|
a.
|
Note: Our Family Origin and Name
What really interest us today, is that the references given our name show that Lindley was a name of a location. Lind was Old English for the lime tree, was so used by Chaucer, and Ley or Lea, was a field. So the name Lindley, means The Limetree Field, and was very likey applied to a man who lived in a field of Lime Trees and was applied to a number of localities in England. John M. Lindley showed two in Yorkshire, one in Shropshire, and one in Wiltshire, in the long ago days, and there were others later.
From: Connecticut Linsley - The Six Johns, quoting a paragraph from the Lindley Book by John M. Lindley
And from Henry Ellis' introductions to Domesday Book, we learn that as early as 1086 under William the Conqueror, there were Lindleys mentioned, but none seem to appear before that. And from that date down the years the name in various spellings appear in various parts of England, but Yorkshire appears to have been the original home. Some from here were given high rank, and a coat of arms. Some of the lines died out, and with the many changes in spelling, it is very questionable as to who is who today.
We find in England, Lynley, Linllies, Lyndsley, Lindly, Lindley, Linley, Lindsey, Lindsay, Linsey, etc. Are these all the same family? It may well be questioned, but on this side we find as many and we find statements that families here changed, because someone thought a certain spelling was right, and others as they wanted to be different, so it is very hard now to say what was correct 900 years ago.
By the year 1639, when our ancestor is reported as coming to Connecticut, the name in many spellings are not much like the Lindley, we may question if they are related. Lindsay is said to be an entirely different name. It may be only a misspelling.
So it became a question as to what part of England John and Francis (his brother) came from. Two historians of early Connecticut, Cothren and Atwater disagree. The first says from southwest of London, the other northwest. I have a copy of a letter by Joel Lindsley, a descendant of Francis, written in 1896, in which he states it as his belief they came from County Durham, away in the north of England, and Atwater in his early New Haven history, believes that John came with Henry Witfield's company in 1639 and settled in Guilford. This company was largely from Kent, Sussex, and Surry, all in the south of England, but he did have some from other parts, Cambridgeshire, Huntingtonshire, Leicestershire, and London, and perhaps others.
Unfortunately, our John and Francis were not important enough to be recorded as some were. But we know certain facts from records on this side to which any comers from the other side must fit to be John and Francis. And in my efforts to dig up facts, many records from various parts of England show they cannot apply to our John and Francis. However, I have found one family that maybe. I do not say it is. I say only it maybe. John and Francis were very common names among the family in old England. Thomas and Richard seemed to be perhaps among the first mentioned and were also very common. So wherever we look for records, we find these names, also Ralph, Phillip, William, George, and Christopher.
It is my belief John and Francis may have come from Althorpe in Lincolnshire, as from all facts I can so far get, they seem to disappear there, and appear here, and all seems to fit into one picture. But there seems still to be lacking the actual record to show they are the same boys.
In the quotations used, the name will be as used by the writer, at other times the name will be spelled as it seems to have been used by the owner. And John's line seems to use the "Linsley" spelling almost entirely, while Francis' line used a "d" and some omitted the "s".
It May Be
Here is the copy of a will that may be the key to our ancestry in old England:
"Archidiaconal Court of Stow Wills 1640-1650, i, folio 24" 26 Feb 1639
I John Linsey of Althorpe victualler
My bodye to be buryed in the church or church yard of Althorpe
To Anne Linsey my wyfe all that my house in Althorpe wth the croft adioyneinge wth all and singuler thappurtenances thereto belonginge for her life and after to be and remaine vnto Richard Linsey and Francis Linsey sonnes of me and the above said Anne my wyfe and to their heires and for want of issue of them the sd Richard and Francis Linsey then to be and remaine vnto John Linsey and Thomas Linsey my sonnes by a former venter and if it happen that all my sd foure sonnes shall dye wthout yssue then the foresd premisses to be and remaine vnto Anne Linsey my daughter and to her heires for euer
To John Linsey my sonne L 30 to be paid him when he shall accomplish the age of seaven and twentye
To Thomas Linsey my sonne L 30 to be paid him when he shall accomplish the age of tow and twentye yeares
To Anne Linsey my daughter (under 21) L 30
To Richard Linsey and Francis Linsey my sonnes L 17 wch is in their granmothers hand to be equallye devided betwixt them
All the rest of my goods I give vnto Anne Linsey my wife and Francis Linsey my sonne and doe make them executors
I doe appoint supravisrs Will'm Morrison and Thomas Maston
Debtes oweing by ths testator
To Mr Wm Tharrot L 10 To Will'm Ambye 19s. To Mr Wm Browne L 1 2s. ---------------------- Summe L 12 1s. sign' Joh'i Linsey Witnesses here to Will: Jaques Will'i sign
sign' Morrison Thom' . . . . . . . . l Proved at Gainsburgh 9 . . . . . . . . . l ber 1644, by the oath of Anne Linsey executrix, resrving power to grant to Francis Linsey the other executor when he shall come
The will is damaged From this will we learn that John Linsey of Althorpe, a village in the "Isle of Axholme" in Lincolnshire close to the Yorkshire border, was leaving four sons, John, Thomas by his first wife, and Richard and Francis and a daughter, Anne, by his second wife, whose name was Anne.
To get a little more detail on the family we go to the parish Register and finf the following records:
"Search for Linsey in the Bishops' Transcripts of Althorpe Parish Registers from Ladyday 1613 to Ladydat 1668
Years missing: 1622 to 1659 inclusive, 1661, 1664 Defects: 1613. Signatures illegible; burials mostly illegible
1614. Burials mostly illegible 1615. The signatures and most of the burials are torn off
1617. The signatures and probably a burial or two are torn off
1621 The signatures are partly illegible 1667 Burials partly illegible 1614. Margreet Linsey was bur. 15 Jun 1614-15. John Linsey & Elizabeth Messenger marr. 9 Feb 1614 Robert Linsey son of Thomas of Keadbie bap. 11Dec 1615-16. Francis Linsey son of John of Althorp bap. 11 Jan
1616-17. Mary Linsey was bur. 21 Mar 1616-17. Mary Linsey daughter of John of Althorp bap 26 Feb
1617-18. Thomas Lynsey bur. 18 Mar 1617-18. William Lynsey and Mary Cotten marr. 12 Feb 1617-18. George Linsey the sonne of John of Althorp bap. 4 Jan
1618. Will'm Lynsey the sonns of Thomas of Althorp bap. 2 Aug
1619. Mary the daughter of William Lindsey of Althorpe bap. 4 Apr
1620. John the sonne of John Lindsey of Althorpe bap 9 Apr
1622,Ladyday. John Lindsey signs either a church warden or a sidesman
1621-2. John Browne and Isabell Lindsey marr. 4 Mar 1660. Dorithy the daughter of Richard Lindsey late of Keadby bur 14 Jul
1660-1. Rebecca the daughter of Richard Lindsey of Althorpe bur. 3 Jan
1663. Rebecca the daughter of Richard Lindsey of Althorpe and of Mary his wife bap. 10 May
1663. Rebecca the daughter of Richard Lindsey of Althorpe was bur. 21 Nov
From the Bishop's Transcripts for Burton Upon Stathor, "1617 the 22th day (May) was ffrancis Linsey sonne of John Linsey of Adelhorpe buryed." From the above we learn these facts: 1614-15 John Linsey & Elizabeth Messenger married 9 Feb
1615-16 Francis son of John & Elizabeth baptized 11 Jan
1616-17 Mary daughter of John & Elizabeth baptized 26 Feb
1616-17 Mary daughter of John & Elizabeth buried 21 Mar
1617-18 George son of John & Elizabeth baptized 4 Jan
1620 John son of John & Elizabeth baptized 9 Apr
1622 John Linsey signs register
1617 Francis Linsey was buried in Burton very near Althorpe
Then comes a bad break in the record, 37 years are gone forever. But by reading the will and what registers we have, we see that the first wife, Elizabeth, and son George, as well as Francis and the daughter, Mary are dead, and a son, Thomas, must have been born in 1621 or 22 and is living in Feb 1638. It would seem that Elizabeth must have died at or very soon after Thomas was born, and left John of Althorpe, with two very small boys, John perhaps only about 2 years old, and Thomas just a baby, so father, John Linsey, married a second wife, Anne, and they had a daughter, Anne and sons, Richard and Francis. We have no dates for these but Elizabeth probably died in 1621-22. And listing the children as named in the will, Anne may have been born in 1622-2, Richard 1624-5, and Francis 1626-1627.
So that when John of Althorpe made his will in Feb 1638, his son John would be nearly 18 years old, Thomas probably 16, Anne may be 15, and Richard 13 or 14, leaving Francis 11 or 12 yrs. old.
Now look at the will again, John the eldest son is given only 30 pounds, and must wait 9 years for that, or until he is twenty-seven. Thomas fares a little better, as he only has to wait six years, till he is twenty-two. But Anne and her brothers have no restrictions in time specified except that they are under 21, and wife Anne, and her youngest son, Francis are the executors and heirs to all the remainder.
This in the day when stepmothers were quite unpopular and when John the eldest son by custom should be given the large part in his father's estate. Usually at the least double what other sons got.
Under all the circumstances it would be the most natural thing for John, and possibly Thomas to leave Althorpe. And this came at the date when many men of England were coming to the new world to get freedom to live as they wished. It would be most natural for one or both of these boys to come with Davenport in 1638 or with Whitfield in 1639 or maybe some other group.
So far the writer has no record as to what became of Thomas, but our John is reported to have been in New Haven in 1639, and could easily fit in as John, son of John of Althorpe, born in 1620.
Francis was much younger and likely to get more of the estate, and may have stayed in England longer. But when the will was proved in Gainsburgh in 1644 his mother Anne, "reserves power to grant to Francis, the other executor, when he shall come". Showing that he had gone to some distant spot. And if this is our Francis, he was here in Connecticut.
Thus John and Francis, sons of John Linsey of Althorpe in Lincolnshire, could fit in on this side perfectly and so far, the writer has fond no further record of them in England.
John and Francis Linley
Perhaps the first writer to mention John and Francis was Cothren in "History of Ancient Woodbury" in 1854, page 605, when he said "The first persons of this name who settled Branford came to that place in 1640. The name does not appear of record, however, till 1646. Their names were John and Francis, who emigrated from a place not far to the southwest of London."
Atwater in his excellent history of the "Colony of New Haven" says on page 615, "John and Francis Linsley came from the northwest of London:, which is very different from Cothren's southwest. And on page 627, Atwater lists John as coming on the second ship which came into New Haven on 15 Jul 1639 and states "he settled in Guilford." Then again on page 598 he lists John and Francis in a group of 37 which left Wethersfield early in 1644 under Wm Swain and settled in Branford.
Stiles in his early "History of Wethersfield", writing of the various emigrations from Wethersfield, due to dissension in the church, states that the early records of this group are such that it is impossible to say just who did go and lists only 13, and does not include John or Francis as going to New Haven.
To this, one may add a long list of family traditions, in print or verbal and very, very, plainly they cannot all be correct, so we turn to definite facts of record.
Our first record is of John found on page 139 of the New Haven Colonial Records, 1 Jul 1644, as printed, when the name "John Linley" is in the list of those who took the "oath of Fidelity Att a Genrill Court held at New Haven." At the same time, Theophilus Eaton took the oath as "Governor within New Haven jurisdiction".
Then on page 176 of the same volume, "Francis Linley" appears in a lawsuit, which is quoted as it gives us much information:
"At a court held the 3rd of December, 1645," "Stephen Medcalfe complayned that he going into the howse of John Linley, Francis Linley, his brother, being in the howse told him he would sell him a gunne, the said Stephen asked him if it were a good one, he answered yea, as any was in the towne, wherevpon they bargajned, and Stephen was to give him 17s. As Stephen was going out of dores he questioned the sufficiency of the locke, Francis told him indeed "John Mash told him she was not worth 3d, but for his part he did not vallew it worse for that, for Smithes do not affect olde gunnes, for he knew one gunne wch John Nash disprajsed wch is a good one for all that, soe Stephen went home & afterward dischardging the said gunne the brich flew out & struck into his eye and wounded deepe and dangerously into the head."
"Francis Linley pleaded that he told Stephen that John Mash told him the gunne was naught, that it was not worth 3d, that the barrell was thinne and would not bare a new britch and advized Stephen to scoure her well and if he tryed her to put a little chardge in her".
"Mr. Gregson and John Nash testified that when he was examined before Mr. Gregson, Francis Linley denyed he had told Stephen the barrell was thinne and would not beare a new britch, that it was crackt on one side from the britch to the touch-hole".
"John Nash testified that he tould Francis it was a very naughty peece, not worth the mendinge, & yet he prest him to mend it as well as he could & let it be as it will, he told him moreover that the barrell at the britch was as thin as a shilling, crsckt from the britch to the touch-hole, and would not beare a britch, and after he had mended it, he tould him, he would not give 3d for it, and to his best rememberance, he saith, he tould him he would not dischardge it for all New -haven, for it would doe some mischeife".
"Richard Myles also testified that he heard John Nash speak much of her badness & vnserviceableness to Francis Linley".
John Linley being "demanded why he was taken with such a quakeinge and trembling when Stephen was going to shoote", he said "he did not quack nor tremble".
Thomas Clarke testified vppon oath, "that John Linley tould him when he heard Stephen dischardge the gunne that he was affraid he had hurt himselfe".
Good wife Fancy testified, "that John Linley came oft times to speake with Stephen, when he thought he lay vppon his death bedd, to know if he would cleare his brother, for he said he feared he had hard thoughts of his brother concerning the gun". Mr. Pell confirmed her testimony.
Richard Beech affirmed that Francis offered him that gun to sell & demanded 20s telling him to his best remembrance that it had a new britch.
The court considering the premises, the great damadge Stephen Medcalfe had sustayned in the losse of his eye, with the losse of his time & the great chardge of the cure, Mr. Pell affirming it was worth 10L, ordered "Francis Linley to pay Stephen Medcalfe 20L damages".
Now what do we today get out of the above evidence? First, John and Francis are three times spoken of as "brothers". Next, they were living at "John's howse" and this indicates John was probably the elder and very probably married. And some months have evidently elapsed between the accident and the trial. It would seem likely that the trouble happened early in 1645 or clear back in 1644.
Then too, we know it all took place in New Haven; Metcalf himself was a signer of the fundamental agreement, by all New Haven Plantors June 1639, and one of the town's drummers and had a "Cutlers Shopp".
John Nash was a gunsmith in New Haven, and the others named were all New Haven men.
This 20L was a very heavy load for a young man, starting in the Colony, but as we find no further record, it was probably paid promptly.
Now, if one or both of the boys came over in 1639, where have they been for 5 years. If they were actually with the Wethersfield Group that came down to settle Branford, early in 1644, why had they lived for 2 years in New Haven.
Well, it is my firm belief they were two boys, and if these are the boys from Althorpe, England, they would fir that view.
John born in 1620 would have been only 19 in 1639 and unless connected with someone of rank or wealth, would not count for much but work in the new land. Since so many of our early writers seem to believe he came in 1639, I am inclined to believe probably he did, and had probably spent these 5 years working where he could and perhaps he had been up to Windsor, Hartford or Wethersfield, and did come down with the Group under Mr. Swain, and while some few may have gone to Branford in 1644, there probably were very few houses out there and he, therefore, was in New Haven. There is another possibility, that his time was spent at East Hampton, L.I.
Now as to Francis, he appears to be younger. If he is the brother of John from Althorpe, he would be about 14 in 1639, and he might have come with John in 1639, but that seems doubtful, perhaps he came over later.
Francis does not seem to be a man of mature years at this trial. He could not have been born in 1600, and within 4 months after this trial he had a contract early in 1646 to look after the cows of Branford, when they were out to pasture, this was renewed in 1647 and later years.
This seems more of a job for a boy of 18 or 19 than a mature man, but all this is just theory. We still have no definite record as to when they came over or where from.
However, from here on things are more clear. they both drew land in Branford in 1646 and settled there later. Francis remained there till the union of the New Haven and Connecticut Colonies, when he and his family went to New Jersey. John was in Guilford for six years, 1648 to 1654, but appears to spend the rest of his life in Branford.
Branford, CT
It seems proper here to insert a chapter on Branford, the home of our line. It has used three names: Totoket, Brainford, Branford.
On December 31, 1638, New Haven Colony made an additional purchase of territory of the Indians, comprising among others, that of Branford, for which they gave thirteen coats. It was then called "Totoket" form a range of hills in the northern part of the town, named by the Indians.
The deeds were signed by Montowese and Sawsemeck, chief and his friend. The signature of Montowese was a bow and arrow, and that of Sawsemeck, a rude hatchet. The Indians continued to reside there and were according to the terms of the deed, allowed to hunt, fish, and cut basket timber.
On September 3, 1640, the "General Court" at New Haven made a grant of "Totoket " to Mr. Samuel Eaton, upon condition of his procuring number of his friends to settle there. Mr. Eaton went to England for one purpose of getting those friends, but did not fulfill his contract and decided to stay in England.
Three years later (1643) "Totoket" was granted to Mr. William Swain and others from Wethersfield, upon their agreeing to assume the expenses already incurred, amounting to about $70.00, and uniting with New Haven in the fundamental articles of government.
This is evidently where the confusion as to the date Branford was settled comes in. Eaton got his right in 1640 and it seems some settlement was started. For according to an address by Rev. E. C. Robbins at the Bare Plain Chapel in North Branford on 25 Oct 1880, "Thomas Mulliner and Thomas Whitewaie were settled in Branford when the land was bought from the indians in 1638". And it appears that before the New Haven authorities turned Totoket over to Wm. Swain and the men from Wethersfield, they persuaded Thos. Mulliner to release his claim to a large piece of land. And while Bith Mulliner and Whitewaie are on the list of those who drew land in the regular assignment, it is reported they soon left and went elsewhere.
Stiles history of Wethersfield speaks of the divisions in the church there, which had continued for sometime. Counsel had been sought of Rev. John Davenport of New Haven and others, who advised a separation. Some went to Stamford and some to Branford, and some elsewhere.
In some of these Stiles gives, supposed to be the full list, but for Branford he admits he does not have the full list. He names 13 who he thinks went to Branford, and Atwater's history of New Haven gives a much longer list (37) and includes both John and Francis, not included by Stiles.
Mr. Swain was given the right in 1643. Stiles and Atwater say the men came in 1644. But the first official record of the assignment of land is in book 1 page 1, of Branford under date of 7 Jul 1646, two years later, as follows:
Jo: Hill (1,2,3) Jo: Sargent (1-3) Theo Blochly (1,2,3) Thm Morris (1,2,3) Jo ward (1,2,3) Rog Bettis (1,2,3) W Lyslie Bradfeild (1,2,3) W Wm Maysant (1,2,3) Tho ffener (1,2,3) Tho Whitwaie (1,2-) Dan Dod (1-3) Tho Lupton (1,2,3) Jo Lynly (1,2,3) Jo Norton (2) Ric Harrison (1,2,-) Gor Ward (1,2,3) Mr. Sherman (1,2,3) W Reserved (1,2,3) Sa Swaine (1,2,3) ffra Lynly (1,2,3) Ro Rosse (1,2,3) Lor Ward (1,2,3) Ro Maker (1,2,3) Jo: England (1,2,3) Tho Mulliner (1-3) Ric Williams (1-3) Mr. Swaine (1-2-3) W Jo Edwards (1,2,3) W Sig Richall (1,2,3) W Wm Palmer (1,2,3) W Ric Laurance (1,2,3) Jo Plum (1,2,3) Ed Tredwell (2-3) Ro Abbott (3) W Sam Nettleton (2-3) There were to be four drawings, but only three were recorded and some only appear in one or two as shown.
The 8 marked "W" are listed by Stiles as leaving Wethersfield. And all in the list except Mr. Sherman, Tho Mulliner, Jo Sargent, Wm Maysant, and Ric Williams are listed by Atwater as coming from Wethersfield.
The Mr. (John) Sherman in the above list was their pastor and great grandfather of Roger Sherman. He was succeeded in 1645 by Abraham Pierson, who was father of the first president of Yale.
On 16 Sep 1646, these are listed again in regard to a fence to be built, all but Tho ffener and Ric Williames are included.
In the above list are ancestors of our line as follows: Jo Lynly, Ric Harrison, Ro Rosse, Mr. Swaine, Wm Palmer.
With the exception of 6 years in Guilford, John Sr. spent his life in Branford, and John Jr. and John 3rd and Jonathan were born and lived their lives in Branford.
And the fourth generation, the children of John 3rd and brother, Jonathan, were all born and most of them spent their lives there.
Branford was not set off as a town but was part of New Haven till 1685. Connecticut State Register says it was named in 1653, for Brentford, England, and settled in 1639. This same date of settlement is used for Guilford, Milford, Stratford, and Fairfield, all under New Haven in 1639, but named in later years and finally became independent towns.
In 1662 King Charles II of England granted a new charter to "Connecticut", which included all the land of the New Haven Colony and removed the management of civil affairs from the hands of the church.
There was much opposition to the consolidation by New Haven, until 1664, when four Royal Commissioners and war vessels with troops arrived. Then on 14 Dec 1664 the New Haven and Connecticut Colonies agreed. But this was so obnoxious to Mr. Abraham Pierson, leader of the Branford Church, that he and many of the church arrange at once to go to New Jersey. The removal took place early in 1666 and included men from many of the new towns beside Branford, who felt the church should rule.
Some writers have said Branford was left with hardly a settler and no church. However, that does not seem to be correct. Many left but others were invited in.
On 20 Jan 1667-8, from the records, "The New Plantation and Church Covenant of Brainford, Conn." was signed. Among the signatures are the following:
Mich. Palmer John Linsley Jr. John Linsley William Maltby Eleazer Stent Francis Tyler Peter Tyler Daniel Swain Mich Taintor Edward Frisbie Francis Linsley Thomas Harrison William Hoadley John Taintor Francis appears to have left very soon after signing the above, and settled in New Jersey. His marriage on 24 Jun 1655 to Susana Cullpeper is duly recorded page 170 of Branford Record volume 1. The birth of his three daughters, Deborah, Ruth and Bethia are all of record in Branford vital records page 172. His son Ebenezer was also very probably born here but does not seem to be recorded.
A little before 1700 land was laid out and a new church society started in the northern part of Branford, which came to be known as The North Farms, and eventually the town of North Branford in 1831.
North Branford, settlement was just over North of the line that is now the division between Branford and North Branford towns. They did not get a separate church till 1725, and by that time, the section still further north and now called Northford was getting settled. Early writers state it was first called Salem, and no reason for change is known. The demand for a church here was pressing, but it remained under the North Branford Church till 13 Jul 1750.
|
