Descendants of William Goodridge

Summary

Privately printed in New York in 1918  special edition limited to 275 copies.

THE FAMILY IN AMERICA

While it has been difficult to trace the Goodrickes, Goodridges and Goodriches in the annals of English history back to the time of the Conquest, it has been harder to explore the records of the first immigrants bearing the name who came to New England, and well-nigh impossible to follow them back to their English origin and establish even tentatively their lines of descent. Records in this country are meager; much that is quoted as history is found, upon investigation, to be mere tradition and untrustworthy. As was the case with most of these pioneers to the new world, a great deal of the old family connection was forgotten, ignored and deliberately thrown aside in the long voyage across the Atlantic. Considerable, therefore, must be left to speculation and deduction.

It is not easy to draw an adequate and accurate pen portrait of any particular individual whose life was merged in a great popular movement centuries ago, however useful and influential that life may have been. The salient facts which led up to, or culminated in, the Puritan in England have been much discussed and are well understood. Leading characters in that body have a conspicuous place in history. But there were many men of scarcely less importance and influence in this Puritan hegira, of whom we know but little. What we need now is not more of Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay; not more of John Endicott, John Winthrop and Richard Saltonstall; but somewhat more of others who were active in all the labors incident to the nation in its nascent period.

It is important to remember that the repression of Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth, King James and King Charles was directed, not against the common and ignorant people, out against their leaders, and that those who, under proscriptive measures, fled to the continent and to America represented the education and culture of England's best. Many, the majority indeed, were communicants in the Established Church, called Puritans in derision, because they eschewed many of the forms and practices of their Church, believing that it followed too slavishly the Church of Rome. It was maintained that until their form of worship was simplified they could have no place in the great body of the Reformation. It was declared that there was little difference, except in name, in the two churches, one the Roman Catholic and the other the Episcopal Catholic. In this impulse of religious freedom even Cromwell, Hampden, Pym and others of like standing were listed for America but were enjoined by royal edict. Later that prohibition was removed and the exodus began. For the most part the flower of England in character and education was drawn to the colonies in the new world.

Coming to special consideration of the ancestors of the Goodridges and Goodriches in America, we find these departures and arrivals from England and settlers in the colonies in the seventeenth century;

Regarding our own family several questions obtrude. Who were John and William Goodridge and who were of their families? When did they arrive in Massachusetts? What is the relationship between the branches in Massachusetts and Connecticut? What was their relationship to others of the same name who came to America before 1640?

Sir Richard Saltonstall did not tarry long in Massachusetts after his arrival in 1630. He returned to England the following year and there continued the work of finding settlers for the infant colony, never coming again to America. Under his supervision the emigration movement remained on a high level as regarded the character of its constituent members. Each candidate was obliged to pass ~ rigid examination by the agent of the Ministry at Gravesent, and if found eligible, he received a written certificate of approval. Among the accepted emigrants were the Goodridge pioneers. Who composed their small party? It is of record that John and William - their names variously spelled Gutterig, Goodrich, Goodridge and Gooderidge - were in Watertown in 1636. The name of the ship on which they sailed from England and the date of their embarking has not been ascertained. It is not doubted that they came from Bury St. Edmunds, but when? Several authorities say that they arrived in 1634, and others fix the year as 1636.

Exhaustive research has utterly failed to produce any reliable evidence that 1634 was the date, but much indication that it was 1636. The first record concerning them in America was on July 25, 1636, when both participated in a division of land in Watertown. Acceptance of the earlier date of their arrival compels admission that these active, energetic men braved the ocean for two months, only to drift about for two years in indecision after their arrival before they made any move to settle down. Such delay would be unthinkable, for it would be more characteristic of these men to get to work at once. Probabilities are all in favor of the late date as the year of their arrival.

There has been much speculation as to the relationship of John and William Goodridge, but positive conclusions have not been reached. Henry Bond in his Genealogies *** of the Early Settlers of Watertown, Mass., advanced the conjecture "to be confirmed or confuted by future researches," as he says that they were brothers, and Nathaniel Goodwin in his Genealogical Notes holds to the same opinion. It has never been possible to prove this conjecture, but other later historians have assumed that these opinions must have been right, and have gradually given them the currency and the weight of correct history; thus Francis ~. Drake in his history of Watertown, published as a chapter in the Samuel Adams Drake's History of Middlesex County, Massachusetts, and Henry R. Stiles in his History of Ancient Wethersfield, Connecticut. Bond's statement in full is:

"that John and William Goodrich(?) brothers, came to this country together from Bury St. Edmunds, or that vicinity, Co. Suffolk, England:

that William, the younger settled in Watertown  where he died; that John, the eldest of the two, was the John Gutterering who was admitted freeman of Mass., May, 1642: that soon after this he went to Wethersfield, where his name appears in the Conn. Coll. Records the next year, taking with him his two sons, John and William (having left another son, William, in England, to be educated, afterwards minister of Hegassitt, d. about 1677, s.p., bequeathing his estate to his nephews in Conn.); that he died on his return voyage to England, in 1644, leaving in Wethersfield, those two sons John and William, from whom the Goodrich families in Connecticut are descended."

Later discoveries, however, have determined that William of Watertown and John of Wethersfield were not brothers, but that the real brothers were John and William of Wethersfield, of whom William of Watertown may possibly have been an uncle. The English origin of the Weathersfield brothers, who became progenitors of large and distinguished American families, has been established. They came from the Gooderickes of County Suffolk, but how, when, where and for what reason they changed the spelling of their name to Goodrich has not been determined, although it was manifestly an easy transition from Goodericke or Goodrick to Goodrich. As Goodrich they were known in Connecticut, and as Goodrich their descendants have always been, without question or variation.

The first Goodericke of record in Hessett, Suffolkshire, was William, whose will was made April 4, 1631, and proved in the archdeaconry court, Sudbury, February 2, 1632. Four children were mentioned in the will. The eldest son, John, died in Bury St. Edmunds April 14, 1632. He was to have had all the land, tenements and houses in Hessett and be the executor of his father's will. William, the second son, had a bequest of L 16. Henry, the third son, probably died before his father, as he was not mentioned in the will. The eldest daughter, Elizabeth married Philip Clarke; she inherited from her father L 8. The other daughter, Susan, married, first, John lark and, second, John Beam; she had a bequest of L 8.

John Goodericke, who died in Bury St. Edmunds, April 14, 1632, eldest son of William Goodericke, left a will which proved in the archdeaconry court, Sudbury, May 16, 1632. In that document bequests were made to "Margerie my wife" "to my four sons, William Goodericke the elder, William Goodericke the younger, John Gooderick and Jeremy Gooderick," to Margaret and William, children of his brother Henry, deceased before 1632, and "to the two younger children of my sister Susan, by her first husband, John lark."

The Reverend William Goodrich or Goodricke of Hegessette died in 1676 or 1677. His will, dated May 12, 1677, was proved in the archdeaconry court, Sudbury, July 1, 1678. He studied for the ministry under Mr. Dickinson in Bury St. Edmunds and, dying without children, left his property to his "loving wife Rebecca, to "Joseph, the eldest sons now living of my brother John Goodrich, the eldest son of my brother William Goodrick." Also he mentions "John Goodrich, eldest son now living of my cousin Robert Goodrich, Hawleigh, Chirurgeon."

From these wills and from other documents, including a certificate of Governor John Winthrop of Connecticut, May 20, 1703, showing the relationship of John and Joseph and Jonathan Goodrich, father and sons, of Wethersfield, and their claim to the Hegessette estate, and a record of the general court baron for the manor of Dagworth, England, October 17, l699, wherein John Goodrich of Wethersfield appears by attorney as tenant of part of the estate of William Goodricke, several things that have bearing upon the identity of the American pioneers are disclosed. Of the children of William Goodericke of Hegessette the elder son John died within a year after the death of his father. In the Hessette church it is recorded that the daughter Susan was born about the first of January, 1602, thus placing the date of birth of her elder brother John about l593 and that of her other brother William about 1595, these dates being admittedly only approximate.

It has been suggested with some apparent plausibility that William Goodericke, the second son of the William Goodericke of Hegessette, just mentioned, may have been the William Goodridge of Watertown. This is not inherently impossible, though in the absence of documentary proof the supposition must remain no more than supposition. But certain it is that if William Goodridge and William Goodericke should be thus identified, the John Guttridge who was in Watertown in 1636 could not have been his brother, since John Goodericke of Hegesette was never in this country.

Much painstaking effort has been exerted and all available sources of information have been exhausted in the endeavor to ascertain conclusively the parentage and the place and date of the birth of William Goodridge the pioneer, but without satisfactory result. It is reasonably certain that he was a native of Bury St. Edmunds. But while the records of Watertown are blank as to those points, those of Bury St. Edmunds are no better. Neither in Bury St. Edmunds nor in the vicinity thereof has it been possible to discover any record of the exact date of birth.

WATERTOWN, THE NEW ENGLAND HOME OF WILLIAM GOODRIDGE

Watertown, first called Dorchester Fields, interesting to descendants of the colonial pioneers and especially to descendants of William Goodridge, was one of the first settlements of New England. Plymouth was first, then Salem in 1628, Charlestown in 1629, Dorchester late in May, 1630, and Watertown early in July, 1650. Sir Richard Saltonstall, Rev. George Phillips and others, with Governor Winthrop, sailed from the Isle of Wight in the ship Arbella on April 8, 1650, arriving at Salem in June. Not liking Salem and wishing a distinct settlement of their own, Saltonstall and Phillips began prospecting. Charlestown and Dorchester both seemed undesirable. Ten men, led by these two stalwarts, took a boat and ascended the Charles River. It is difficult to fix the exact point at which they landed, but probably it was three or four miles above Charlestown and near the present United States Arsenal. Finding the country diversified end well watered and having excellent natural drainage and, at the same time, well suited for agricultural purposes, they decided upon it as the place for the infant settlement. Why it was called Watertown is not clear. Some think that it was so named after a town in England. Others, probably more correctly conjecture that the name was chosen because the country was well watered. Besides the Charles River on the south, and on the north, Fresh Pond.. a beautiful sheet of crystal water, there were numerous smaller ponds and springs of pure limped water scattered about the larger old town admirably adapted to domestic purposes.

Watertown had been the site of an old Indian village, Pequusset, not in use at the time of settlement. The court of assistants in Boston passed an ordinance, September 7, 1650, changing the name of Trimoutaine of Boston, Mattapan to Dorchester and Dorchester Fields to Watertown.

The boundaries of the old town, at this early date, are not very clearly defined. Charlestown or Boston, of course, borders it on the east, Charles River on the south, while to the west and north it was practically without limitations. This large area has, in the course of time, been successively curtailed by encroachments of Cambridge, Charlestown, and Mount Auburn on the east, and the formation of many new towns on the north and west, until now the whole township is only about three miles long east and west and in average width, north and south, about one mile.

Immediately on the northeast boundary is beautiful Mount Auburn cemetery. A little to the southeast of where the cemetery now is where the homestalls of Sir Richard Saltonstall and Reverend George Phillips, about a mile west of Harvard University. The homestall of William Goodridge was a five-acre lot not far from the northwest boundary of the cemetery. The homestall of Mr. Phillips was on the Cambridge road, which later was incorporated into the town. William Goodridge was a participant in many divisions of land. At one time he received seven lots and at another time ninety-one acres. He was a participant in the fourth of the Great Dividends in July, 1636. In all he must have had several hundred acres.

The first religious service in the town was early in July, date not recorded, under the trees and probably near the site of the first meeting-house, about one mile from the Saltonstall homestall. No mention is made of this first meeting-house in the record, but the church organization was undoubtedly Congregational in policy. Bond, in his History of Watertown, states his belief that it has a fair claim to being the second church organization in the colony.

It should be borne in mind that the churches in Plymouth and Dorchester were organized in England and that the latter was transferred bodily in its membership at the time of the exodus into Connecticut in 1636. Sir Richard Saltonstall and Governor Winthrop, at a conference upon the hardships and sufferings of the early colonists, appointed July 30, 1630, as a day of fasting and prayer, and on this date the Watertown church was formally organized_, forty members signing the covenant. A meeting house was probably erected before 1634 and a new one was built in 1636, when a rate of £ 80 was ordered for its construction. The old house was not mentioned in the records, but the sites of both were probably the same_, a little southwest from Mount Auburn cemetery and somewhat less than a mile as before stated, to the west of the Saltonstall and Phillips homestalls.

This was the only church in Watertown for sixty-six years. Reverend George Phillips was the first minister. On December 9, 1640, Reverend John Kowles was ordained to be assistant. Mr. Phillips died in July, 1644, and for three and one-half years Mr. Knowles was in sole charge of the church. In 1648 Reverend John Sherman was chosen assistant. Shortly after Mr. Knowles removed to another settlement, when Mr. Shermar became minister in full charge, so continuing until his death, in 1685. These three were the only ministers for fifty-five years. Mr. Phillips received a salary, in 1642 of £ 67 13s 4d, and Mr. Knowles £ 40. These amounts were increased until Sherman had a salary of £ 40 at the time of his death.

The first grave-yard was mentioned July 5, 1642, though there must have a place of interment (undoubtedly the same as here referred to) from the first. It was probably immediately adjoining the meeting-house at the south-east corner of what are now Mount Auburn and Grove streets and about half a mile west of Mount Auburn cemetery. This must be one of the very oldest in New England, and during seventy years, was the only place of burial for the large community about Watertown. Here William Goodridge was buried, but the marking of his grave has long since disappeared.

The first record of a school-house was September 17, 1649. The building was twenty-two feet long, fourteen feet wide and nine feet between joists. This could scarcely have been the first, for the New England colonists were equally solicitous both for churches and schools. Probably the first meeting-house was also used for a school. David Mitchel was the first school teacher of whom the record speaks, and his school-house, the one above mentioned, was probably on Strawberry Hill, afterward called School-House Hill, three-quarters of a mile west of the meeting-house. If its walls could speak, what thrilling deeds of discipline would it relate, of which the rod and the ferule were the cogent, maybe the only means. The pay of Richard Noroross, voted January 6, 1650, was £ 30 (or $150) per annum. He was probably the second school-master.

Thrilling is the story of colonial life in the Massachusetts Bay settlements during the first decade and especially from 1630 to 1636. Starvation, Indian massacre, or attack by wild animals always confronted them. Were it not that they assiduously cultivated friendliness with the Indian, thus securing protection against massacre and winning his co-operation for food supply, it may well be doubted if these adventurous spirits could have survived the almost unspeakable hardship and suffering with which they daily battled. As it was, mortality was large. For two years, almost their only food was shell-fish, acorns and groundnuts. The groundnut is a bulbous formation at the root of a flowering plant, usually maturing rather late in the season. This bulb is not unpleasant to the taste and when cooked may be a useful means of sustenance. Fortunately the ponds and the Charles River abounded in edible fish, shad, bass, alewives, frost-fish and smelts. The situation was greatly relieved by the construction, in 1632, of a weir, just below the lower falls of the river, by means of which many fish were caught. The comfort of the colonists was also greatly promoted by the construction of a mill at the lower falls in 1634, the first use of water-power for the needs of civilized life in New England.

Thus we see that, little by little, the Watertown colony was attaching itself to the soil of the wilderness. For twenty years or more the town was the most populous in the colony, attracting the best in quality and the largest number of settlers. Provisions for comfort and moral advantage were sedulously provided, and on account of these many superior attractions the settlement soon became overpopulated. Hence measures had to be instituted to encourage the establishing of new towns in the outlying country. Newton, Waltham_, Sudbury, Arlington, Lexington, Concord and many others are the children of this prolific and intellectual mother.