto volume of 86 pages bearing the title of "Two Bookes of Epigrammes and Epitaphs," containing among other verses the following dedicated to the poet's brother John:
      "You sold your land the lighter hence to go
      To foreign coasts, yet (Fate would have it so)
      Did ne'er New England reach, but went with them
      That journey toward the New Jerusalem."
      Passing over the implication that John, had he been willing to go to New England with more encumbrances, might have taken along his land, we must conclude that though he started on the journey, he did not complete it, dying enroute. Mr. Lea, however, is unwilling to accept this plain conclusion and resorts to the use of "poetic license." In his view, John did reach New England but died soon afterwards, hence might be said, in poetry though not in history, never to have arrived. This view is rejected by Meredith B. Colket, Jr. [supra, 17:20-22], and I must confess that I think he is right.
      Those who maintain that John, brother of the poet Thomas Bancroft, actually arrived in America, would point to evidence printed by John Camden Hotten, "Original Lists," p. 150, and by Charles E. Banks, "Planters of the Commonwealth," p. 98. A John Barcroft [sic] and wife Jane took the oath on 13 April 1632 and came on the Ship "James," Capt. Grant, 5 June 1632, no children being named in the passenger list for them, though some are noted for other families who also crossed in the same boat. In the next year Jane got into serious trouble at Boston. Winthrop notes in his famous Journal on 12 Sept. 1633 that Captain Stone had been found "with Barcrofte's wife ... lying in a bed one night." In Massachusetts Colonial Records 1:108 [Shurtleff] we read under date of 3 Sept. 1633:
      "Mr Barcrofte (sic) doeth acknowledge to owe vnto or Sovraigne the King the some of xlli & Mr Samil Mauacke (Maveracke) the some of xxl &c. The condicion of this recognizance is that Jane Barcrofte (sic) wife of the said John shall be of good behavr towards all psons.
      Whether these Barcrofts were also called Bancroft is, of course, problematical, but it should be noted that the three records, the ship list, Winthrop's "Journal," and the court record, are all in harmony in calling them Barcroft, not Bancroft. In any case, no certain trace of the Barcrofts, if such they really were, has been found elsewhere. On the other hand, a man whose brother was capable of publishing a volume of verse some years later may have been of sufficient prestige to be entitled to be called "Mr." even in so unsavory a connection as this. Mr. Lea does identify John Barcroft with the poet's brother and says the couple removed to Lynn in 1632, though they were surely, as we have seen, still in Boston in the fall of 1633.
      Mr. Lea is forced to conclude that John soon died in Lynn, as he asserts that his widow was given land at Lynn in 1637. The town votes of Lynn are now in the process of publication, but apparently there are none so early as 1637. There is, however, in "Essex County Court Records and Files," 2:270, a distribution of land at Lynn in 1638, and the seventh item among a large number is "widdow Bancraft, 100 acres." This is probably what Lea had to go on. Had this record called her Jane, We should have less hesitation in identifying her with the Jane Barcrofte of the Boston records, but since it did not, it would be well to be cautious.
      It seems true, however, that a scion of the Derbyshire Bancrofts did come to America, a Lieutenant Thomas Bancroft, born ca. 1625, died at Lynn 19 Aug. 1691, having previously been resident in Dedham and Reading. A lengthy and unsatisfactory account of this man and his descendants was published by John Kermott Allen in the "New England Hist. and Gen. Register" (94:215-224, 311-321; 95:56-69, 109-117, 276-285, 363-383; 96:49-57, 126-137, 284-291, 327-336; 97:65-77, 124-134, 214-220). His eighth child, born at Reading 20 Aug. 1660, died 13 July 1661, was named Ralph, a name which appears several times in the Derbyshire family. The reappearance of the name Ralph suggests that the lieutenant was a member of the Derbyshire family. Mr. Allen promised at the outset to return to the subject of Lieut. Thomas Bancroft's forebears in England but he never did so, perhaps because he never reached any satisfactory conclusion. Another descendant of the lieutenant, G. Andrews Moriarty, Esq., has informed me that he is inclined to believe that the lieutenant was a son of the poet, but that he has never been able to find the proof in English records.
      Though Mr. Allen says nothing of the poem, he would appear to have identified Lieut. Thomas Bancroft of Lynn as the poet, since he says he may have come with his brother John in 1632; and that Thomas's father died in 1627 and his stepmother in 1639. As to the last date he is following Lea, but Lea calls her his mother, not stepmother. He also quotes a history of Lynn to the effect that Thomas arrived there in 1640. The earliest record found of Thomas at Lynn is dated 1661, though he himself, in a deposition of 1681, says he hired a farm there in 1655. The history of Thomas is at least strange. He married at Dedham in 1647 and again in 1648 and had children recorded at Dedham in 1648-1650 and at Reading in 1653-1670, the twelfth and youngest child being Mary, born 16 May 1670, who is, incidentally, omitted by Mr. Allen though he notes her as unmarried and living in 1691 in connection with the probate of her father. While living at Lynn in Essex county, he served for many years as ensign for Reading which is in Middlesex County, though on modern maps the two places are but nine miles apart. He resigned this post in 1679 as he lived "remote from the said towns." Other errors of Mr. Allen do not affect our argument. To sum up what is certain about Lieut. Thomas Bancroft: he was almost certainly a member of the Derbyshire family described by Lea; he is first recorded at Dedham and Reading before he is recorded at Lynn; and there is a lacuna of seventeen years between the one appearance of the Widow Bancroft at Lynn and the first appearance of Thomas there as a tenant, not land owner. During this period Thomas Bancroft was for the last eight years recorded at Dedham and Reading. It is entirely possible that he was not connected either with the Barcrofts of Boston or the Widow Bancroft of Lynn.
      As for Mr. Lea's further statement that the Widow Bancroft, and presumably her children, moved to Southampton, Long Island, we are able to say that a Widow Bancroft, this one or another, undeniably owned land at Southampton in or before 1644. George Rogers Howell, "Early History of Southampton, Long Island, New York, with Genealogies" (Albany, 2nd ed., 1887), p. 421, cautiously admits that a Widow Bancroft had a land grant at Southampton in 1644, but thinks she probably never came there at all. In that case, how she came to have the grant is not clear. Mr. Colket, however, subceeded [supra, 17:20-22] in finding a petition of Iohn Stratton and Thomas Talmage Junr "for the quiet and peaceable Inioyment of the lott betwixt them which was formerly graunted Vnto Widow Bancroft," which was there-upon "graunted and consented Vnto by the Generall Court provided that they shall keep, Improve, and possesse the sayd lott in their handes three years after the tyme yt was by the said widdow Bancroft given vnto them" ["Records of the Town of Southampton," 1:34]. The Records of East Hampton [1:24] show that they still possessed the lot on 10 June 1652, and John Stratton's will of 30 Aug. 1684 mentions a parcel of meadow lying with Capt. Talmage undivided. Mr. Colket concludes that this appears to indicate that Stratton and Talmage had obtained the grant upon their marriages to daughters of the Widow Bancroft, but Mr. Jacobus informs me that he has seen examples of the use of the verb "give" in references to conveyances which were clearly land sales and not deeds of gift. I do not think it proved that Stratton and Talmage were sons-in-law of the Widow Bancroft, but in view of the fact that there were migrations from Lynn to Southampton, I tentatively accept the identification of the Widow Bancroft of Lynn with the Widow Bancroft of Southampton.
      To return to the Boston Barcrofts, stress should be laid on the absence of any child in the ship list. If these Boston Barcrofts were the parents of the three Connecticut Bancrofts, then we should expect at least that the daughter Anna would be with them, for her marriage in 1647 strongly implies that she was in existence when the Barcrofts sailed in 1632. Furthermore, Mr. Lea did not find in Derbyshire records any evidence as to the name of the wife of the poet's brother John. He assigns the name Jane to her solely on the basis of equating John Barcroft of Boston with John Bancroft of Derbyshire. There is thus no positive proof that the three Connecticut Bancrofts were children of a Jane, and not one of them named a known child Jane. Mr. Jacobus, to whom this study owes much, would interpret the absence of any record of John Barcroft of Boston after the year 1633 as evidence of a negative sort that he may have returned to England out of chagrin.
      The Widow Bancroft of Lynn, quite probably identical with the Widow Bancroft of Southampton, may well have been the wife and widow of the John who died on the crossing. But we are not inclined to believe that she was the mother of Lieut. Thomas Bancroft, since no record has been found to show that he inherited the 100 acres she was granted in 1638. As the lieutenant continued to be recorded in Essex County until his death in 1691, he must be carefully distinguished from the Thomas Bancroft who died at Enfield in 1684. If the lieutenant was not son of the widow, then she is left as a possible mother of the three Connecticut Bancrofts, but there is really not the slightest bit of evidence to show that she was, nor that her name was Jane.
      Editor's Note. Dr. McCracken has keenly analyzed the Bancroft problems. There are several interrelated problems, some of great complexity, and it may be helpful to the reader to summarize the conclusions reached, negative though many of the conclusions are.
      1. John Bancroft of Derbyshire, brother of Thomas the poet, was lost on the passage to New England. The name of his wife is unknown, but he may have been accompanied by a wife and children.
      2. John Barcroft of Boston with wife Jane was not a Bancroft so far as has been proved, and this couple has no known history in New England after 1633.
      3. The Widow Bancroft of Lynn 1638, quite likely identical with the Widow Bancroft of Southampton 1644, was not named Jane so far as actual records prove; she may have had daughters who married Stratton and Talmage but that is not positively proved.
      4. The said Widow Bancroft may have been mother of the three Bancrofts of the Connecticut River Valley, but there is no proof that she was. She may have married one of the Connecticut settlers, thus bringing her putative children into this area, but the claim that she was the Jane who married Thomas Barber of Windsor is extremely unlikely.
      5. Lieut. Thomas Bancroft first appears at Dedham in 1647 when aged about 22, removed to Reading, and did not settle in Lynn until many years after the Widow Bancroft's brief appearance there. There is no strong reason to assume that he was her son, but his own name and that of his son Ralph strongly suggest that he belonged to the Derbyshire family and his age conforms with the theory that he might be a son of Thomas the poet or of Ralph, who were brothers of the John who died on his passage to New England.
      So many false and improbable statements have appeared in print concerning the early Bancrofts that a careful appraisal of these claims in the light of what the records actually prove (and they fail to prove very much) was long overdue, and Dr. McCracken deserves our gratitude for undertaking the task."