on the farm of his father, who willed it to him. He married Sarah Treadwell of

126-IV. BENJAMIN', bapt. Aug. 4, 1728, in Ipswich-Hamlet; settled in New Ipswich, N. H.; m. his cousin Priscilla Adams (128) April 18, 1751; and d. May 5, 1815. Yeoman. 127-V. JOSEPH', b. Nov.- —, 1733, in Hamlet parish; and d. May

60

-, 1734.

JOSEPH ADAMS4, born in Ipswich Nov. 12, 1702. He was a cooper and yeoman, and lived in Ipswich until 1732, when he removed to Concord, returning to Ipswich late in life. He married, first, Priscilla Warner of Ipswich, Jan. 10, 1727-8. She died in Concord Jan. 6, 1734; and he married, second, Dorothy Merriam of Concord Nov. 4, 1736. He died May 10, 1790; and she died, from a fall, July

25, 1791.

Children :128-I.

129-II.

PRISCILLA, b. Jan. 3 (2?), 1728-9, in Ipswich (Hamlet parish); m. her cousin Benjamin Adams (126) April 18, 1751, in Concord; and d. in New Ipswich, N. H., Feb. 19,

1791. LYDIA, b. Oct. 16, 1730, in Ipswich (Hamlet parish); d. July 3, 1731, in Ipswich.

130-III. MARY3, b. May 5, 1733, in Concord; d. Sept. 9, 1733.

131-IV.

132-V.

DOROTHY, b. Aug. 26, 1737, in Con-
cord; d. April 10, 1766.

RUTH, b. Jan. 14, 1739, in Concord;
m. Peter Fletcher of New Ipswich
Sept. 8, 1761; and d. April 28, 1816.
He d. April 11, 1812.

133-VI. MARY, b. March 14, 1742, in Concord; m. Isaac Appleton of New Ipswich April 24, 1760; and d. May 22, 1827. He d. Feb. 25, 1806. 134-vii. BetHIAH, b. June 3, 1744; d. Sept. 30, 1753.

135-VIII. MERCY, b. Jan. 14, 1747, in Concord; m., first, Benjamin Pollard of Lincoln April 21, 1768. He d., and she m., second, Jonas Whiting. She d. in Norway, Me., Aug. 12, 1815.

136-IX. LYDIA', b. Aug. 22, 1750; m. Joseph Chandler of Concord April 28, 1774; and d. Dec. 10, 1829. He d. Jan. 19, 1813.

68

SAMUEL ADAMS4, born in Ipswich Jan. 19, 1710-1. He was a yeoman, and lived in Ipswich (in that part now Hamilton)

Ipswich (published March 25, 1738); and died in Ipswich Aug. 26, 1757. She was living in Ipswich, his widow, in 1765. Children, baptized in Ipswich-Hamlet: 137-1. SARAH, bapt. Sept. 23, 1739; published to Capt. John Whipple, 3d, of Ipswich April 23, 1767. 138-11. SAMUEL', bapt. May 16, 1742. See below (138).

warp, and pulled down those remaining. Then the weaver took the shuttle in one of his hands and threw it through the warp where the threads were thus opened. The shuttle contained a bobbin on which had been wound the woof thread.

By a mechanical arrangement the woof thread was pressed against that which had next preceded it. The position of the warp threads was then reversed by the treadles, and the shuttle thrown through the warp in the opposite direction. These movements were repeated with every thread.

The process of hand weaving was slow, to be sure, though really faster than it seemed. turned their homespun threads into dress In this tedious manner our forefathers goods. The cloth was generally woven plain; the earliest variation found being the simplest, that is, stripes and plaids. Before the close of the eighteenth century weavers had become so accomplished in operating the hand-loom that they wrought fine, artistic articles, some of which are extant today, preserved by the descendants of those that produced them as specimens of the domestic handiwork of early days.

Cotton, woolen and linen were woven into cloth, either alone or in combination with each other. Cotton and wool were sometimes woven together, as they are still. Linen and wool were also united, forming the "linsey-woolsey" of those days. Until the Revolution cotton was not used as extensively as wool and linen. Linen was much used in the manufacture of table and bed linen as well as for apparel.

Besides cloth for apparel and table and bed linen, sail cloth, bed ticking and handkerchiefs were woven.

The weaving was done so thoroughly that the "homespun" of our fathers seemed almost imperishable.

Only the wealthier and larger families owned looms; and they were generally operated by their own members. The looms were often used, however, by the professional weaver, who travelled about

the region periodically, semi-annually or annually, in spring or fall, or both. Such weavers boarded and lodged with the family for whom they were weaving until they had made all the cloth necessary for the use of the family for the next six months or year. They would then move on to the family to whom they were next engaged. Happy their advent! for they were bearers of news and gossip, which were then greatly relished because of the difficulty of their acquirement in the days before newspapers became common, and social intercourse was limited.

Another class of professional weavers were those that owned looms and operated them at their own homes, the material being brought to them. These probably constituted the larger class of weavers. Some of them in later times owned several looms and hired help in weaving.

BANCROFT IMMIGRANTS.

BY MARY A. PARSONS.

Farmer, followed by Savage, gives Lt. Thomas Bancroft as son of John Bancroft, who came over in the James in 1632. The following relates to the passengers on board the James. "The names of such men, women and children wch are to passe to New England to be resident there uppon a plantation have tendered and taken the oath of allegeance according to ye Stattute." In the list are the names of John and Jane Barcroft. Both Barcroft and Bancroft are names common in England, and the name is spelled both ways.

John Bancroft was of Lynn, and died, it would seem, in 1637. Newhall, in his history of Lynn, mentions among the newcomers in 1640, "Thomas Bancroft (Lieut.)," and adds "son of widow Bancroft." This may have been an inference only, derived from Farmer.

In 1638 the widow Bancroft received a grant from the town of Lynn of one hundred acres of land, but no other record has been found of the title being in her name. On the other hand Thomas

Bancroft was found living on a hired farm near Lynn End (now Lynnfield) in 1655, or thereabouts, while at various periods. deeds show that he bought land, particularly a farm of sixty acres 66 near Beaver Dam," in that part of Lynn which is now Lynnfield, in 1670,

If his mother had received a grant of land would there not be some evidence of his sharing it, instead of this negative evidence of his having no part or parcel in her property?

This farm of sixty acres was bounded on the northeast by Isaac Hart's land; and land of Mr. Holyoke is mentioned as contiguous to it.

An original deed in the possession of a descendant, dated 1673, shows that Isaac Hart bought the five hundred acres granted by the town of Lynn to Mr. Thomas Willis, and the name "Willis meadow" remains with us to this day. This opens the interesting question as to whether some of the grants of 1638 might not have remained unplaced till after Lynn End was given in 1639, for the names of Mr. Thomas Willis, Mr. Holyoke and Henry Collins, who also owned land in Lynn End, all occur on the first page of the old book recording the grants from which Mr. Newhall copies in his History of Lynn (page 171).

The name of Thomas Bancroft appears in Dedham, Mass., records in 1647, when he was married. One authority, Allen, states that he came to Dedham in 1640. In 1648, he was admitted townsman. 1652, he removed to Reading, as records show, and afterwards to Lynn End, where he died in 1691.

In

But what became of the widow Bancroft of Lynn?

We find at Southampton, L. I., upon the records, Nov. 19, 1644, a petition presented "for the quiet and peaceable enjoyment of the lot betwixt them which formerly was granted unto widow Bancroft was granted and consented unto," etc., closing with the words "three years after the tyme yt was by the sayd widdow Bancroft given unto them."

Was the above equivalent of the one hundred acre grant at Lynn? Did the town of Lynn have the right to make such a grant in Long Island? Undoubtedly numbers of persons did go thither from Lynn. From the Documentary History of New York we find this relating to the town of East Hampton, L. I.: "It is very evident from the records that some of the original thirty-five settlers and purchasers removed from Lynn in Massachusetts; and tradition informs us they came from several of the towns on the sea coast to the eastward of Boston."

Gov. Winthrop in his Journal, and Gov. Hutchinson in his History of Massachusetts (page 88), mention that, in 1640, a number of families removed from Lynn to the west end of Long Island, and bought land, etc., "but getting into some quarrel with the Dutch they removed to the east end, and settled at Southampton."

It is claimed therefore that the "wid

dow Bancroft" was the widow of John of Lynn, and that John, Thomas and Anna

Bancroft of the Connecticut river towns of Windsor and Enfield were probably her children, for they have been shown to be brothers and sister.

The sister of Hon. George Bancroft, the historian, was the wife of John Davis, governor and United States senator. The ancestry of this couple was compiled by their son Horace Davis, member of congress. He gives the earliest New England ancestor of his mother thus: "Lt. Thomas Bancroft of Reading, immigrant; born about 1622; perhaps the Thomas Bancroft mentioned in records of Cheadle, England, as baptised 10 Feb.,

1622.

Savage and others identify him with Thomas, son of John and Jane Barcroft of Lynn, 1632-1638, but there is no evidence of such connection, on the contrary there is reason to think the Lynn Barcrofts were another family, and emigrated to Connecticut before 1648."

Additional testimony exists in the fact that two versions of the beginning in New England of the family give Thomas as

"You sold your land the lighter thence to go To foreign coasts yet (fate would have it so) Did ne'er New England reach, but went with them

That journey toward New Jerusalem."

As this is supposed to be poetry we must make allowance for poetic license; still, it is rather a stretch to say this of a brother who had lived five years on the "foreign coasts."

father of John of Lynn, Roger of CamMay this John possibly have been the bridge, and Thomas of Dedham ?*

SETTLEMENT OF TOPSFIELD.

The following are two votes of the general court in reference to the settlement of Topsfield :

At A Generall Court held at Bostone the 3d of September: 1643.

Whereas at the Court holden at Bostone the 4th of the seventh month fixsteen hundred thirtie & nine there was certaine

land lying neere Ipfuich River Granted for a village either to fome of the Inhabitants of Salem, or fome of the Inhabitants of Ipfuich, whoe haue farmes neere vnto the faid land, to be Injoyed by those who first setled a villag there, they both ppounding for it together, howsoever the order mentioneth only Salem, Inhabitants &c. for as much as the Said Inhabitants of Ipfuich have for neer this two yeares procured & maintained, one to dispence the

*This article is compiled from material furnished by Mr. John M. Bancroft of Bloomfield, N. J.