Make your own free website on Tripod.com

Rev. Edward Bulkeley's Two Wives

 

EDWARD BULKELEY’S THREE BETROTHALS
AND TWO MARRIAGES: A CORRECTION TO
JACOBUS’S THE BULKELEY GENEALOGY

Robert M. Gerrity, MA, MPA
rmg@yankeeancestry.com

Updated through 6/30/06

 

When F. W. Chapman noted in 1875, "Few records are preserved concerning his ministry or himself,"{1} in regards to Edward Bulkeley, the son of and successor to a co-founding minister of Concord, Massachusetts, he was quite accurate. That remains the situation to this day, given the loss both of Bulkeley family papers and of pre-1680 Concord town and church records. Subsequent research in original archives teased out enough information to enable Donald Lines Jacobus to fill out Edward’s biographical sketch in his magisterial The Bulkeley Genealogy (1933). Yet even then there was material already in print that, had he known of it, would have led Jacobus to substantially re-write that sketch.

Edward Bulkeley

Edward Bulkeley was baptized at Odell, Bedfordshire, England on 12 June 1614, the first child of Rev. Peter Bulkeley, Rector of Odell, and his first wife Jane Allen.[2] He was named after his grandfather, Rev. Edward Bulkeley D. D., the previous Rector of Odell who was living in retirement with Peter’s family. Just after his mother’s death and a few months shy of his fifteenth birthday, Edward matriculated as a pensioner of St. Catharine’s College, Cambridge, in the Easter term, 1629. There is no record he returned to college. He was sent to Boston, Massachusetts no later than the fall of 1634 as he was admitted a member of the First Church on 22 March 1634/5 as "Edward Buckly, a singleman."[3] Between then and when he was dismissed to Concord as "Mr. Edward Bulkley", with the congregation’s silent approbation on 15 August 1641, he continued his ministerial training under John Cotton.[4] He was hired by the church at Marshfield in Plymouth Colony about 1642 in succession to the town’s first minister, Richard Blinman.[5] He had returned to Concord by mid-1657, likely due to the deterioration of his father’s health.[6] After Rev. Peter’s death in early 1659, Edward succeeded to the Concord pulpit where he remained the senior pastor through 1694, though Joseph Estabrook was hired to assist him in 1667.[7] Edward was invited to preach only one Election Sermon, that of 1680, which was not printed, but an earlier Thanksgiving sermon gained wide notice when it was published with Captain Thomas Wheeler’s account of the fight at Brookfield during King Philip’s War.[8] While at least one Concord parishioner considered Edward’s talent for leading communal prayer to be lacking (and said so publicly to the detriment of his purse),[9] his fellow towns-people thought well him. In 1694 they voted what was in effect a guaranteed retirement pension, so "the people may testifie their gratitude for his former services in the Gospel . . . ."[10] Jacobus, slightly paraphrasing Cotton Mather, describes him as "being lame and of a feeble constitution," and "greatly reputed for his talents, acquirements, irreproachable character, and piety."[11] Edward died in his 82nd year on 2 January 1695/6 at Chelmsford, then a town bordering Concord.[12] He was buried in Concord, likely with his father, but these graves can no longer be found. He left no will. His share of his father’s library and his own papers have been totally lost.[13]

This is most of what Chapman knew in 1875. Subsequently, a trio of astute women were able to add much to Edward’s genealogical situation, all publishing their results in the Register. The first to do so was Emma F. Ware [14] in the Register (42:277). This Marshfield town record extract appears in a footnote to the article in which Ware untangles the family relationships that prove that Mary, the wife of Rev. Thomas Clarke of Chelmsford, was in fact a daughter of Edward Bulkeley. Jacobus alludes to this work indirectly, though he prints the crucial 1723 John Hancock receipt of the Elizabeth Fawkner bequest in full in his entry on Mary Bulkeley without any detailed explanation. [15] ( This receipt was originally printed in the Register [16](25:89).

But the first major discovery about Edward Bulkeley’s life was made in 1904 by Lucy Hall Greenlaw, wife of the then Librarian of this society. Mrs. Greenlaw located, in the Massachusetts Archives’ copy of the Plymouth Colony Records, a 28 July 1658 deed from Edward Bulkeley of Concord to Josias Winslow [Jr.] and Anthony Snow, both of Marshfield. Edward’s wife acknowledged it, per the terms of the deed itself, on the "9th day of the 9th month, 1668" or 9 November 1668, signing herself as "Lucian Buckley" before former Concord resident and Massachusetts Bay Assistant Simon Willard.[17] Given that Chapman could only say in 1875 that Edward’s wife’s "name has not been ascertained", this was a significant discovery.[18] Mrs. Greenlaw published the complete deed in the Register. Not remarked on by Mrs. Greenlaw is that this also shows Edward was married to Lucian when he originally signed the deed: "the said Mr Buckley doth engage that his wife shall resigne her interest in the lands abouesaid when demaunded, according to the order and custom of this Gournment of New Plymouth . . . ."[19] Only the woman to whom he was married in 1658 could have waived her interest in this particular property in 1668 under English common law.[20] Still, by itself, nothing in this deed would necessarily have drawn Mrs. Greenlaw’s attention to the issue of whether Lucian was Edward’s only wife.

As with the 1904 discovery, the two documents Holman forwarded to Jacobus were actually found by Miss Virginia Hall, who had already published them, again in the Register, in 1909.[21] Later, Clarence A. Torrey, picking up on the receipt reference in the first Holman document, burrowed through the Suffolk County Court file papers to find the chronologically next document. These three documents demonstrate Lucian was a widow with a daughter named Lucy from a previous marriage.[22]

The Suffolk County Court document, dated 28 January 1678[/79], was printed as a direct quote from the original:

It is ordered that the Administrators to the Estate of Mrs Lucy Lake bring an Accot. of that Estate to the Clerke of the Court and that they pay in the balance that is in their hands unto her mother Mrs Lucy Anna Bulkeley (Mr. Edwd. Bulkeley her Husband giving a receipt to the Clerke for the same) to remain in her hands until some other person may make a better claim to it.[23]

The next Suffolk Probate record, dated 10 April 1679, is the receipt mentioned above and was printed as follows:

Rev. Edward Bulkeley’s receipt, dated 10 Apr. 1679, in behalf of his wife Lucey Anna Bulkeley for the sum of sixty pounds, eight shillings, from the estate of Lucey Lake, widow, was witnessed by Thomas Clarke and Jane Bulkeley [his son-in-law and daughter].[24 ]

The final Suffolk Probate document, dated 10 March 1679/80, reads:

Administration on the estate of Mrs Lucey Lake late of Boston, widow, (relict of Mr. John Lake) deceased intestate (formerly granted unto Deacon Henry Alline, Deacon Peter Bracket and Mr John Haywood, overseers, of her Husbands will in right of those to whom it should legally appear to belong) is transferred unto Peter Bulkeley, Her Brother, 10 Mar. 1679/80.[25]

As these were "provided to me", Jacobus did not independently verify the [Missing text which will be supplied] information or critically evaluate the documents.[26] Also, in the style of the times, these are given general citations only as "Suffolk County Court" and "Suffolk County Probate" files. No volume or page numbers are given by Jacobus though Miss Hall provided such specifics for the third document on its original publication.[27] From all these, Jacobus constructed his Edward Bulkeley sketch. This is where research has rested until now.

Mrs. Greenlaw was on the correct research path of reviewing Plymouth colony records. If the Lucian evidence about Edward’s marriage had not seem so explanatory by itself, Jacobus might have been led to discover further information already available to him in print; documents reproduced by Bowman in The Mayflower Descendant and others in the Plymouth Colony Records volumes published from 1855 on. These prove that though Edward Bulkeley was certainly married to a woman named Lucian with a daughter from a previous marriage, Lucian was his second wife. And between his two marriages, Edward was briefly betrothed to another woman.

While Edward’s career at Concord has received some attention, reading Chapman and Jacobus showed me that his Marshfield career had not. I turned, therefore, to review printed Plymouth Colony sources, and there I encountered Grace Halloway.

Jacobus and the Recognized Facts

Jacobus’ 1933 compilation was based on material originally published by Chapman in 1875, added to by subsequent Bulkeley family genealogists, and re-worked and vetted by Jacobus himself.[28] In addition to wrestling this material into print, Jacobus’ major scholarly contribution to the project was the ancestral lines research on Peter Bulkeley’s two wives. Those first ninety pages provide the foundation by which many Americans can trace Royal lineages.[29]

The bulk of this nearly 900 page book is a seven-generation study that gives equal weight to females and their children as well as to the male lines of descent. So vast an undertaking needed help from others in the matter of documentation. In addition to those acknowledged in his foreword, Jacobus thanks by name Mrs. Marion Lovering Holman and Mr. Clarence A. Torrey for providing him with material used in his Edward Bulkeley sketch.[30]

Neither did the materials Holman and Torrey contributed to Jacobus’ profile of Edward.

Grace and Edward

Grace Halloway received her letters of administration on her late husband William’s estate at a Plymouth Court of Assistant’s session of 1 March 1652/53.[31] The Court made the following accommodation on her behalf, "in regard of [her] present infirmity, shee being not able to appeer at the Court, Captaine Standish and Mr. Alden are appointed to require her oath unto the inventory of said estate at home." The nature of the "infirmity" (pregnancy or actual illness) is unknown.

This William Halloway appears on the Arms List of 1643 for Marshfield.[32] He was made a freeman the following year on the same day as "Mr. Buckley".[33] The spelling of his last name is various: Halloway, Holloway or Hallowell appear in the printed Plymouth Colony records.[34] He does not seem to be related to the William Holloway family of Taunton.[35] Only two children of William and Grace are known: daughters Grace and Hannah.[36]

The courting of widow Grace and minister Edward became official when both appeared before the Plymouth Court of Assistants at its session of 5 January 1654:

The widdow Hallowell being graunted letters of administration on the estate of William Hallowell, deceased, doth allow unto her two daughters ten pounds apeece to either of them, and doth by these presents bind herself for the performance of it; Mr Buckley being bound with her for the securities of the said portions, to bee paid at the day of theire marriage. If either of them die before then, the survivor to enjoy the portion of the deceased. In witnesses wee have set to our hands this fift of January 1653.[37]

"Grace Halloway" made her mark and "Edward Buckley" signed his name.[38] The phrase "either of them" in the document refers to the two daughters, and not to Grace or Edward, as it directly references the "portions". For so official a pre-nuptial agreement, a marriage date must have seemed imminent to the couple and to the community. But eighteen months later, "Mr. Edward Buckley" came again to the Court of Assistants, this time alone:

At the Court held at Plymouth the 8th of June, 1654, Mr Edward Buckley came into the Court, and was cleared of these engagements, and John Phillipses is entered in his stead. [39]

Edward and Grace must have long since ended the betrothal as Grace would marry John Phillips in the following month. [40] Edward’s appearance at court was a matter of legal "housecleaning" to wrap up the public details of his relationship with Grace.

Grace Halloway and John Phillips married on 9 July 1654 in Marshfield.[41] She was his second wife. They had no recorded children. Following Grace’s death in the summer of 1666 (by lightening, apparently),[42] John Phillips married at Plymouth on 14 March 1666/7 for his third wife and as her second husband Faith (Clark) Doty.[43]

The Bulkeley and Phillips families remained involved with each other even after Edward’s departure for Concord. While no formal lease was recorded, John Phillips’ son, John "junior", is almost certainly the tenant referred to in the Bulkeley deed of 28 July 1658 to Winslow and Snow found by Greenlaw.[44] The pertinent clause reads: ". . . it is also agreed Mr Buckley his tenant whoe is now upon the land before mentioned shall not be molested in his lease nor putt of the land but by composition." As the property was leased at the time of the sale, and as the Marshfield town meeting had already referred to it on 13 August 1657 as "the house and land that Mr. Bulkley late lived in,"[45] clearly Edward had returned to Concord no later than the spring of 1657, a full eighteen months before his father’s death. That the younger Phillips was in possession of what had been the Bulkeley house is confirmed by the report on his startlingly death.

On 4 August 1658, the Plymouth Court of Assistants empanelled a special twelve-man jury to

site upon the corpse of John Phillipes Junr, whoe very suddenly expired on Satterday, the last of July, 1658 – Wee find, that this present day, John Phillips, Junr, came into his dwelling lately known or called Mr. Buckleyes house, in good health, as Goodwife Williamson afeirmith, and satt upon a stoole by the chimney, and by an immediate hand of God, manifested in thunder and lightening, the said John Phillipes came by his death. [46]

God, it seems, chose to "compose" with John Phillips Jr. about his future before Josias Winslow and Anthony Snow could do so about the land he leased.

Edward's Children

Addressing the question of "who is Lucian" is beyond the scope of this paper.[47] Of direct import is the question of whether Lucian could have been the mother of any of Edward’s known children. I believe the answer is yes. But what we know of the children needs to be restated to clarify that answer.

The exact birth order of all of Edward’s children is a mystery. Certainly Peter and Elizabeth are the children of his first wife, Peter by his given birth date in Concord Vital Records and Elizabeth by calculating her birth year range from her 1665 marriage date. (Jacobus’ suggested birth year for her is discussed below.) As we now know Edward was a widower for at least part of 1653, all of 1654, and for at least the first half of 1655, calculated birth years for his children that fall within these years of widowhood have to be discounted. Such age ranges must be narrowed towards 1652 or towards 1657.

By applying this guideline, it appears that John is a child of the first wife. All of the transcriptions of the earliest Marshfield vital records give John’s burial date as "26 of february, 1655."[48] As that date, whether interpreted as "1655" or correctly as "1656," falls within the period of Edward’s widowhood, John cannot have been either a newborn or even a toddler at his death. The youngest John could have been was 2 ½ years old, his birth occurring no later than July 1653. John was, therefore, a child of Edward’s first wife.

Mary and Jane are, on the other hand, children of Lucian. Jane is known as a Bulkeley by the record of her marriage at Concord to Ephraim Flint on 20 (1) 1683/4 or 20 March 1684.[49] They had no recorded children. As Flint himself was born in 1642,[50] the unstated assumption of both Chapman and Jacobus was that Jane was at least Ephraim’s age at marriage or no more than seven years younger, giving her a calculated birth year range of 1641-1648. If such were the case, then Jane would be a daughter of the first wife. Yet there is no evidence for this assumption. That Ephraim and Jane had no recorded children is evidence only that there were no recorded children, not that Jane was menopausal at the time of her marriage and so incapable of bearing children. If we apply the standard range of female ages at first marriage to her marriage date, we get a birth year range of 1659-1666. Such a range would make her very likely a child of Lucian.

The reasoning by age calculation to call Mary a daughter of Lucian is as compelling as that for Jane. While Mary’s actual marriage date to Thomas Clarke is unknown, given he was ordained at Chelmsford in 1677 and their first recorded child was born in December 1679, they must have married no latter than the fall of 1678. (They were certainly married by 10 April 1679, a point missed by Jacobus. See discussion immediately below.) Her calculated range of birth years would then be 1653-1660. As we know Edward’s years of widowhood include mid-1653 to mid-1655, those years for Mary’s birth are eliminated. Mary was likely born either in 1652 or 1657-1659. If in the former year, she would the first wife’s daughter. If in the latter years, she’s Lucian’s daughter. Jacobus prints "say 1653", but cites no authority and gives no reason in support of that date.[51] Only if Mary was older than 26 years of age at her marriage could she be a daughter of Edward’s first wife. While this is possible, there is no evidence at all that that is the case. In the absence of such evidence, we should assume the norm for this period, which is that women tended to make first marriages at the lower end of the marriage age range. Thus Mary is also a daughter of Lucian and she is thus likely older than Jane.

It turns out that there is direct supporting evidence for this argument in a closer review of one of the documents already been mentioned. This is the Edward Bulkeley receipt of 10 April 1679 found by Clarence A. Torrey. Regarding Mary and Jane, its most important detail is the following: Edward Bulkeley’s signature was witnessed by his son-in-law Thomas Clarke (daughter Mary’s husband) and also by his daughter Jane Bulkeley, who, to be able sign as a single woman in her own right, had to be at least eighteen years old. Edward was signing on behalf of Lucian for 60£ cash from her daughter Lucy Lake’s estate. Lucy died intestate in May 1678, having received back from her husband John Lake, in his August 1677 will, the value of her dowry. As Edward signed for Lucian, the money must represent part of that dowry, which under law would be considered still part of Lucy’s father’s estate, to which Lucian as his widow would remain heir. In ordering the disbursement and requiring the receipt, the Suffolk County Court specified that it would be held in Lucian’s name "until some other person[s] who may make a better claim to it" came forth. This is boilerplate language to cover a situation where there are other living inheritors under John Lake’s will, but no children from the second marriage. What it does raise for us is the issue of other heirs-at-law for Lucy herself beyond her mother.

Lucy Lake’s siblings would be those persons. Then why is it that Edward’s son Peter and his other son-in-law, Rev. Joseph Emerson, then of Concord, acting on behalf of his wife Elizabeth (Bulkeley) Emerson, do not also sign this receipt? Is it just happenstance that Edward brought Jane with him to Boston from Concord and that son-in-law Clarke came in from Chelmsford? Unlikely.

Only if Peter and Elizabeth were half-siblings of Lucy through their mother would their signatures have been required. Sharing the same mother would have made them heirs to Lucian and to any assets that would come to her. But they did not sign. Peter and Elizabeth are, therefore, step-siblings to Lucy Lake, connected to her only through their father’s marriage to Lucian.

Mary and Jane, on the other hand, must be half-sisters to Lucy by having the same mother. It is the only legal link that Lucy, Mary and Jane together could share that they could not share with Peter and Elizabeth. This may be the most direct documentary evidence we will ever have demonstrating that Lucian is the mother of Mary and Jane.

Is there any similar import to the shift of estate administration in 1680 to Lucy’s stepbrother, the younger Peter Bulkeley? Not from the probate document as we have it. Clearly, property of some value in Boston required supervision or the then administrators would have continued to handle minor matters without recourse to the probate court. As most probate matters in the 17th and 18th centuries never made it to court, something of value was at stake here. As Lucy Lake’s stepfather, Edward Bulkeley would normally have been the person to take on oversight of the estate’s remaining assets. However, as Edward was now in his mid-60s and as his son Peter was already a significant Bay Colony politico with much business in Boston, the younger man took on this responsibility. Only if additional receipts turn up in what are known as "the Suffolk Files" will we learn more about the disposition of this estate. There are no records in Suffolk Deeds, volumes 1 through 14, referencing the estate of Lucy Lake.

These step-sibling/half-sibling relationships among Edward’s children explain something long noted by genealogists and which was the original insight that sent Lucy Hall Greenlaw off a hundred years ago to search through Plymouth deeds. The names Lucian and Lucy are not used in the Bulkeley-Emerson-Clarke families before the Bulkeley women marry into the latter two families. Elizabeth Emerson’s first daughter, born 2 October 1667, is named Lucian, while Mary Clarke’s first daughter, born in December 1679, is named Lucy. Elizabeth’s naming her child after her step-mother, and not her own biological mother, demonstrates Elizabeth’s appreciation of the positive maternal role Lucian had come to play in her life. Mary’s choice of Lucy as her child’s name also honors her mother. But the name’s particular spelling marks it as more of a remembrance of the older half-sibling who had died the year before. This was the sister who had made her home in the bustling seaport of Boston so far from the quiet country village of Concord, the sister who’s husband called her in his will "my dear, much beloved wife." A sentiment one of her siblings certainly seems to have shared.

The above analysis leads me to conclude that Edward’s children by Lucian are Mary and Jane, in that order. But what of his first wife and their children, Peter, Elizabeth and John?

Edward and his First Wife

We are almost back to where Chapman was in 1875 with no idea what were Edward’s first wife’s names. Yet there are things we can know and so need to bear in mind for further research.

The first has to do with the children’s names. Beyond the Edward-Peter-Edward first son sequence that spanned the seventeenth-century,[52] the Bulkeleys display no particular naming patterns. Each generation used names related to that generation’s familial context. Edward named two of his children after his parents, son Peter and daughter Jane. Where do the other three names come from? Elizabeth could be after an aunt and John after a brother.[53] Mary could have been named after either of Edward’s two deceased younger sisters, or some relation of Lucian.[54] But, as Peter and Jane come from Edward’s parents, I would suggest as a working hypothesis that John, Elizabeth and possibly Mary come from the first wife’s parents, and that one of the two female names is very likely the mother’s given name. I must stress this is a working hypothesis only.

Further, the children’s birth order must be addressed. Chapman gives it as Peter, Elizabeth, John and Jane, while Jacobus gives it as Elizabeth, Peter, Jane, Mary and John.[55] Since 1933, every one has followed Jacobus. I have just outlined my reasons for believing the order for the three younger children is John, Mary and Jane. The answer to who-was-born-first may aid in delimiting when Edward most likely first married and possibly where and to whom.

Peter is the only child of Edward whose birth is actually recorded. It is given in the printed Concord vital records as "3o (11o) 1640", that is, the 3nd day of the 11th month 1640 or 3 January 1640/1.[56] These first vital records are an alphabetical listing, by family last name, of births, marriages and deaths prepared by Simon Willard, then town clerk, sometime in the late winter of 1644.[57] Willard listed the four Bulkeley births by the seniority of the father. Thus, the Rev. Peter’s last two children, Dorothy and Peter, are listed in birth order above the record of Edward’s son. Below that record is the one for Edward’s niece Sarah, the first child of his younger full-brother Thomas. By the time Willard wrote this list, Edward and his family had been living in Marshfield for two years. Willard did not include Edward’s Elizabeth on his 1644 list just as he did not include Rev. Peter’s next two oldest children, Gershom and Eleazer, because, like them, she was not born in Concord.

Though printed by the town only in 1899, Concord’s vital records were well used before then.[58] Why Chapman in 1875 completely misread Peter’s birth as "Nov. 3, 1641" can only be attributed to it having been supplied to him by some one who did not understand the old English dating system.[59] Jacobus has Peter’s birth correctly as "3 Jan. 1640/41",[60] following Savage’s insight that for these 1644 lists the New Year was designated as March 1st.[61] Why, then, did Jacobus consider Elizabeth the first child and give her a birth year date of "+ / - 1638"?

Jacobus relied on two sources, apparently. He took Elizabeth’s death date from the 1912 Reading Vital Records, where Elizabeth (Bulkeley) (Emerson) Browne is listed as "Elizebeth, w. of Capt. John, Sept. 4, 1693".[62] (Capt. John’s death record is listed under Brown.) Jacobus then took her reputed age at death from Lily Eaton’s 1874 History of Reading. There she is listed as "Elizebeth, age 55, Sept. 19, 1693."[63] Such a given age subtracted from 1693 equals 1638. Where the age comes from is not stated in History of Reading. However, Eaton’s quote of two lines from John Browne’s gravestone at the end of the Captain’s sketch strongly suggests that some dates must be from gravestones. (Eaton spells Captain John’s surname as "Brown".) Information found on gravestones is known to be somewhat unreliable and weathering never helps readability. If the given age actually stands for "in her 55th year" or even "in her 53rd year", not unreasonable constructions, then calculated birth years of 1639 and 1641 result. Given Peter’s known birth date, the latter is barely possible. Only if the gravestone actually reads "in her 51st year", making her birth year 1643, would Jacobus’ placing Elizabeth as Edward’s oldest child be incorrect. Note that Elizabeth’s day of death as reported in History of Reading as "19", while Reading Vital Records gives it as "4".

Whether the first or the second child, Elizabeth was not born in Concord or Willard would have listed her. She may have been born in Boston, but Edward as a member of First Church and a student of Cotton would have been more likely than most members to have his first child’s baptism recorded. There is no such record. Before returning to Concord, where Peter was born, Edward may have served as a town’s schoolmaster or as teacher at another church. (His father was particularly close with Rev. Thomas Shepard of Cambridge.) If so, it was in a town or at a church where records for this period are poor or non-existent. If Elizabeth was actually the second child and born at Marshfield, not having an extant record is not surprising as there was no regular town clerk at the time. It was also part of Plymouth Colony which, while it required vital record reporting, made no effort to enforce that order.[64] What vital records have survived among Marshfield town papers are clearly incomplete.[65] There are no Marshfield church records extant before 1696.[66] There is, therefore, no documentary evidence to change Jacobus’ reasoning that places Elizabeth before Peter among Edward’s known children.

Whichever child was first, Edward’s age range would have been 23 to 26 years old at first marriage. His bride’s age should then be expected to fall within the normative range for female ages at first marriage (18 to 25 years old) and likely closer to the younger age.

And in what place would Edward have found his first bride? His next-in-age, full brother Thomas, residing with their father in Concord, took to wife the only socially eligible young woman there: Sarah Jones, oldest daughter of his father’s church colleague and town co-founder, the Rev. John Jones.[67] My raw database on Concord families of this period (1636-1640) shows no other age appropriate young woman living there then.

Edward, however, had migrated no later than the fall of 1634,[68] a year before the rest of his family, likely living in Boston with either of his aunts’ families, the Haughs and the Mellowes having migrated in 1633.[69] This suggests a period of time when Edward, as a 20-to-23-year old young man away from his father, would have been a person of interest to mothers and daughters of early Boston in the Great Migration period.[70] Daughters of the families that made up the social nexus of Boston’s First Church are thus particular candidates for further research. Families in towns without church records (Lynn, Cambridge and Watertown) would be next in order of research. One further qualifier to consider would be families with a mother named Elizabeth and one or more unmarried daughters not further traced.

Still, there are three new things we can say about this Mrs. Edward Bulkeley, Elizabeth and Peter’s mother. First, there was one! Second, that Mr. William Thomas of Marshfield thought quite well of her, as he did of her husband.[71] Thomas’ will is another document relevant to Edward Bulkeley and his first wife that has been both in print and unnoticed since 1908.[72] In that document, dated 9 July 1651 (probated in December 1651), Thomas makes specific bequests to the Marshfield Church and to his minister and the minister’s wife: "further I give to the Church of Marshfeild a Diaper Tablecloth of nine foot longe . . .; Alsoe, I bequeath to Edward Buckley a silver beerbowle and to his wife a Diaper tablecloth of nine foot in length . . . ."[73] And, thirdly, because Mr. Thomas expressed his affection for her when and how he did, we can now say that the first Mrs. Edward Bulkeley died some time after 1 July 1651, but well before 5 January 1653/4, on which date Edward’s second matrimonial proposal had been made and accepted.

1. Rev. Frank William Chapman, The Bulkeley Family (Hartford, Conn: 1875) p. 39.

2. This sketch of Edward is based on Jacobus’ at Bulkeley Genealogy, 111-2.

3. Richard L. Peirce, ed. Records of the First Church of Boston, 3 vols. (Boston, MA: Colonial Society of Massachusetts, nnn-nnn), 1:29. Though Edward meets the criteria for a separate sketch, he is treated only under "Children" in his father’s sketch in Robert Charles Anderson, The Great Migration: Immigrants to New England, 1634-1635, 3 vols. (Boston, MA: NEHGS, 1999), 1:462.

4. Rev. Grindal Reynolds, D. D., A Collection of Historical and Other Papers (Concord, Mass.: Alice Reynolds Keyes, 1895), 116-117. Dr. Reynolds cites a memorandum Rev. Thomas Shepard of Charlestown wrote on a blank page of his copy of The Book of Psalms: "Mr. Edward Bulkeley, pastor of the Church of Christ in Concord, told me, September 20, 1674, that when he boarded at Mr. Cotton’s house at the first coming forth of this Book of singing of Psalms[,] Mr. Cotton told him that my father Shepard had the chief hand in the composing of it." Whatever role the senior Shepard had in the book’s composition, that Bulkeley boarded with Cotton is not to be doubted. See Sargeant Bush, Jr. ed. The Correspondence of John Cotton (UNCP Chapel hill, 2001), "Introduction" regarding Cotton’s "at-home" seminary in Boston, England.

5. Register 54: 240-41.

6. In calling for a conference of "Elders" to be held in Boston in June 1657, the Massachusetts General Court requested certain ministers by name to attend, including Mr. Bulkeley of Concord, but added "if he cann come." MBCR 4, part 1: 280.

7. Shattuck, History of Concord, 160. Estabrook was A.B., Harvard College, 1664.

8. Shattuck, History of Concord, 162.

9. George E. McCracken, "Doctor Philip Reade and His Earlier Descendants", The New England Historical and Genealogical Register 112: 119-129. Dr. Reade's court travails are at p. 122.

10. Bulkeley Family, 39 quoting the resolution passed by the Concord Town Meeting on 5 March 1692.

11. Bulkeley Genealogy, 112.

12. Jacobus states ‘while visiting his grandson" which derives from Mather. No other Bulkeley relations lived in Chelmsford at the time.

13. Concord Free Public Library, Concord, Massachusetts, has a single volume from what was, after the Mathers, one of the great family libraries of early New England. This is the Saint Basil (Bishop of Caesarea), OPERA QUÆDAM BEATI BASILII CÆSARIENSIS EPISCOPI … Venetiis [Venice]: [from colophon (lacking in CFPL copy): "per Stephanum de Sabio; sumptu expensis vero D. Damiani de Sancta Maria"], MDXXXV [1535]. Folio. This copy bears inscriptions of Edward Bulkeley, William Emerson, and George F. Simmons. Presented to the library by Miss Elizabeth Ripley in September 1873. The signature, "Edward Bulkeley", is on the lower half of the title page in a very clear, almost print-like, Secretarial hand. (It is possible, given the date of the book, that it is the signature of Edward’s grandfather, Edward Bulkeley, D. D.) Perhaps, then, only the attested town record of six marriages he performed in 1686 (Concord Vital Records, 27), are all of Edward’s writing that have survived. My thanks to Leslie Perrin Wilson, Archivist, Special Collections, CFPL, Concord, MA for bringing this book to my attention and for providing the above bibliographic material. I am preparing an article that reconstructs "The Library of Rev. Peter Bulkeley of Concord, Mass."

14. Register, 42:277.

15. Bulkeley Genealogy, 131-132.

16. Register, 25:89.

17. Lucy Hall Greenlaw, "Bulkeley", The New England Historical and Genealogical Register 58:201-202, citing Plymouth Colony Deeds, vol. IV, pp. 293-4, Nichol’s copy.

18. Bulkeley Family, 39.

19. Greenlaw, "Bulkeley", Register 58:202.

20. Legal Reference re women’s property rights in colonial MA

21. Virginia Hall, "Bulkeley", Register 63:199.

22. Clarence A. Torrye, cited by Jacobus, Bulkeley Genelaogy, 112.

23. Bulkeley Genealogy, 112. Originally transcribed by Virginia Hall and published in the Register 63:199. See also the later transcription in Samuel Eliot Morison, ed. Suffolk County Court Records, 2 vols. (Boston, Mass.: Colonial Society of Massachusetts, nnn & nnn), 2:991. There are no other references to Lucy Lake, or to Edward and Lucian in the index to these volumes.

24. Bulkeley Genealogy, 112. Jacobus supplied the material in brackets.

25. Bulkeley Genealogy, 112. Originally transcribed by Virginia Hall and published in the Register 63:199.

26. Bulkeley Genealogy, 112.

27. Bulkeley Genealogy, 112. Miss Hall cites "Suffolk Probate vol. 12 p. 28" for the third item but only "County Court Records" for the first one, Register 63:199.

28. Bulkeley Genealogy, i-iii.

29. Bulkeley Genealogy, 1-89. See, for instance, the numerous citations this work in Gary Boyd Roberts, The Royal Descents of 600 Immigrants to the American Colonies of the United States (Boston: NEHGS, 2004).

30. Bulkeley Genealogy, 112-113 .[Missing text]  enough information to enable Donald Lines Jacobus to fill out Edward’s biographical sketch in his magisterial The Bulkeley Genealogy (1933). Yet even then there was material already in print that, had he known of it, would have led Jacobus to substantially re-write that sketch.

31. Nathaniel B. Shurtleff, et. al., ed., Records of the Colony of New Plymouth, in New England [1620-1692], 12 vols. (Boston: William H. White, 1855-1861), 3:45.

32. Plymouth Colony Records 8:196.

33. Plymouth Colony Records 2: 171.

34. Plymouth Colony Records 3:45, 8: 270.

35. Everett Hall Pendleton, comp., William Holloway of Taunton, Mass., in 1637 and His Descendants 15886 – 1949 (Privately Printed, 1949), 8.

36. Pendleton, Holloway p. 8 [note 22], which states there were "two daughters, one of whom, Grace, married Josiah Read and removed to New London and Norwich, Conn." For Hannah, who married Jonathan Read, a brother of her sister’s husband, see Lucy Hall Greenlaw, "Read-Holloway", Register 58:404-405. There is another Halloway woman, Jane, who appears in Plymouth records from 1668. She is the wife of another William Halloway. See Plymouth Colony Records 4:187 for her 3 June 1668 court appearance for fighting with Mary Phillips.

37. Plymouth Colony Records, 3:45.

38. Interestingly, Edward’s last name is almost invariably spelled "Buckly" or "Buckley" in Plymouth Colony records. Concord-Boston records most often spell the name "Bulkly". Only Rev. Peter consistently spelled his surname "Bulkeley". This pattern would suggest a distinct pronunciation difference between the two areas.

39. Plymouth Colony Records 3:45.

40. Phillips fulfilled part of this nuptial agreement on 31 October 1666. That day he paid out to Josias Winslow, "for to be improved by him for her use," the stipulated 10 pounds, Grace "being now of age to receive the said same as her portion and she having requested Major Josias Winslow to advise her in reference unto the future way of her livelyhood", Plymouth Colony Records 4:136. Grace resolved her immediate livelihood issues by marrying Josiah Read the following month. See note 40 below. There is no record in Plymouth Colony Records that Hannah received her portion.

41. George H. Bowman, "Early Vital Records of Marshfield, Massachusetts", The Mayflower Descendant, 2: 4 (Grace Holloway and John Phillips), 5 (Grace Holloway and Josiah Read).

42. Lysander Salmon Richards, History of Marshfield, 2 vols. (Marshfield, Mass: The Memorial Press, 1901, 1905), 2:57. I have not found a contem-porary record of her death. There is no inquest on her death as appears in Plymouth Colony Records for the death of her stepson. See note 43 below. Richards mistakes John senior for John junior and does not know Grace’s married name.

43. Peter B. Hall, comp., Mayflower Families Through Five Generations, Vol. XI, Part 1: Edward Doty (Plymouth, MA: General Society of Mayflower Descendants, 1996), 2.

44. Greenlaw, "Bulkeley", Register 58:202.

45. Register, 42:277.

46. Plymouth Colony Records 3:148. This document is not cross-indexed under "Buckley" or "Bulkeley". It was found only by checking all indexed references to Phillips, which I did after finding the 1653 nuptial agreement.

47. I am preparing a follow-up article entitled "Who is Lucian, Second Wife of Edward Bulkeley?".

48. Mayflower Descendant, 2:5; PCR 8:89.

49. Concord Vital Records, 26.

50. Concord Vital Records, 2.

51. Bulkeley Genealogy, 113.

?52. Peter Bulkeley Esq. had already been Concord’s deputy to the General Court, Speaker of the Lower House, and the Colony’s co-agent with William Stoughton in London for the first attempt to save the Old Charter. Bulkeley Genealogy, 129-131.

?53. Suffolk County Wills, vol. 6, part 2: ppp.

52. The Edward-Peter-Edward-Peter-Edward is lineage is charted by Emma F. Ware at Register 42:277.

53. Great Migration Begins 2:1007 (Elizabeth Bulkeley Whittingham Haugh), and Robert Charles Anderson, et. al., The Great Migration: Immigrants to Boston, 1634-1635, 3 vols.+ (Boston, MA: NEHGS, 1999-to date), 1:463 (John Bulkeley).

54. Great Migration 1:463.

55. Bulkeley Family, 40; Bulkeley Genealogy, 113.

56. Concord, Massachusetts [,] Births, Marriages and Deaths, 1635-1850 (The Town [1899]), 1.

57. The date of the last record in this list, John Rice’s birth, is "23o of the 12th month 1643" or 23 February 1643/4, Concord Vital Records, 3.

58. Lemuel Shattuck’s Concord genealogical index is clearly based on several long days or nights of perusing the old volumes. See his A history of the town of Concord; Middlesex County, Massachusetts, from its earliest settlement to 1832 (Boston, Mass: Russell, Odiorne & Co., 1835), 360-89.

59. Bulkeley Family, 40.

60. Bulkeley Genealogy, 113, 140.

61. Great Migration, 3:xxxvi-xxxviii.

62. Thomas W. Baldwin, comp., Vital Records of the town of Reading, Massachusetts to the end of the year 1849, (Salem, Mass: The Essex Institute, 1912), 503.

63. Lilly Eaton, Genealogical history of the town of Reading, Mass., including the present towns of Wakefield, Reading, and North Reading, with chronological and historical sketches, from 1639 to1639 to 1874. (Boston: A. Mudge & Sons, 1874), 51 (entry for John Browne, Esqr.).

64. The first Marshfield vital records list to appear in the printed records is at Plymouth Colony Records 8:89 for the year 1687. On 3 March 1645/6, the Plymouth Court confirmed an order "that the clarke, or some one in every towne, do keep a register of the day and yeare of every marryage, byrth and buriall, & to have 3d a peece for his paynes." Plymouth Colony Records 2:96.

65. Robert M. Sherman and Ruth W. Sherman, Vital Records of Marshfield, Massachusetts to the Year 1850 (Providence: Society of Mayflower Descendants in the State of Rhode Island, 1970; repr. Camden ME: Picton Press, 1993), "Introduction", nnnn.

66. Register n:nn

67. Bulkeley Genealogy, 113.

68. Boston First Church Records, 1:29. Edward was admitted to the church on 15 (1) 1635, which in this case does mean 15 March 1635, based on the sequence of admissions around his.

69. Great Migration Begins, 2:1005-10 (Atherton Hough), 1248-50 (Abraham Mellowes).

70. Jane Austen’s observation that "a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife" comes to mind. This is part of the first line of Pride and Prejudice (1813).

71. Thomas is eulogized under "1651" in Alexander Young, Chronicles of the Pilgrim Fathers (orig. pub. 1846; reprinted Baltimore, MD: 1974). "This year Mr. William Thomas expired his natural life in much peace and comfort. He served in the place of magistracy, in the jurisdiction of Plymouth, divers years; he was a well-approved and a well- grounded Christian, well read in the Holy Scriptures, and other approved authors, and a good lover and approver of godly ministers and good Christians, and one that had a sincere desire to promote the common good, both of church and state. He died of a consumption, and was honourably buried at Marshfield, in the jurisdiction of New Plimouth."

72. A brief and inaccurate summary of Thomas’ will appears in Charles H. Pope, The Pioneers of Massachusetts (Boston: The Author, 1900), 451. Pope omitted mention of the wives of Collier and Buckley who, while not named, were identified to receive separate bequests. My experience with several of Pope's abstracts of wills in Pioneers leads me to conclude that none are to be trusted. The originals must be consulted in all cases.

73. Mayflower Descendant 10:162-164. Bulkeley was named a co-executor of the will along with William Collier. Diaper refers both to designs stitched into the cloth and to cloth made from mixed material. See references to "linens", "damask" and "diaper" in Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, The Age of Homespun: Objects and Stories in the Creation of an American Myth (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2001).