Thomas Hale, the Glover of Newbury, Mass, 1635 e-bog

Whilst the greatest effort has been made to ensure the quality of this text, due to the historical nature of this content, in some rare cases there may be minor issues with legibility. 1. Thomas Hale and his wife Thomasine, or Tamosin, and son Thomas, came to Newbury in 1635, according to both Savage and Coffin. They were probably of the party who first settled in that town in that year, on the banks of the Quascacunquen, or Parker River, though his name is not included among those mentioned by Coffin as forming the first colony, with a few others whose names are not known with certainty.<br><br>Coffin supposes him to have been the son of William Hale, Esq., of King's Walden, Herts, England, born at that place, May 15, 1606.The birth and baptism of this Thomas apx)ear on the family records at King's Walden, but no further entry is found there touching his life or death. No sufficient proof is found to establish conclusively the identity of Thomas of Newbury with this Thomas of Kings Walden, though facts are known to make such identity probable. The question is still under investigation, and the English origin of Thomas of Newbury may become the subject of a future paper.<br><br>The date of his arrival in America, the name of the vessel in which he came, and the maiden surname of his wife, are all unknown. Coffin, in his History of Newbury (page 304), describes him as ae. 78 at his death in 1682; while the entries in the same authors Early Settlers of Essex and Old Norfolk (Reg., vol. vi.p. 341), make him ae. 67 in 1677, and . 50 in 1660.Savage says he was freeman 7 Sept.1638 (and see Reg. vol. iii. p.96). But a Thomas Hale was also admitted freeman May 14, 1634(id. p.92), the same day on which Robert Hale of Charlestown was admitted, and the authority on which Savage makes the last named Thomas to refer to Thomas of Roxbury, the brother of Samuel of Glastenbury, does not appear.<br><br>Tradition in the two families makes Thomas of Newbury and Deacon Robert of Charlestown brothers. If so, Thomas of Newbury was not the son of William of Kings Walden, for the latter had no son Robert. It is