Hon. Samuel Symonds

Probate Records of Essex County

• p.263
• Estate of Samuel Symonds of Ipswich in New England gent.
• p.264 wife Rebeckah Symonds
• Farm Argilla
• son Harlakindin and granddaughter Sarah Symonds
• p. 266 sonne and daughter Epps- 100 pounds, land, and suit of Lady Cheynies her Grandmother
• son and daughter Emerson
• daughter Baker
• daughter Dunkin, daughter Hale, son Chewte, son William executor of my last will and testament.
• p. 267 sonne William all my houwses and lands in Ipswich. Son John Hale overseer of will.
• Sealed Feb. 16, 1673
• p. 267 Will proved in Ipswich Court Nov. 6, 1678, by John Graves and Edward Bragg
• son Harlakindin, son William Jan. 1676

____________

• 'Samuel Symonds
• 'M, #42827, b. 9 June 1595, d. 11 October 1678
• Father Richard (Robert) Symonds b. 5 Dec 1560, d. 8 Jul 1627
• Mother Elizabeth Plumb d. 24 Jan 1611
• ' Samuel Symonds was born on 9 June 1595 at Earl's Colne, Essex, England. He married Dorothy Harlakenden, daughter of Thomas Harlakenden and Dorothy Cheney, on 2 April 1617 at Great Yeldham, England. Samuel Symonds married Martha Reade, daughter of Edmund Reade and Elizabeth Cooke, circa 1637 at Salisbury, Essex, MA. Samuel Symonds died on 11 October 1678 at Ipswich, Essex, MA, at age 83.
• 'Family 1 Dorothy Harlakenden b. 12 Dec 1596, d. 3 Aug 1636
• 'Family 2 Martha Reade b. 13 Jul 1602, d. 1662
• Children
  • Ruth Symonds+ b. c 1640
  • Sarah Symonds+ b. 9 Dec 1644, d. 19 Jan 1699
• From: http://our-royal-titled-noble-and-commoner-ancestors.com/p1425.htm#...
• -----------
• The descendants of William and Elizabeth Tuttle, who came from old to New England in 1635, and settled in New Haven in 1639, with numerous biographical notes and sketches : also, some account of the descendants of John Tuttle, of Ipswich; and Henry Tuthill, of Hingham, Mass. (1883)
• http://www.archive.org/stream/descendantsofwil01tutt#page/n87/mode/2up
• (MARTHA SYMONDS MOTHER IS NOT CORRECT. SAMUEL SYMONDS WIFE WAS THE SISTER OF THE WIFE OF GOV. JOHN WINTHROP)
• Sarah Tuttle, b. 1633; d. Dec. 1, 1666; m. Feb. 1, 1654, Richard Martin. He was a merchant, one of the founders of the First chh., Portsmouth, N. H.; Rep. and Speaker of the House. He m. (2) Martha, wid. of John Denison. She was dau. of 'Lieut. Gov. SAMUEL SYMONDS of Mass.', and his wife, who was a dau. of Gov. Winthrop of Mass. He m. (3) Elizabeth, dau. of Henry Sherburne. She had been twice a wid. Her 1st husband was Tobias Landon, m. 1656; (2) Tobias Lear, m. 1667; (3) Richard Martin. He m. (4) Mary Denning, wid. of Samuel Wentworth, and mother of Lieut. Gov. John Wentworth of Mass. She d. Jan 20, 1724-25, and her funeral sermon was preached by Rev. Jabez Fitch, a copy of which is in possession of Mark Hunking Wentworth of Portsmouth, N. H. --Wentworth Mormorial. i. all by 1st m.

  ---

• The pioneers of Massachusetts: a descriptive list, drawn from records of the colonies, towns and churches and other contemporaneous documents. By Charles Henry Pope ...Published 1900 by C.H. Pope in Boston . Written in English. Page 86

_________ Samuel Symonds, gentleman: complaint to Salem court ... https://historicipswich.org › 2017/12/24 › samuel-symonds-servants Dec 24, 2017 - William Downing and Phillip Welch, indentured to Samuel Symonds ... Town Clerk, served as a Judge, and later became Deputy-Governor of the Colony. ... files of the Quarterly Courts of Essex County, Massachusetts, Vol II.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colonial_governors_of_Massach... John Leverett A three-quarter length engraved portrait of Leverett in full military uniform. His right hand rests on a knight's helmet, and his left is on his hip, holding gloves. December 12, 1672 (acting until May 7, 1673) May 28, 1679 Samuel Symonds (1673–78) Simon Bradstreet (1678–79)

Samuel Symonds (1595 - 1678) | Quinn Bradlee's Ancestors ... https://quinnbradleesancestors.fandom.com › wiki › Samuel_Symonds_(15... Gov. Samuel Symonds was born in 1595 in England to Richard Symonds ( - ) and ... He was Deputy Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony and owned ... Samuel Symonds did not own the mansion on Castle Hill. He owned the land known as Castle Hill between 1644 and 1660, but he lived on land nearby that is now known as Argilla Farm which is on Argilla Rd. His house, built in 1637, is long gone and from the description he wrote of it himself, was fairly modest in size. See https://historicipswich.org/argilla-farm/

"The house described is one or two rooms wide and one room deep, two stories in height, with a full cellar, central doorways and stairways, and wood chimneys on either side. "

The mansion on Castle Hill was built centuries later, in 1928, by Richard T Crane. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_T._Crane and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Hill_(Ipswich,_Massachusetts)

July 7 by A FANDOM u https://quinnbradleesancestors.fandom.com/wiki/Samuel_Symonds_(1595_-_1678)

Coat of Arms orginally granted to Samuel's father Richard

Symonds - GENEALOGICAL AND FAMILY HISTORY OF THE ... dunhamwilcox.net › me_bio_symonds (I) John Symonds, afterward of Salem, Mass., and Samuel Symonds, afterward of Ipswich, and deputy governor of Massachusetts, appeared together in Boston, ...

Historic Homes and Institutions and Genealogical and ... https://books.google.com › books Ellery Bicknell Crane - 1907 - ‎Worcester County (Mass.) The children of Governor Simon and Ann (Dudley) Brad- street were: Samuel (H. C. ... son of Governor Simon Bradstreet (1), was born at Andover, Massachusetts, ... 1645, married Samuel Simonds (see sketch of the Simonds family) ; Thomas, ... was often called the deputy governor, and was many times acting-governor in ...

Sacred Violence in Early America - Page 114 - Google Books Result https://books.google.com › books Susan Juster - 2016 - ‎History J. Franklin Jameson (new york, 1910), 3:265–67. 117 Samuel Symonds, deputy Governor of massachusetts, to Secretary Joseph Williamson, Boston, april 6,

Biographical Notices of Distinguished Men in New England: ... https://books.google.com › books Alden Bradford - 1842 - ‎New England p. 386 SAMUEL SYMONDS.

years; but the difference of sentiments has produced an alienation ... He came early to Massachusetts, but not with the first company. ... He was one of the assistants in 1643, and also deputy governor, in 1673.  

_______________

https://ipswichwades.wordpress.com/tag/samuel-symonds/

Samuel Symonds was a busy and powerful man. Perzel, has a very brief description of the powerful Symonds couple:

One other man held almost as many different official positions as Daniel Denison; that was Samuel Symonds. Symonds was descended from a family in Yieldham, Essex County, England which owned a good-sized estate. He settled in Ipswich in 1638. Like Denison, Symonds apparently married well. His first wife was Dorothy, the daughter of Thomas Harlakenden of Colne, England, a relative of Governor John Winthrop. Symonds served as a selectman, feoffee, and town clerk in Ipswich but spent most of his time playing an active role in colonial government. He served as an Assistant from 1643 to 1673 when he became Deputy Governor until his death in 1678. He was rewarded for his services by large grants of land such as 1000 acres in Maine, 300 acres beyond the Merrimac River, and 300 acres along the Connecticut River. [p. 147]

The records for Mary and William Symonds’ marriage have not been found but based on their first child’s birth in 1667, it is assumed that they were married sometime before 1667. Traditionally, young puritan women married around the age of 26, but Mary would have been 34 in 1667. It may be that they were married somewhat earlier and may even have had some children before their daughter Susanna in 1667. In any event, William would have made all the proper advances to court Mary and her entrance into the Symonds family would have been considered a good match by her father. By the time of their marriage, Samuel, the father, would have been an Assistant in the Massachusetts Bay Company and by the time his last two grandchildren from William and Mary were born, he was the Deputy Governor of the Colony.

There is an interesting footnote to what seems a fortuitous match. In 1651, when Mary was 18, William Symonds had summoned Jonathan Wade to the Quarterly Ipswich Court but withdrew the action and was ordered to pay Jonathan’s costs. There being no further record of the details of this court encounter, it would be purely speculative to hypothesize that it was perhaps related to William’s attempts to court Jonathan’s daughter, Mary.

William and Mary had five children born in Ipswich that have been recorded in the early records. They were:

Susanna Symonds, born 3 Jan 1668/69, died circa 1695, married Joseph Jacob 18 Dec, 1690. Dorothy Symonds, born 21 Oct 1670, married Cyprian Whipple 9 Dec. 1695. Mary Symonds, born 6 Jan 1672/73, died 20 June 1703, married Joseph Whipple, 10 Dec 1697. Elizabeth Symonds, born 20 July, 1678, married Ichabod Allen, 7 July 1715. Joseph Symonds, born circa 1679. William died 22 May 1679 in Ipswich only 7 months and 10 days after his father, Samuel, had died. In fact, Samuel’s estate had not yet been settled and William himself died without a will. Less than one month later,on June 17, 1679, Governor Simon Bradstreet and Major Hawthorne granted administration of William’s estate to Mary Wade Symonds and Jonathan Wade who were charged to bring an inventory to the next court session. However, Harlakenden Symonds, the eldest son, and Daniel Epps, Samuel Symonds’s son-in-law, advised the court that since Samuel’s estate had yet to be inventoried and administered, on behalf of the rest of the family they had taken possession of the houses, lands, chattels, and goods that had been the property of Samuel Symonds, although they reassured the court that both Samuel’s wife and William’s wife Mary would receive their just proportion once the inventory was taken. At issue was the Argilla farm, a 300 acre tract of land on the Chebacco side of Ipswich. William Symonds would have inherited the farm from his father, Samuel, but William’s untimely death so soon after his father, and Samuel’s estate not yet having been administered, the prospect was that Mary Wade Symonds would have inherited the Symonds homestead. In October 1679, the Court of Assistants took up the appeal, appointing Daniel Epps, Harlakenden Symonds, and Richard Martin administrators. They also ordered that they pay all legatees and bequests in the will. As to Argilla, they ordered that the farm and the remaining portion of the estate be divided amongst the children with a double portion to Harlakenden Symonds and the rest of the children to receive a single share. Their parting shot expressed some frustration with the legal battle: “& this order to be a fynall issue of this controversy.” Unfortunately it was not: there seems to have been some ongoing disagreements about the two estates amongst the two sides and , naturally enough, they landed back in the Quarterly Court held in Salem in November 1680. Only six days before the court session, Jonathan and his daughter Mary had been served a writ by the court and the town of Ipswich for not yet having given an account of William’s estate. The action was withdrawn at the court session as was a subsequent action by Harlakenden Symonds alleging that his brother William had not paid him a legacy from his father which, he alleged, came from a £65 debt William owed Samuel. Both Daniel Epps and Jonathan Wade submitted their inventories to the Court, both showing that their respective owners Samuel and his son William, listed the Argilla farm of 300 acres in their inventories, thus laying claim to the property.

Ultimately, on 11 May 1681, Jonathan petitioned the Court of Assistants who agreed to hear the case at the next court session in October. At that session, the hearing was scheduled for 19 Oct 1681, but the records only show the sessions dated for the 18th of that month. In the end, as Perzel reported:

The problem centered around the fact that Samuel Symonds did not particularly like his daughter-in-law; the Reverend Thomas Cobbett testified that Samuel Symonds showed and expressed deep distaste for his son William’s wife. The matter was never really settled until 1694 when all the remaining heirs agreed to the sale of the farm..” (Perzel, First Generation, citing the Massachusetts Archives Collection Vol. XIV, pp. 213, 218, and 220-225)

Whatever Samuel Symonds may have come to feel about his daughter-in-law, the salient fact is that he approved his son’s courtship and marriage according to the laws of the Massachusetts Bay Colony He is not the last father-in-law we will meet who disapproved of his in-laws. But in the early days of the settlement, which families married with which other families seemed to be an important decision that touched upon the “suitability” of the proposed in-law’s family as much as anything else. Perzel analysed the colonial pattern of inter-family marriages and ultimately concluded:

The family factor is extremely important in regard to the leading men. Four families, Symonds, Whittingham, Perkins, and Paine, had two members each among the leading men. The Symonds family was particularly important, because not only were there two members who were leading men but there were two more who were in the upper level of status, meaning that the Symonds had a total of four members in the upper levels of Ipswich society. Even more important were the intermarriages within the leading families, and again the Symonds family was an important factor. Members of the Symonds family married into the Wade, Epps, and Winthrop families. The next most active marriage chain started with members of the Dudley family who married into the Bradstreet and Denison families. The Denisons in turn married into the Rogers family who married into the Hubbard family who married into the Whittingham family, creating an important linkage among the leading families. Family connections were also important outside of the town. For example, at least three leading men’ were younger sons of leaders in the Massachusetts Bay Company. They were Winthrop, Wade, and Saltonstall.

And with that, we turn next to Jonathan Wade who married one of Governor Thomas Dudley’s daughters, Deborah.

https://ipswichwades.wordpress.com/tag/samuel-symonds/ ____________________

Samuel Symonds to Governor Winthrop, Jan. 6, 1646.'

[The first part of this letter relates to "A Remonstrance and Petition of Robert Childs and others" which was presented to the General Court in 1646. This document arraigned the Government for refusing to allow those who held to the Church of England, to be admitted to the churches, for withholding the franchise and the privilege of holding civil office from a large proportion of the people, and for various unjust and oppressive measures. Copies of this petition had been circulated in the towns, and the peace of the Colony was sorely threatened. Childs and his associates were arrested and fined. They refused to submit to the authority of the Court, and were preparing to go to England to lay their case before Parlia- ment. Thereupon the magistrates made a seizure of their papers and found two petitions and various queries which were to be sent to England. For this they were fined again. Winthrop says, "We could hear of but twenty-five (subscribers) to the chief petition, and those were (for the most part) either young men who came over servants and never had any show of religion in them, or fishermen of Marblehead, profane persons." It appears from the following letter that one of these petitions had been circulated in Ipswich.

In the second portion of the letter, Mr. Symonds declares "what seems to be Gods ende in bringing his people hetlier. " It reveals a rev- erent and thoughtful mind, intensely interested in the well-being of the Colony, profoundly concerned for the Puritan cause in England, and a noble desire for the Christianizing of the Indians.]

Sir:

I thanke you for the intelligence you sent me before the fast day. I am sorry for the trouble you were put unto. Troubles and difficulties we must looke for (if we will reere a building to the Lord) but the encourage- ment exceeds when we consider the worke is his. I am informed that coppies of the petition are spreading here, and divers (specially young men and women) are taken with it, and are apt to wonder wliy such men should be troubled that speake as they doe; not being able suddenly to discerne the poyson in the sweet wine, nor the fire wrapt up in the straw. And albeit I do conceive this towne^ affords very few malignants, yet with- all I doubt not but here are some active spirits for any such project once sett on foote. I am informed of the suspicious expressions here and there of some, but I shall attend full matter, and the fittest season, before I thinke meet to meddle with them. I perceive that our people here when through the cunning of .some and mistake of others, any doubts concerning the publique proceedings are in minds, they are soone satisfied when they are rightly informed. Upon these and such like considerations I do desire

(4) Samuel Symonds- To John Winthrop, Jr.

[It is recorded, under the date Jan. 13, 1637, that the Town "granted to Mr. John.Winthrope Castle Hill and all the meadow and marsh, lying within the creeke provided y' he lives in the Towne, and that tlie Towne may have what tliey shall need for the Ijuilding of a Fort."

Mr. Winthrop had already been commissioned Governor of the "Con- necticut Plantations, ' ' and was actively engaged in forwarding that settle- ment. He sold Mr. Samuel Symonds about a hundred acres of the Castle Hill Farm on Jan. 1, 1645 N. S. and the balance on Aug. 20, 1645.

1 .John Dancis, one of the signers of the Remonstrance and Petition.

2 Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., Fourtli Series, vol. vii.

APPENDIX E. 517

The Town, as appears ironi the followiii"; letter, resenting Mr. W'in- throp's departure, disputed unsuecessfully his title, and Mr. Symonds wrote Mr. Winthrop the minute and interesting account of the proceedings which follows.

Various allusions are made to the action of the Town in Town meetingB of wliich no record remains. It is evident from this and other omi.ssions that tlie Town Records, which have been preserved, are very incomplete. It is evident also that the date of entry in many cases does not determine the date, when the Town took action.]

Good lirother: —

I presume you doe lieare what is the yssue of tiie triall of the title of Castell-Ilill: but had not the castle beene grounded vpon records & full testimony by the tlien Recorder, it might have bene shaken, as it wanted noe battering to doe it. There came in such testimony & pleadings (as I doe assure my selfe) you never dreamed of. The case was debated in Court tlie Tewsday after noone & the fore-noone the next daj\ The second grant was that which was endeavoured to have bene made voyde & tlie first difficulty obtained.

It was vrged that you were denied a vote all the former part of tlie day, albeit your writing & the thinge itselfe speaks tliat the land was not now the Townes to giue, but that you yeilded, to part witli tlie greatest part of the neck to them. There were (as I remember) 4 that did testifie concerning the number of the freemen tttc present, all variously from each other, when they did deliuer theire testimony una voce: one, before he was sworne, said it was done an houre &tc. within night by candle light, but did not deliuer it soe vpon oath: 2. that it was very late, but not by candle light. You and I are noe witnesses in this case: we know it was in the afternoone & the Record agreeth with vs ; another act being done at same tyme, which must require a little debate before it was written, which was your grant of 300 acres, which is well approved of.

But I did know it would require some skill to make one act of the same meeting after the other good, & the former null; soe it was said that your said farme was given before, only the quantity appoynted now ; which (though tyme must be given to believe) yet they confesse enough to make the meeting A'alid in deterniinyng the number of acres; alsoe to confirme this (fc nullifie the other, it was tendered to be testified that this farme, part of it, you had plowed before this grant. Tis nine yeares since the grant, Aug. Gtii last. I suppose you may call to minde who did plow it & when. Though it makes nothing to the case, yet I would willingly let them see their mistaks. It was testified that the meeting was called for another purpose, but next day when they brought in their testimonies, in writing, one of the Jury minded them that this meeting (as before did appeare) was called or warned by the man that did vse to wame the meetings.

It was alsoe said that tliis last grant was voted in the meeting howse, at that tyme mentioned in the record indeed, but it was written in another howse & at another tyme, & this is a thinge, alsoe (I suppose) you never

518 IPSWICH, IN THE MASSACHUSETTS BAY COLONY.

dreamt of. Whereas besides one knowledge & presence at the doeing of it, res ipsa loquitur, for in grants where there must be describing of bounds soe & soe, limittacion hither, & a line soe, it wiU require to be written before it be voted, according to reason & vsuall practice. Mr. Bartholmew was a cleare & full witnesse, agreeing with the Recorde. There was noe neces- sity of any. I summoned none: I did expect him, & he did well to be present.

Concerning the poynt in law touching the presedent order or grant of this land to tlie Town by the freemen, this did not hold longe debate in the Court.

Their last plea to save the accion & charges at least, was that I ha^'e not sett the fence right: soe there are three Commissioners appoynted to view it, if they be found to have broken the fence ^'pon my ground, then I am to have 3 li dammages.

After all the rest was pleaded itte. poynt of Chancery or equity was pleaded, the argument whereof I suppose is generally knowne to be vpon a grosse mistake. It was to this effect, that you left the Towne when Mr. Ward was leaving his place, the Church settling our present officers, & the Church ready to crack, how longe these things were done before, you know better than I, but sure I am, I was a member of the Church first by our present elders in office &tc. &c.

An other thinge was on the second daye testified, I having touched the strangnes of averring against a Record, & not soe much as a protes- ts cion against it, at that t3ane made. The next day one of them remem- bered vpon his oatli, there was a protestacion. I know not whether he well vnderstands what it is, but vnlesse had there bene one, yet if not recorded, what would it effect to prevent any purchaser from deceiving himselfe, building vpon the Record for the Grant, & finding nothing to question the same?

For as much as I was present & there is Mr. B : his oath to the recorder for a fuU consent, for ought appeared to him & by their owne con- fession by the maior part it was done, this seemes very strange ; save that the space of tj-me since doth help to make the most charitable interpreta- cion &c.

A protestacion doth not overthrow an act, noe more then when 2 or three doe enter their dissent vpon an act of Court, it doth render the matter more doubtfull, &tc.

Vrgent occasions doe call me off. I pray God send you a prosperous iourney. Our love to you, my sister & all my cosens. I rest

Your ever loving brother October 6th 47. Samuel Symonds.

mention, 490. Castle Hill, granted John Winthrop, 51;

sold to Samuel Symonds, 516. Castle Neck, 60; felling of trees forbidden,

68 ; divided among commoners, 69 ; wood

• https://archive.org/stream/ipswichinmassach00water/ipswichinmassach...
• https://archive.org/stream/ipswichinmassach00water/ipswichinmassach...

  ---

  
  

Hon. Samuel Symonds is our 7th cousin 13 times removed.
Janet Milburn
7/21/23