Weymouth New England Genealogy

Check the following records:
1. Hall's History of West Hartford, p. 137 regarding gravestones.
2. Goodwins of Hartford, pp. 63, 228, 260, 261, 262.3.
3. Webster Family, p. 217.4.
4. Biographical Record of Hartford County, p. 221.
5. Most records how Susanna ? as William GOODWIN's wife, but Dale Williams had the ancestry which follows with the WHITE family.This does need to be verified. They arrived on the "Lion" 16 Sep 1632, which had sailed 22 Jun1632 from England. Settled Newtown, now Cambridge, Mass. In 1635 removed to Connecticut and settled Newtown, now Hartford. Settled Hadley, Mass. in 1659. For Susanna's records, see the Registry of Deeds, Hampshire County, Mass. 1669-1670. This book shows a Susanna ? as the wife of William Goodwin. Dale Williams has the above records for Elizabeth WHITE as his wife. He has as the marriage date, 7 Nov 1616. Elder William Goodwin fled from England to escape religious persecution in 1632. He came in the "Lion". He was ruling elder of the Braintree company at Mount Wollaston, Newton, MA, and was later at Hartford, CT, in 1635 or 1636, and afterwards at Hadley, MA. He was deputy to the General Court in 1634, and was a freeman 1632. He was a wealthy man. He was a founder of Hartford and Hadley and founded the Hopkins Grammar School at Hadley and built a grist mill to maintain it. In 1670 he was at Farmington. His name is on the Founder's Monument at Hartford and he was ruling elder there and was elder at Hadley. He came from Braintree, Co. Essex, England.

p.240 Others on the "Lion" were John Talcott, James Olmsted and William Wadsworth, also all original proprietors of Hartford. William became a freeman in Massachusetts 6 Nov 1632; deputy from Newtown (now Cambridge MA), 14 May 1634 and came to Hartford prob. in 1636, and was an original proprietor; his home-lot was on Main St., extending from the present Wadsworth St. to Arch St. he was a great man of influence in Church and State, and prominent in all the early transactions of the Hartford settlement; he purchased large tracts of land up the river, and was one of the agents of the town employed to purchase Farmington from the Indians. Gov. Hopkins appointed him one of the trustees of his will, and he therefore was one of those who had charge of establishing the Hopkins Grammar School. He was an ardent friend of Hooker, but after his death was deeply involved in the great dissention in the church at Hartford, and after several years of controversy "the Withdrawers" as they were called, under the leadership of Goodwin and Gov. John Webster, removed to Hadley (MA) in 1659. He was Ruling Elder of the church there, and remained there about ten years, then removed to Farmington, where he died 11 Mar 1673.

p.277 The ecclesiastical organization known as the First Church ofHartford antedates by two or three years the settlement of the town. The earliest ascertainable date in its history is 11 Oct 1633, at which time the Rev. Thomas Hooker and the Rev. Samuel Stone were ordained respectively its pastor and teacher. William Goodwin had probably earlier been chosen ruling elder,and Andrew Warner, and one or more others, deacons.

p. 279 Mr. Hooker died 7 Jul 1647, in an epidemical sickness, which prevailed throughout New England, at the age of sixty-one years, leaving behind him the memory of one of the best and greatest of men. Upon the death of Mr. Hooker various endeavors were made for a successor in the vacated office. The Rev. Jonathan Mitchell was invited to the pastorate in June 1649. With similar intent, at different periods later, the pulpit was supplied by Michael Wigglesworth occasionally in 1653 and 1654, by John Davis in 1655 and by John Cotton, son of the Boston minister in1659. But the period covered by these years between Mr. Wigglesworth's and Mr. Cotton's services in Hartford is chiefly memorable for a quarrel in the church, led by Teacher Stone on the one side and by Elder William Goodwin on the other, and of which it seems probable that candidacy of Michael Wigglesworth was the provoking occasion. Into the perplexing and prolonged details of this controversy it is impossible here to enter. (See, for recently discovered papers in this controversy, the second volume of the Connecticut Historical Society publications, pp.51-125; and for a general account of the affair, the History of the First Church in Hartford," pp. 146-175.) It must suffice to say that after the first recognizable point of difference, in Mr. Stone's refusal to allow the Church to vote on Mr.Wigglesworth's "fitnes for office in ye church of Hartford," and Mr. Goodwin's opposition to this restraint as an infringement of the rights of the brotherhood, the subsequent progress of the quarrel was attended by such incidents as these: the indignant resignation of his office by Teacher Stone, yet his resumption of his functions as if he had not resigned; the practical deposition from office of Ruling Elder Goodwin by the Church's choice of a "moderator;" the withdrawal of Mr. Goodwin and his party from the Church; successive ecclesiastical councils; days of humiliation and prayer appointed by the Massachusetts churches in the Hartford Church's behalf; repeated blundering attempts of the General Court to interpose, resulting in aggravation rather than healing of the strife; the final reviewand "determinatioon" of the matter by a council at Boston in September and October, 1659; the acceptance of the "sentence" by both parties, and the removel of Elder William Goodwin and most of his party to Hadley. The quarrel brought up many interesting questions of polity, but was to be deplored as centring, afterall, in the personal element implied in the opposition of two able and excellent but obstinate men.
ii 166. FARMINGTON by Noah Porter, D.D., President of Yale College.It was in 1640 that the township of Farmington began to be occupied by white settlers, principally inhabitants of Hartford. A few of these were members of the church which Thomas Hooker organized at Newtown (Cambridge), in Massachusetts, and a few years before had transferred to the valley of the Connecticut.... The number of actual settlers at first was small, but it gradually increased, until in 1645 (Tunxis) received its present name, and became a taxable town, with "the like liberties as the other towns upon the river for making orders among themselves." Elder William Goodwin is listed as one of the original owners of house-lots.

ii 273.ii 426.Complete Book of Emigrants (p. 102-103)22 June 1632. names of men transported from London to New England to the plantation there per certificate from Captain Mason ("The Lion"), and have taken the oath of allegiance(Public Record office: E157/16, Chancey Lane, London, WC2A 1LR,England): William Wadsworth, John Tallcott, Joseph Roberts, John Coxsall, John Watson, Robert Shelley, William Heath, Richard Allis, Thomas Usfitt, Isack Murrill, John Witchfield, Jonathan Wade, Robert Bartlett, John Browne, John Churchman, Tobie Willet, William Curtis, Nicholas Clark, Daniell Brewer, John Beniamin, Richard Beniamin, William James, Thomas Carrington, William Goodwynn, John White, James Olmstedd, William Lewes, Zeth Graunt, Nathaniell Richards, Edward Ellmer, Edward Holmar, John Totman, Charles Glower. On the 11th of April, 1639, came the First General Meeting of the Freemen, under the Constitution, for the election of Magistrates, when John Haynes, who had been Governor in the Massachusetts Bay in 1635, was now chosen the first Governor of the Connecticut Colony. Mr. Roger Ludlowe, of Windsor, was chosen deputy-governor. The magistrates were Mr. George Wylls, Mr. Edward Hopkins, Mr. Thomas Welles, Mr. John Webster, Mr. William Phelps. The town of Farmington was incorporated in 1645, chiefly by men who went out of Hartford; but as Farmington is a part of Hartford County, upon this fact we shall not dwell. Hadley, Mass., was a direct outgrowth from Hartford, aided by Wethersfield. It started with a strong and able body of men.They were some of Hartford's chief citizens, who had become weary with the long debate and strife in the First Church under Mt. Stone's ministry. Mr. John Webster, who had been Governor ofthe Connecticut Colony, and Mr. John Russell, minister at Wethersfield, who had been chosen spiritual head of the movement, may be reckoned as the chief leaders. On the written compact into which they entered, 18 April 1659, the names of Mr. Webster and Elder William Goodwin stand first, and are followed by about thirty more from Hartford., and by Mr. Russell's and about twenty others from Wethersfield. The territory on which they planted themselves under the general name of Hadley includes the present towns of Hadley, Amherst, Granby, Hatfield, and South Hadley. In this settlement, and by the Rev. Mr.Russell especially, the regicide judges were concealed when they could no longer be safely kept within the New Haven plantations.

Goodwin, William, deacon, was one of the first settlers in Hartford. He was one of the purchasers of the town for a company, of the Indians; he also purchased large tracts of land up the river; he aided in some measure in purchasing Farmington. Being an elder in Mr. Hooker's church, he was active in matters of the church, as he was in the affairs of the town and colony. In '44, as no gallery had been built in the church, he was appointed to build it, and stairs to enter it. In '39 he with Mr. Stone, deacon Chaplin and George Hubbard, were appointed by the General Court, "to gather those passages of God's providence, which had been remarkable, since the ndertakings of the Plantations, and report them to the General Court." In the early part of the settlement, he was one of the most active as well as useful settlers in the colony. During the great dissention on the church at Hartford, which lasted for a considerable period of time, and caused much anxiety not only to the church in Hartford, but to all the churches in New England; for some cause about this time deacon Goodwin moved his family to Hadley, but afterward returned into the colony, and died at Farmington in '73. He left a large estate to a daughter, his only child; she afterwards married John crowe, of Hartford. the Crowe family has now become extinct in the colony.

William Goodwin by Rev. George Leon Walker, D.D.

One of the strong and interesting figures discerned through the mists and half-lights of our early New England history is that of William Goodwin. The sometimes picturesque and the generally dignified and important character of the matter he was concerned with, awaken curiosity to know more of him, and something of wonder that not more is known.

Even the date and place of Elder Goodwin's birth are at present undiscovered. Certain circumstances - as was his companionship on his voyage to Americas with individuals from the town of Braintree, in Essex, his identification, immediately after his arrival, with the body of people known as the "Braintree Company"; the marriage of his brother Ozias to Mary Woodward of that town - point with a high degree of probability to his own coming from Braintree or the near vicinity.

The earliest positive fact which can now, however, be affirmed of his is that he sailed from London in the Lion, June 22nd, 1632, and arrived in Boston September 16th o the same year. Among his fellow voyagers known afterward in Newtown and Hartford history were John White, James Olmsted, William Wadsworth, John Talcott, Nicholas Clarke, Seth Grant, Robert Elmer, and Nathaniel Richard. Of these Talcott and Wadsworth were certainly from Braintree, and others also may have been.

About a month before William Goodwin and the party with him arrived, the Court had ordered the "Braintree Company, which had begun to sit down at Mount Wollaston" - afterwards Braintree, Mass. - to remove to Newtown. [1. Winthrop's Journal, Savage's 1853 ed., Vol. I. pp. 104, 105.]

This order -- though unpreserved in the Court records, and noted only by Governor Winthrop, under date of August 14th, 1632--had undoubtedly been obeyed before the Lion's arrival, the 16th of September. So that such of the new-comers as belonged with the Braintree Company found their way probably at once to the new settlement.

The Governor, in speaking of the Court's order concerning the Braintree Company, had expressly defined it thus: "These were Mr. Hooker's Company." Mr. Hooker was still in Holland, and did not arrive in America for more than a year afterward. It would appear, therefore, that the company set down at Mount Wollaston, and transferred by order of Court to Newtown, were from the time of their arrival known as a special companionship, probably taking its name from the English home of some of its leading members, and having relationships of agreement and expectancy with a minister not yet arrived.

With this accord the statements of Hubbard [2. History, 2d ed., p. 189.] and Mather; [3. Magnalia, Hartford ed., 1820, p. 309.] and it is altogether probable, furthermore, that some time in 1632 (and several months before Mr. Hooker's arrival) the Newtown settlers had been gathered into church estate, and most probably with William Goodwin as Ruling Elder, and Andrew Warner and others Deacons. [4 Walker, History of First Church of Hartford, pp. 53-65.] The arrival of the Pastor and the Teacher, Rev. Thomas Hooker and Rev. Samuel Stone, on September 4th, 1633, and their induction into their offices on October 11th, completed the organization of the church which Hubbard says "had continued all that time without a particular minister of their own," and of which, of course, the Ruling Elder must have been the chief officer.

Mr. Goodwin's allotment of sixteen rods of the "impaled ground" of the little Newtown village placed him among the larger proprietors of the settlement. [5. Paige, History of Cambridge, p. 11.] He was admitted a freeman of the Colony--which itself implied a then existing membership in one "of the churches within the lymitts of the same" [6. Massachusetts Colonial Records, Vol. I. p. 87.] --on the 6th of November, 1632; and upon the occasion of the first General Court of Delegates of the Colony, May 14th, 1634, Mr. Goodwin was one of the three Newtown representatives, his associates being Mr. Spencer and Mr. Talcott. It was at the second term of this first of Massachusetts representative assemblies, held in September of the same year,--the question under debate being in all probability the then burning question of the removal of the Newtown settlers to Connecticut,--that there occurred an incident indicative perhaps of Mr. Goodwin's strong, and it may be sometimes overbearing disposition, but certainly indicative of a nobleness larger than his error, -- a nobleness which is distinctly recognized in Governor Winthrop's reference to the affair. The Governor says: "At this Court Mr. Goodwin, a very reverend and godly man, being Elder of the congregation at Newtown, having, in heat of argument, used some unreverend speech to one of the Assistants, and being reproved for the same in the open Court, did gravely and humbly acknowledge his fault." [7. Winthrop's Journal, Vol. I. pp. 169, 170.]

The agitation about the removal was temporarily quieted at this session of the Court, but it was renewed the following year, and in the autumn of 1635 "about sixty men, women, and little children went by land toward Connecticut, with their cows, horses, and swine, and after a tedious and difficult journey arrived safe there." [8. Winthrop's Journal, Vol. I. p. 204.] Before their departure William Westwood of Newtown was sworn constable of the new plantation. It is quite probable that Elder Goodwin was of this company, and shared the hardships of the terrible winter which followed. Certainly he was on the ground in the following spring before the arrival of the general company with Mr. Hooker in June, 1636, for he writes from Sekioge to John Winthrop, Jr., under date of June 22d, "I suppose you here by our brethren of the arriveal of our pastore," [9. Mass. Historical Society Collections, 4th Series, Vol. VII. p. 44] --language which clearly implies his own presence on the spot, not yet called Hartford or even Newtown before that event.

Mr. Goodwin's probable acquaintance with the locality during the winter of 1635-36 made all the more appropriate his designation, together with Rev. Samuel Stone, the Teacher of the new-transplanted Church, as one of the agents in the purchase of the land from the Indians. This was done in 1636. The substantial equitableness of the negotiation is confirmed by the fact, that, the original deed being lost, it was, thirty-four years afterward, in 1670, renewed by the "heirs of Sunckquassen, Sachem of Suckioge alias Hartford," without controversy. This good understanding between Mr. Goodwin and the native inhabitants of the soil was illustrated again by his appointment, in April, 1638, with Mr. Stone and Mr. Staunton, to compose certain difficulties which had arisen between the settlers and Soheage, an Indian sachem of Wethersfield. [10. Connecticut Colonial Records, Vol. I. pp. 19, 20.]

In the lay-out of the new town the lot assigned to Mr. Goodwin was one of the most eligible, being at the corner made by "the main street" and the "little river," and having as next contiguous on either side the lots assigned to Rev. Mr. Stone and Mr. Steele. The list of the original proprietors, as copied in 1665 by John Allyn from the original record of 1639, now only partially decipherable, contains one hundred and thirty-seven names, among which William Goodwin's is one of eleven bearing the prefix of "Mr."; at that day a title of distinction. [11. Hartford Town Records.]

Mr. Goodwin was a man of business sagacity and enterprise. In 1639, in connection with John Crow, his son-in-law, he bought a tract of seven hundred and seventy-six acres of land on the east side of the river, extending to the town limits in that direction, and established saw-mills where now stand the mills in Burnside. [12. Goodwin's East Hartford, p. 154.] In 1654 he added to this large domain a purchase of adjoining territory from John Talcott. [13. Goodwin's East Hartford, p. 154.] Leave was granted him by the General Court to take all necessary timber from waste lands "to keepe his sawe mill in imployment." [14. Colonial Records, Vol. I. p. 262.] In connection with William Pitkin, he also bought out the shares in the Hartford distribution on the east side of the river originally assigned to William Parker and Nathaniel Marvin, one hundred and twenty-six acres in amount. [15. Goodwin's East Hartford, p. 45] He was plainly among the very largest of Hartford land-owners and most sagacious of its early inhabitants.

For some reason, not now probably ascertainable, Mr. Goodwin held aloof from all political relations in Hartford, and did not even become a freeman of the Colony until 1657, a little time before he withdrew from its jurisdiction altogether. [16. Colonial Records, Vol. I. p. 297.] His name appears, therefore, far less frequently upon the public records than would be expected in the case of a man of his importance. Indications are not wanting, however, of the high esteem and respect of his associates; and certain of these indications point to the possession on his part of a recognized superiority of intelligence and education. In 1639, Mr. Goodwin was designated by the General Court as one of a committee to "gather up" and preserve for record "those passages of Gods prvidence, wch have beene remarkable since or first undertaking these plantacons." [17. 1 Colonial Records, Vol. I. p.39, 40.] His intimate and confidential relations with Mr. Hooker indicate the same fact, and are very clearly expressed in the dying pastor's appointment of Mr. Goodwin, together with Mr. Edward Hopkins, not only with the general execution of his will, but with the "care both of the education and dispose" of his children; and, in case of the death of his wife, the trust and disposition of such of his "manuscripts as shall be judged fitt to be printed." [18. Colonial Records, Vol. I. p. 600.] In pursuance of this trust, Mr. Hopkins and Mr. Goodwin, shortly after the pastor's death, procured the publication in England, in 1648, of the "Survey of the Summe of Church-Discipline," written by Mr. Hooker; prefacing it with an "Epistle to the Reader," signed by themselves, October 28th, 1647, setting forth in appropriate terms their estimate of the author and of his work.

A similar indication of Mr. Goodwin's recognized intelligence occurs some time later in his history in his designation by Governor Edward Hopkins, who had served with him in the execution of Mr. Hooker's will, as one of the administrators of Mr. Hopkins' own large educational bequests in behalf of "hopeful youths" in "those foreign plantations" with which Mr. Hopkins' earlier years had been identified. Governor Eaton and Rev. John Davenport of New Haven, and Mr. John Cullick of Hartford, were Mr. Goodwin's associates in this administration; but the long delayed settlement of the estate, and the death of two of the trustees, threw the ultimate management of the bequest upon Mr. Davenport and Mr. Goodwin.

Into the causes which led the General Court of Connecticut to put obstacles in the way of the settlement of Governor Hopkins' estate by his appointed executors, and to sequestrate for a while the property from the control of its lawful administrators, it is not needful here to enter. The matter was undoubtedly to some extent connected with Mr. Goodwin's position in the church quarrel which had lately agitated and finally divided the Hartford community, and with Mr. Davenport's known sympathy with Mr. Goodwin in the course pursued by him in that affair. The ultimate result was a division of the property, in accordance with the authority given to the trustees, between four educational institutions,--founding the Hopkins Grammar School of New Haven, the Old Grammar School of Hartford, a similar school at Hadley, Mass., to which place Mr. Goodwin had moved, and a hundred pounds to Harvard College.

These indications of Mr. Goodwin's recognized intelligence and trustworthiness are corroborated by a few remaining letters, which illustrate both the vigor and the clearness of his style of expression. Of these, two examples will suffice. The first is from a letter addressed to the General Court, at Hartford, during the period of its prevention of the administration of Mr. Hopkins's estate:--

Much Honoured.
Yours of Novemb: 16, 1663, I received, and not to trouble you with my answer unto your severall motions to induce us to be of youre minde, my finall returne to all this is this, That as I have noe cause, soe I doe in noe sort consent to that to which you were pleased to move me unto. but doe desire that yourselves would returne the estate unto us, who only have right to dispose thereof, with due satisfaction for all damage that shall appeare to be done unto it since it hath been taken out of our hands: which being timely performed I doubt not but the three hundred and fifty pound tendred unto you in Feb: 1661 may yet be settled upon Hartford.... the which if you decline to doe betwixt this and the end of March next ensuing the date hereof, this tendery also is to be judged a nullity, and we shall forthwith endeavour the freeing of the estate elsewhere, as the betrustment committed to us, in all respects considered, in duty bindeth us ...
Yours to love & serve you as I may,
WILL: GOODWIN.
Hadley, Feb: 1st, 63. [19. Colonial Records, Vol. I. p. 579.]

This was plain writing, and the threat to look "elsewhere"--to the English Chancery--brought the Connecticut Court to terms.

The other letter is of an earlier date, and in quite another, but in its way equally graphic style. It is written to John Winthrop, Jr., concerning the death of Governor Haynes, and bears date January 10th, 1653:--

Honored Sir: You will heer of the sad dispention of the Lord toward vs by some other hand, in so suddainly takeing away from vs our Honored Governor; for although death be the way of all flesh, yet the maner of this was such as I have not knowne the like in my tyme. I was, with some others, in a conference with him in the evening of that night wherein he dyed: & he was as cherefull, & spake as fresh & freely as ever he did (in my hearing) in his life: & the like he did at supper & duty at home, & went so to his bed: and yet not long after the midtyme of the same night he accomplisht that greate worke of exchanging this life for a better; the which he did so seweet & so silent that his wife who lay by him & being awake, had no other intimation but onely his short breathing, & had onely liberty to aske him how he did, but he gave her no word to answer. Sir, this was a very choise death to him, being always prepared, but the sadder to vs: now the Lord teach vs his meaning heerin, & give vs to make right vse of it. [20. Massachusetts Historical Society Collections, 4th Series, Vol. VII. p. 49.]

This recognized intelligence and intellectual superiority which the trusts put upon Mr. Goodwin and his own letters indicate is in a manner also expressed in the address of a letter to him still extant, written by Rev. John Norton of Boston, "For the Reverend Mr. William Goodin at Hartford in Connecticut," the address being in the handwriting of John Winthrop, Jr. [21. Massachusetts Historical Society Collections, 4th Series, Vol. VII. p. 450.]

Reference has been made above, in speaking of the Hopkins trust, to the fact of Mr. Goodwin's removal from Hartford to Hadley. Into the details of the long controversy in the Hartford church which resulted in an event which must have been so trying and disappointing to a man who had been from the beginning identified with Hartford and its church, it is not necessary here minutely to enter. [22. See Walker's History of First Church of Hartford, pp. 146-181, for extended account of the affair.] Though the story is long and complicated, and though it involved actions of the legislature and proceedings before church councils running through a period of six years, its substantial points can be easily stated. Between Rev. Thomas Hooker, who died in 1647, and Mr. Goodwin had manifestly existed a strong personal attachment of mutual respect and confidence. The official relations between them in the church were harmonious, and such was the wisdom of administration in church affairs and the good conduct on the part of the membership, that tradition declares that there had been no case of church discipline in the Hartford church up to the death of its first pastor. Mr. Hooker was eminently a judicious man, accustomed to take counsel with his associate church officers before any considerable business transaction, and was moreover democratically inclined in his estimate of the prerogatives of the brotherhood. The reverend Teacher Stone, who practically succeeded to sole pastoral charge after Mr. Hooker's death, was a man of different temper, and of considerably different ideas of ministerial dignity and church-membership privilege. Various plain utterances and actions indicate that Mr. Stone took quite a high Presbyterial view of his own functions, and a corresponding view of the duties of reverence and obedience on the part of the church. [23. Connecticut Historical Society Collections, Vol. II. pp. 71, 75, and Magnalia, Vol. I. p. 395.]

Between temperaments probably both somewhat inflammable, and views considerably antagonistic, almost anything might have served to awaken some degree of opposition, which could easily develop into strife. But indeed it was not apparently what could
well be called a little matter which really began the controversy between Mr. Goodwin and Mr. Stone, involving at length the whole church and colony, and resulting at last in the withdrawal to Hadley of Mr. Goodwin and about fifty others of the best men of the church,--s
ome of them among its chief men and first founders.

The apparent point of beginning of this unhappy strife was the arbitrary act of Mr. Stone in hindering "ye Church from declaring their apprehensions by vote (upon ye day in question) concerning Mr. Wigglesworth's fitness for office in ye Church of Hartford"; [24. Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll., Vol. II. p. 71.] Mr. Wigglesworth having been preaching as a candidate for joint office with Mr. Stone, in the charge of the Hartford church. [25. History of First Church, pp. 147-159.] This arbitrary act of Mr. Stone--the like of which would throw any Congregational church nowadays into turmoil--naturally aroused an opposition led by the Ruling Elder. Stormy meetings of the church followed, in one of which Mr. Stone resigned his office, which, however, he soon as hastily resumed; and in another of which the church practically deposed the Ruling Elder from his place, by electing a "moderator" to "lead the ch: in his roome." [26. Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll., Vol. II. pp. 59, 72.]

And so the quarrel went on, widening as it went, through several unhappy years,--the General Court ever and anon interposing with advice and instructions which only made matters worse, and councils of the churches being summoned from other Colonies in vain,--till the tempers of all parties were exhausted, and the patience of the minority, led by Mr. Goodwin, could endure the continuance of the strife no longer. So far as numbers went, and occupancy of the ground, victory rested at last with Mr. Stone, and the majority of the Hartford Church agreeing with him. But the impartial verdict of history must be, that spite of many irregularities and doubtless a good deal of ill temper on both sides, the general weight of right and justice was with the defeated and emigrating minority.

On the 20th of May, 1658, Mr. John Cullick and Mr. Goodwin, being in Boston for the purpose, presented a petition to the General Court of Massachusetts, in their own behalf and of "several others of the Colony of Connecticut," setting forth that they "do conceive it may be meet for the comfort of them and theirs to remove," and to come under the "pious and godly government" of Massachusetts; and asking liberty to "view any tract of land unpossessed within your Colony in order to such an end." [27. Judd's History of Hadley, pp. 18, 19.]

This request was accorded at the same term of Court in the following language: "In answer to the petition of Capt Cullicke & Mr. Wm Goodwine in behalfe of themselves and others, the Court judgeth meete to graunt theire requests in reference to lands not already graunted, and further gives them liberty to inhabitt in any part of this jurisdiction already planted, provided they submit themselves to a due & orderly hearing of the differences betweene themselves & the rest of their brethren." [28. Judd's History of Hadley, p. 19.] This "due & orderly hearing of the differences" was finally had before a council of nine Massachusetts churches, at Boston, in September, 1659, the "Sentence of the Councell" being dated the 26th of the month, and being drawn up by Rev. Jonathan Mitchell of Cambridge. [30. Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll., Vol. II. pp. 112-125.]

The chief point of interest in this immediate connection, however, in the long and elaborate paper, concerns that portion of the minority of the Hartford church who proposed to move to Massachusetts, respecting whom the council resolved, "Our Advice
and Determination is that the Church forthwith upon such their desire shall give them their Dismission." [31. Judd's History of Hadley, p. 123.]

But already, some months before this "due and orderly" conclusion of the matter,--either in anticipation of it, or perhaps in despair of it,--the minority had taken resolute steps to remove. They met at Goodman Ward's house in Hartford on the 18th of April, 1659, and signed a compact, in connection with several associates from Wethersfield and Windsor, to "Remove themselves and their ffamilies out of the Jurisdiction of Connecticut Into the Jurisdiction of the Masschusetts." [32. Judd's Hadley, pp. 19, 20.] Of the fifty-nine names unconditionally signed to this paper and one "not fully" engaged, about thirty-six were of the Hartford church, and some of them among its most prominent members and officers. The first three names are those of John Webster, William Goodwin, and John Crow, Mr. Goodwin's son-in-law. Ozias Goodwin also signed the agreement, but, like several other of the Hartford members, seems to have reversed his determination and remained in his old home.

A committee of the signers of the agreement were directed to go to the new plantation "on the east side of Northampton and lay out the number of 59 homelots and allow 8 acres to every homelot." This was effected some time in the early summer of 1659, and the occupation of the new settlement began. Mr. Goodwin's lot in the little village was on the west side of the street, between that of John Webster to the north and John Crow to the south, and opposite Thomas Stanley's across the main street.

By autumn of 1658 the happy adjustment of the ecclesiastical difficulties with the Hartford church enabled the withdrawers from its fellowship to recovenant in their new home. Just when the organization of the new church was accomplished, or in what way, is unknown; but whenever it took place Mr. Russell of Wethersfield was chosen Pastor and Mr. Goodwin Ruling Elder. In this capacity Mr. Goodwin served with the pastor as "messenges" from the "Church of Hadleigh" on the council which organized the Northampton church and ordained Mr. Mather its minister on June 4th, 1661. [33. Northampton Church Records, and Judd's Hadley, p. 55.] On December 12th, 1661, the town--which some time that year, on petition of its inhabitants, had been named Hadley by the General Court--voted to build a meeting-house "45 by 24 ... with leantos on both sides," and designated "Mr. Russell, Mr. Goodwin, and Goodman Lewis, Warner, Dickinson, Meekins, and Allis" a committee for the purpose. [34. Judd's Hadley, p. 50.] Meantime a house was hired for public worship and "Mr. Goodwin and John Barnard" were chosen to seat the people. [35. Judd's Hadley, p. 50.] In May, 1663, Mr. Goodwin, as Ruling Elder, with Mr. Russell as Pastor, and Deacons Nathaniel Dickinson and Peter Tilton, united in a remonstrance to the General Court on behalf "of the Church of Christ in Hadley" against the act of the Court in giving the Great Meadow to Mr. Bradstreet. [35. Judd's Hadley, p. 28.] This loss of territory, which in the view of the remonstrants and of the Hadley people generally, was believed rightly to belong to the Hadley settlers, seems to have been the occasion of the failure to secure the services, as joint minister with Mr. Russell, of Rev. Samuel Hooker, son of the old Hartford pastor, who had signed the Goodman Ward agreement, and had expected to unite his destinies with the Hadley enterprise.

Mr. Ozias Goodwin, it has been noticed, did not accompany the emigrants from Hartford to Hadley. A lot, however, on the west side of the river, in what is now Hatfield, was assigned him, and he must have been expected by his brother for a considerable time to come to it, for on December 19, 1661, "the Towne renewed Osias Goodwin's fformer Grant" on certain conditions, which Mr. William Goodwin undertook to perform "for his Bror." [36. Hadley Town Records.]

Mr. Goodwin must have been an aging man when he was forced to make the new enterprise of a home at Hadley. The letter of Rev. John Norton to him in March, 1660, to which reference has already been made, intimates no less. Mr. Norton had alluded to "some discouragements lying vpon yourselves the vndertakers of the newe plantation." But he goes on by way of comfort to say, "Now he by whom you have beene borne from the wombe, beare, carry, and deliver you, in your old age." [37. Mass. Hist. Soc. Col., 4th Series, Vol. VII. p. 450.] But whatever his age, or however great his trial in the separation from the Hartford home, he seems to have put his best remaining energies to the service of Hadley. It was during this Hadley period of his life that the death of Governor Hopkins, and of two of the executors of his will, threw on Mr. Goodwin, in association with Rev. John Davenport, the trust of the administration of his estate which has already been spoken of. In the division of the property, Hadley, by his allotment, was secured the sum of £308 for the establishment of a grammar school. [38. Judd's Hadley, p. 56.] His proposal to the town of Hadley for the appointment of trustees for the school bears date March 20, 1669.

To further the interests of the school, Mr. Goodwin--who seems always to have had familiarity with the application of water-power -- built a grist-mill with a part of the Hopkins legacy. This was probably about 1671, as the house for the miller was built that year. [39. Judd's Hadley, p. 57.]

This must have been among the later, if not the last, of Mr. Goodwin's public transactions at Hadley. The next positive record concerning him is of his death in Farmington, March 11, 1673. Tradition has it that he had removed from Hadley to Farmingt
on: a belief which seems to be confirmed by the fact that his widow, "Susannah,"--whose family name is yet unascertained,--also died in Farmington about three years later, May 17, 1676.

Of the reasons and circumstances of this removal from his third cis-Atlantic home to a fourth, and his finding a burial place away from the scenes of his vigorous life-labors, no absolutely certain explanation remains. But in default of certainty in
the case, a highly probable explanation may be found in the relationship of intimacy and affection existing from of old between Mr. Goodwin and the Hookers.

At Farmington lived Rev. Samuel Hooker, son of Rev. Thomas, of Hartford. Mr. Samuel Hooker had been a sympathizer with Elder Goodwin in the long controversy in the Hartford church, and had signed the agreement to emigrate to Hadley with him. This purpose was defeated, as has been before mentioned, by a loss of a part of the territory which Hadley had deemed its own, and the consequent inability of the people to support the two ministers they at first proposed to have among them. But Mr. Hooker, unable to go to Hadley, was in 1661 ordained pastor at Farmington. Here he took the "Old Congregational" side in the controversy which divided the Hartford church, and which agitated all the churches of the colony, and indeed of New England, and which doubtless both Elder Goodwin and Rev. Samuel of Farmington regarded as the side which truly represented the spirit and teachings of Thomas Hooker. [40. See History of First Church of Hartford, pp. 182, 201, 217, 218.] A lifelong community of religious convictions and of family friendships now probably in Mr. Goodwin's old age asserted its influence in determining the establishment of his last home. At the date of the transaction spoken of above as the last ascertainable one at Hadley, Mr. Hooker, thirty-six years of age, had been ten years settled at Farmington. To this place, therefore, the home of his friend, the son of his friend, he removed to spend the last few years of his life, and to die.

Another hypothesis as to the Farmington removal and residence of Mr. Goodwin has been suggested by Mr. Frank F. Starr, whose aptitude and skill in historical matters lend interest to his conjectures, viz. that Susanna, the wife of Elder Goodwin, may have been Susanna, the widow of Rev. Thomas Hooker. In the silence of recorded narrative concerning Mrs. Hooker after the death of her husband, in 1647, it is impossible at present certainly to disprove this conjecture, while, if true, it accounts easily for Mr. Goodwin's later residence in the town of Rev. Samuel Hooker at Farmington.

Mr. Goodwin is believed to have been older than his brother Ozias. The latter had occasion to testify in 1674--the year following his brother William's death--that he was seventy eight years of age. [41. Goodwin's Genealogical Notes, p. xv.] Elder Goodwin must, therefore, have been an old man on leaving Hadley, but manifestly must have preserved his powers in vigorous use close to, if not quite to his end.

Mr. Goodwin and Susanna, his wife, left but one child, Elizabeth, who married John Crow, Mr. Goodwin's business associate in some part of his Hartford enterprises, his companion and neighbor in the Hadley migration, and, through his wife, the successor to Mr. Goodwin's Hartford home lot and other property in Hartford. Mr. Crow and wife removed back from Hadley to Hartford about 1676, and in 1678 united with the Second Church of Hartford, many members of which were sympathizers with the Hadley emigrants eighteen years previous. [42. Second Church Manual]

Through the children of John and Elizabeth (Goodwin) Crow, the blood of William Goodwin commingled with that of many of the best families of Connecticut and Massachusetts, and still runs in the veins of a large and now wide-scattered posterity. But with whatever other strains it may possibly combine, it will be difficult for any of those descendants in whose vital furnishing it bears some component part to look back to any ancestor more worthy of remembrance and of honor than the high-spirited, sagacious, enterprising, and "godly" William Goodwin, Ruling Elder of the churches of Newtown, Hartford and Hadley.

GEO. LEON WALKER.
HARTFORD, CONN., April, 1890.

1. William Goodwin sailed from London, June 22, 1632, and arrived in Boston in September following. He immediately settled at Newtown, now Cambridge, Mass. ; his residence being on what is now Harvard Street, between Holyoke and Linden, facing the College grounds. In 1635 he was one of the company which removed to Connecticut and settled Newtown, now Hartford. In 1659 he and a number of the Hartford people settled Had- ley, Mass. In anticipation of his return to Connecticut, he sold some of his Hadley lands in January, 1669-70, his wife Susanna joining in the deed. This is the first record in America of his wife, yet discovered, and in view of the statement in Dr. Jessopp,s article (see page 28) it is sus pected she was his second wife, and possibly the widow of his friend and pastor, Thomas Hooker.

William Goodwin died in Farmington, Conn., March 11, 1673. Susanna, his widow, died May 17, 1676.

Daughter.
2. I. Elizabeth; m. John Crow.