Addenda
THE HUSBAND OF ELIZABETH HOOTON (pp. [2], [16])
Several writers on Elizabeth Hooton have stated that her husband was Samuel: James Bowden, Hist. i. 260; A. C. Bickley in D.N.B.; Charlotte Fell Smith in The British Friend, 1893.
Mrs. Manners has come to the conclusion that Elizabeth’s husband was Oliver. She thus states her case:
1. Though an exhaustive search of the Nottinghamshire Parish Registers has been made, I failed to find any marriage of a Samuel Hooton to Elizabeth ⸺ in any years when it would possibly have occurred.
2. At Ollerton (which village is said by Thoroton to have been partly owned by Hootons) I found that in the year 1628 Oliver Hooton married Elizabeth Carrier—and on the 4th of May, 1633, Samuel, son of Oliver and Elizabeth Hooton, was baptized. (Ollerton Parish Registers.)
3. No entries in Ollerton Registers between the years 1633 and 1636.
4. At Skegby in the year 1636 a son was born to Oliver and Elizabeth Hooton, and in succeeding years the children born are described as above.
5. In 1657, in the Friends’ Digest Register, the death of Oliver Hooton is recorded, and under the same year the Skegby Parish Registers record Oliver Hooton the elder buried.
6. We learn from a letter written by Thomas Aldam from York Castle, where he and Elizabeth Hooton were imprisoned in 1652, that E. H.’s husband was living at that time.
7. George Fox in his Testimony concerning E. H. says: “Her husband being Zealous for yᵉ Priests much opposed her, in soe much that they had like to have parted but at Last it pleased yᵉ Lord to open his understanding that hee was Convinced alsoe & was faithfull untill Death.” From this statement I should expect to find the entry of his death in the Friends’ Register. The name of Samuel does not occur in either Register of deaths.
8. The late Mary Radley also arrived at the conclusion that the husband’s name was Oliver, and our investigations were conducted entirely independently.
NOAH BULLOCK (p. [7])
The name of Noah Bullock does not appear in the list of Mayors of Derby given in William Hutton’s History of Derby, ed. of 1791, but the following curious allusion to Bullock occurs in the same work, page 236:
“1676—We sometimes behold that singularity of character which joyfully steps out of the beaten track for the sake of being ridiculous; thus the Barber, to excite attention, exhibited in his window green, blue and yellow wigs, and thus Noah Bullock, enraptured with his name, that of the first navigator, and the founder of the largest family upon record, having 3 sons, named them after those of his predecessor, Shem, Ham and Japhet; and to complete the farce, being a man of property, built an ark, and launched it upon the Derwent, above St. Mary’s-bridge; whether a bullock graced the stern history is silent. Here Noah and his sons enjoyed their abode and the world their laugh. But nothing is more common than for people to deceive each other. The world acts under a mask. If they publicly ridiculed him, he privately laughed at them: for it afterwards appeared he had more sense than honesty; and more craft than either; for this disguise and retreat were to be a security to coin money. He knew Justice could not easily overtake him, and if it should, the deep was ready to hide his coins and utensils. Sir Simon Degge, an active magistrate, who resided at Babington-hall, was informed of Noah’s proceedings, whom he personally knew: the Knight sent for him and told him, ‘he had taken up a new occupation, and desired to see a specimen of his work.’ Noah hesitated. The magistrate promised that no evil should ensue, provided that he relinquished the trade. He then pulled out a sixpence and told Sir Simon ‘He could make as good work as that.’ The Knight smiled; Noah withdrew, broke up his ark, and escaped the halter.”
The family is an ancient one; there are monumental inscriptions in St. Alkmund’s church to Bullocks of Darley Abbey. The name is still represented in the town.
Information supplied by Edward Watkins, of Fritchley, Derby.
COMMITMENT TO LINCOLN CASTLE (p. [14])
Lyncolnshere.
J was gon out of becingham, & was gone to barnbe in Nottingham shire, & as J was warneing some to repent in yᵉ towne, there come a wicked man forth whose name was Atkingson, a proud man, he stroake me unreasonably, then pul’d he me out of my way over a bridge & when J was over he sent to the Preist of becingham to serve his warrant upon me, & wᵗʰ his warrant he sent me to the Justice, & the Justice being a wicked man he sent me to prison to Lincoln goal. The same Preist put another Man friend into prison for tithes, & hee dyed, & his house keeper came through the chamber where the Preist lay, & he sᵈ good morrow Valentine in a vain light condition, & tooke her in his armes to salute her & suddainly the Lord stroak him wᵗʰ death, though he cryed for his bottle of strong waters but it would not save him, thus the hand of the Lord is agᵗ wicked men, both old & young, [they] shall perish if they transgress. Atkingson came to nought alsoe & was taken away suddainly, yet the Lord was with me in prison though J endured a very cold winter, it was God’s mercy in preserving me that winter from being starved to death, & this widdow woman that kept yᵉ goal was full of cruelty towards me & all yᵉ prisoners.
[Endorsement]
An imperfect paper, yet expressing the Manner of her being sent to Lyncolne Prison: and Gods hand upon yᵉ Priest & Atkinson that were yᵉ cause of her Jmprisonmᵗ there.
MS. in D. (Portfolio i. 136)
LINCOLN CASTLE GATEWAY.
To face p. 78.] [[See p. vii.]
UNKETTY (page [43])
An enquiry addressed to Augustine Jones, LL.B., of Newton Highlands, Mass., has brought the following information:
Unquity, or Unquity-quisset was the Indian name for Dorchester, which, in 1662, was incorporated as Milton. It is across the Neponset River from Boston, on the somewhat indirect way from Cambridge to Scituate.
Unquity means “a place at the end of the small tidal stream or creek.”
A YOUNG MAN OUT OF THE NORTH OF ENGLAND (p. [43])
This was probably Thomas Newhouse, whose name is included in a list of English Friends visiting N.E., 1661 to 1671 (in the possession of William C. Braithwaite, Banbury, Oxon). The incident is associated with the name of Thomas Newhouse in the histories of Bishop, Besse and Bowden. In Newhouse’s own account of the event and its results, given by Bishop (op. cit. p. 472), we read:
“Upon a Lecture-day at Boston in New-England, I was much pressed in Spirit to go into their Worship-house amongst them.... They cryed, Away with him; and some took me by the Throat, and would not suffer me to answer to it, but hurried me down Stairs, to the Carriage of a great Gun, which stood in the Market place, where I was stripp’d, and tyed to the wheel, and whipp’d with ten Stripes ... and then ... whipp’d ... at Roxbury ... and at Dedham ... and then sent into the Woods.”
In Bishop’s fuller account of this scene, he tells us (op. cit. p. 432) that Newhouse, “having two Glass Bottles in his Hands, dash’d them to pieces, saying to this effect, That so they should be dash’d in Pieces”—a very close parallel with the account given by E. Hooton.
William Edmondson states in his Journal, under date 1672, that the Friends of Virginia were “stumbled and scatter’d by his [Newhouse’s] evil Example ... who went from Truth into the Filth and Uncleanness of the World.” See Jones, Quakers in American Colonies.
It must have been a sorry spectacle—an old woman and a young man, both half naked, tied side by side to the back of a cart, and lashed with a whip of three knotted cords till blood ran.