See SQ 2567 for brief comments regarding this marriage.

.
!NOTES:
We learn of "Almy" from the Vital Records of Rhode Island, Births,
Records of Kent County, Book 2, pg. 80 from the entry recording the
birth of one of their children: "Jerauld, Niles, of Dutee, Jr. and
Almy, June 22, 1774."

(continuation of notes of her husband William from THE SPARKSQUARTERLY, June 1991, Whole No. 154, middle p. 3779:)

"This doubtless means that a cabin had already been built there byDarnel into which Solomon could move his family. We shall return to thismatter later in this article.

"We cannot be certain of the exact date when William Sparks moved toSurry County. We know that he was still in Rowan County on January 27,1773, for he signed a deed there on that date transferring his land inthe Forks of the Yadkin to William Frohock, as has been mentioned. Theearliest tax list for Surry County which survives is dated 1771, and onthis we find the name of Solomon Sparks with three polls (probablyhimself and his two oldest sons, John and Joseph). Also appearing onthis list is a William Sparks with one poll (himself). There can belittle doubt that this was the oldest son of the William of this article,i.e. William Sparks , Jr. (192). He had been born about 1750 and seemsto have accompanied Solomon Sparks to Surry County.

"There are documents which suggest that William Sparks was living inSurry County as early as the spring of 1772, but we believe that they arein error. These are found in the pension application file at the NationalArchives of William's daughter, Rachel, who applied for a pension in 1843based on the Revolutionary War service of her deceased husband, JohnRose. Rachel had no document proving that she and John Rose had beenmarried, but she though the ceremony had taken place in 1772. There isgood reason to believe, however, that she was mistaken, and that it hadactually been in 1773. Nevertheless, she was able to find two people whoremembered the occasion and were willing to sign affidavits under oath tothis effect. One of those was Charles Johnson who had lived nearRachel's parents both in Rowan County and then in Surry County and wholater marrried into the Sparks family . In 1784, Susannah Sparks,daughter of Solomon Sparks (she was born about 1763) became the wife ofCharles Johnson. (William Perry Johnson, one of the founders of theSparks Family Association and until his death our historian-genealogist, was a 4th-great-grandson of this couple.) While there canbe no doubt that Charles Johnson did, indeed, remember the occasion whenRachel and John Rose had been married in Surry County, we suspect thathis recalling the date as "June 1772" was simply that this was the dateRachel claimed. (There continues on pg. 3781 an account concerning Racheland John Rose.)

"A poll tax list for Surry County for the year 1774 has beenpreserved. Those subject to the tax were white males over 16 and under60, plus slaves aged between 12 and 50. If there were more than onewhite poll in a household, those other than the head might or might notbe named, depending on the whim of the tax collector. In all, SurryCounty polls totalled 1,528 in 1774, but it must be kept in mind thatSurry then included the present day counties of Ashe, Alleghany, Wilkes,Surry, Yadkin, Stokes and Forsyth. For taxing and militia organizationalpurposes, North Carolina counties in those days were divided intodistricts, of which there were seven in Surry County. The part of thecounty in which William (199) and Solomon Sparks (356) were living in1774 was called Benjamin Cleveland's District. (Cleveland's name figuresprominently in the area's history, particularly in military affairsduring the Revolution.) William Sparks (199) was named (he was called"Will Sparks") with his second son, Matthew (334), who was now of age butstill living at home. William's oldest son William, Jr . (521), wasshown as heading his own household, as was James Sparks (189), theyounger brother of William. Solomon Sparks was listed with two of hissons, John (359) and Joseph (365).

"None of the Sparkses were shown as slave owners on the 1774 taxlist. In fact, of the 310 heads of households appearing on Cleveland'slist, only 22 were credited with owning slaves in the age category to betaxed, and of these, only two owned as many as five, they being RalphHudspeth and Hugh Montgomery.

"Judging from the sequence of names of taxables recorded by Cleveland,it appears that William Sparks's closest neighbors in 1774 were JohnRose, who had been married to Rachel Sparks the year before, and BenjaminJohnson, believed to have been the father of Charles Johnson whoseaffidavit was reproduced on page 3780. Besides Solomon Sparks, William'sothe near neighbors were William Riseden, John Greer, Bartley Williams,and Boaman Cass.

"An interesting description of life in Surry County at this point intime appears in a letter written by one of the county's wealthiestcitizens, General William Lenoir, in 1824. He wrote in response to aquery from a man named Ramsey who was writing a history of Tennessee.Lenoir had settled in March 1775 near the site that would become the townof Wilksboro. General Lenoir wrote:

"Surry was frontier country in 1775, including Wilkes, Ashe, andBurke and extending to the Mississippi River. It was thinly inhabited, being an entire wilderness. Then the Mulburry Fields Meeting Housewas the only place of worship in said county. It was built by the Baptists and very large congregations of different persuasions ofpeople attended the meetings.

"The gentlemen generally dressed in hunting shirts, shortbreeches, leggins and Moccasins; the ladies in linsy petticoats and bedgowns and often without shoes in summer. Some had bonnets and bedgowns made of calico, but generally of linsy, and some of them had onmen's hats.

"Their hair was commonly clubbed [sic]. Men generally had longhair and wore it either in a cue or clubbed. Once at a largemeeting I noticed there were but two ladies that had on long gowns.One of them was laced genteely and the body of the other was open and thetail thereof drawn up and tucked in her apron or coat string.

"They appeared very orderly and devout at meetings, and goingto their homes you would find them living well and they w ould treatyou with great hospitality, giving you plenty of pork, beef, bearmeat and venison also milk, butter, cheese and honey. The buffaloes andelk were then chiefly destroyed . When you left them, as there were nopublic roads and fe w paths, the men would go with you to show youthe way until you could thus be accomodated by some other person. Youmight travel hundreds of miles and not meet with any person who would receive pay.

[Copied from the Bulletin of the Wilkes County GenealogicalSociety, Vol. 10, No. 2, 1976.]

"The Mulberry Fields Meeting House mentioned by Lenoir had beenorganized by a group of Baptists and was located in what became the townof Wilkesboro, the county seat of Wilkes County. Little is known of thismeeting house, but historians of the area are convinced that it had beenbuilt before the Revolution. It seems highly probable that WilliamSparks and his family attended this church, at least on occasion.Unfortunately, none of its records seem to have been preserved.

"As was noted earlier, while there was an abundance of vacant land inSurry County when William Sparks moved there in, we believe, 1773, therewas no way that any settler could obtain a legal title to any of thisunclaimed land. Granville's heirs had not been able to reopen the landoffice, and it was not until November 15, 1777, that the North CarolinaGeneral Assembly, meeting at New Bern passed the Confiscation Act givingthe state authority to sell Granville's land, along with land formerlyowned by Loyalist s which had been confiscated. Land offices were to beopened for this purpose, and each county's justices of the peace (whocomprised the County Court) were to meet to choose an official to serveas "Entry Taker." This individual was to record applications or claimsfor tracts of land in an "Entry Book." The justices were also directedto chose surveyors who would then measure each
claim. Joseph Winston became the Entry Taker for Surry County andcontinued in that post until 1781. The first land entry for the countyunder this new system was dated April 29, 1778. (Winston's entry bookhas been preserved and was published in printed form in 1987 by AgnesWells, and others.)

"During the fifteen years that no one could purchase vacant land ,settlers like William Sparks had simply "squatted" on tracts which theyliked and which appeared not to have been claimed by any other settler.In some instances, one would be able to purchase improvements thatsomeone else had made on the land in question, as Solomon Sparks haddone, but such arrangement carried with it no title to the land itself.The squatter cleared and cultivated "his" land, and built "improvements"with the home that at some future time he could obtain a legal title. Soit was that William Sparks had chosen his tract on North Hunting Creek.His tract was located less than a mile south of what later became thesite of the tiny village called Cycle . As had been noted previously,William's tract was included in Yadkin County when it was cut off fromSurry in 1850. Highway 421 passes today very near the spot whereWilliam, with the help of his son Matthew, made his improvements. Thereis the possibility that, like Solomon, William may have been able to buythe improvements, including a house, that someone else had built on theland. William's oldest son, William Sparks, Jr., had chosen l and forhimself about three miles northeast of his father.

"With the capital that William sparks had in hand following the saleof his land in the Forks of the Yadkin, he was able to do more than justbuild (or improve) a cabin for his family on North Hunting Creek; he alsoconstructed a grist mill for the benefit not only of himself but for hisneighbors as well. A grist mill was essential to every community inthose days, providing a service for which others were glad to pay,although usually in kind . For many years, deeds of land (after 1778)near William's mill contained references to "Sparks Mill Tract."

"In 1777, North Carolina's General Assembly passed legislationcreating the county of Wilkes to become effective in the followingFebruary . Most of the new county had been formerly part of SurryCounty. When the dividing line was drawn between Wilkes and Surry, allof the land occupied by William Sparks remained in Surry County,adjoining the new line on the east . Solomon Sparks's land just aboveWilliam's, however, was divided, with 340 acres remaining in Surry and150 acres now in Wilkes. A description survives of the running of thisdividing line in the report of the commissioners who had been assignedthe task. Because it contains specific mention of Solomon Sparks, wecopy it here:

"...Beginning on Rowan County line about half a mile below Daniel
Rashes at White Oak Standing in the head of a Branch of Hunting
Creek thence nort Crossing the mulbery Field Road abot haft a
mile below Hamlins Old Store House thence through Solomon Sparks 's
Plantation leaveing the sd Sparks's House in Surry County thence
Crossing the Brushey mountain at the head of the nort fork of Swan
Creek thence crossing the Yadkin River a little below Capt Park's
& through the Lower end of Carrols Plantation on the north side of
sd River thence Crossing the Big Elkin at the long Sholes thence
Crossing the couth fork of Mitchels River abot half a mile above
Rigs's Road, thence crossing Mitchels River a little below John
Scott's Crossing the Top of the Poiney nobb to the main Ridge
of mountains abt Two miles west of Fishes Peak, thence to the
Virginia Line. The above line being Run Exactly Twenty six
miles west of Surry Courthouse agreeable to act of Assembly By
Robt Lanier
Commissioners Henry Spier
Joseph Herndon
[Copied from pp. 276-77 of David Leroy Corbitt's THE FORMATION OF
THE NORTH CAROLINA COUNTIES, 1663-1943, Raleigh, 1950.]

"There was a rush by settlers throughout the old Granville District in1778 to make claims for the vacant land now made available by theConfiscation Act of the General Assembly. In making a claim, one's firststep was to prepare, or have prepared, a written description of the tractone wished to acquire, including the name of the nearest wate rcourse.With this document, one then went to the Entry Taker who, for a fee 16shillings, would enroll one's name in his Entry Book, with an estimate ofthe number of acres claimed along with the written description. TheEntry Taker assigned a successive number to each entry. There followed athree month waiting period to give interested parties the opportunity tofile an objection. Where there were confli cting claims, the matter wasbrought before the County Court for a jury trial. If and when a claimwas determined to be clear, a warrant was issued followed by a survey ofthe tract by the County Surveyor or one of his deputies. For this therewas a fee of 30 shillings for every 300 acres, plus 2 shillings for each100 additional acres . The surveyor was assisted by two chain carriers,usually relatives or neighbors of the person making the claim. The lawrequired that they be at least 12 years of age. The resulting surveyfrequently revealed a different number of acres than had been estimatedby the claimant.

"After the survey was completed, a copy of the surveyor's plat wassent to the Secretary of State who was supposed to issue grants, endorsedby the governor, twice each year, on April 1st and October 1st. TheSecretary of State charged a fee of 5 shillings for making out and recording the grand and the Governor's secretary charged 3 more shillingsfor attaching the "great seal." When he finally received the grant (deed,actually), the claimant was to have it recorded in the court house.

"Whenever and wherever government land had been offered for sale ,there have been land speculators--men with money to invest with the hopethat the price would increase. Even though the fees mentioned above werea burden for many, the danger was that another person able to pay themwould "steal" the tract on which one had squatted. In recognition ofthis, the North Carolina legislators had provided so me protection forthe squatters. In judging a claim, the Entry Taker and the County Courtwere to give preference to a person who had settled on and improved theland for at least seven years prior to 1777 . In 1778, the word"improvement" was defined by the State Assembly as "erected a House thereon, or cleared, enclosed and cultivated a part thereof." This "priorclaim" provision, however, extended only to January 1, 1779. After thatdate, the squatter of seven or more years had no advantage over anewcomer.

"There was another important provision in the Confiscation Act. AsRichard A. Enochs explained in 1988 in his foreward to his ROWAN COUNTY,NC, VACANT LAND ENTRIES, 1778-1789, p. ii: "Enterers, except guardiansclaiming in the right of an orphan or those in military service, WERE TOTAKE AN OATH OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE STATE." (Capital letters were added by[Paul Sparks]).

"On July 24, 1778, when a man named George Philips made a claim for atract of land located on "the North Fork of Hunting Creek," he describedit as adjoining "the claim of William Sparks, Senr." the Phi lips claimwas assigned #310 in the Surry County Entry Book. Claim # 311, recordedon the same day for Thomas Yates, was also for land described as lying onthe North Fork of Hunting Creek "joining William S parks and WilliamWillcocks."

"No claim, however, was registered by William Sparks for the tract onwhich he had settled and build his grist mill, it being the land referredto by Philips and Yates in their adjoining claims.

"While no records have been found to explain why William Sparks failedto enter a claim, his reason for not doing so was probably because of therequirement mentioned earlier--that all claimants must take the oath ofallegiance to the state as the legal government of North Carolina. As wehave noted earlier, Solomon Sparks was certainly a Loyalist . We alsoknow that he and William lived on nearly adjoining land an d that theywere close friends as well as being cousins. We strongly suspect thatWilliam, also, held Loyalist convictions.

"The Revolution was far from over in 1778 and 1779, and many of theinhabitants of western North Carolina remained convinced that thePatriots would lose. If one remained loyal to the King in his heart , hecould not, in good conscience, take an oath renouncing him. Fol lowingis the text of the oath of allegiance which we believe William Sparkscould not bring himself to sign, even though this meant that he could notregister a claim for "his" land.

"I will bear Faithful and true Allegiance to the State of NorthCarolina
and will to the utmost of my Power, Support, Maintain and defend ,the
Independent Government thereof, against George the 3rd, King of Great
Britain and his successors and the attempts of any other Person ,Prince,
Power, State or Potentate, who by secret Arts, treason andConspiracies
or by open Force shall attempt to Subject the same, and will in every
respect conduct myself as a peacefull orderly subject and that I will
disclose and make known to the Governor, some member of the Councilof
State or some Justice of the Peace all treasons, Conspiracies and at-
tempts committed or intended against the State that shall come to my
knowledge, So help me God.

"A study of the entry books of both Surry and Wilkes Counties revealsthat a man named William Terrell Lewis entered a large number of claimsin both counties for tracts of land containing "improvements" that hadbeen made by others. He was a man of some means. He was credited withowning 58 slaves when the 1790 census was taken, for example; he was alsoa high ranking officer in the Surry County Militia as well as a "bountyhunter" as shown by the fact that he received monetary rewards from thestate on a number of occasions for identifying and locating armydeserters and draft-dodgers. Because of these activities, Lewis wasprobably quite aware of which settlers might be reluctant or unwilling totake the required oath and thus be in no position to protest when he laidclaim for land they had spent years improving. His actions were legalbut his ethics might be questioned. Other members of the Lewis family(Joel and Micajah Lewis) appear to have pursued the same tactics.

"So it was that on September 7, 1778 (a Monday), William T. Lewisentered a Surry County claim (#680) for 200 acres "on the waters ofHunting Creek including William Sparks' mill and plantation." On thesame day, Lewis entered two other claims for land already settled inSurry County, one being a 250-acre tract on the north side of the YadkinRiver on which William Riggs had built his home (#679). The other wasfor 200 acres on Deep Creek, "including George Robard's plantation."(#681)
.
"From the surviving records, it seems apparent that, upon learning ofLewis' action, William Sparks attempted to save his home and investmentsby selling his mill and improvements to his son, Matthew Sparks. As amember of the next generation, we can speculate that Matthew had noobjections to taking the oath of allegiance-- perhaps he had already doneso.

"Because he had no legal title to the land, William could not give adeed to his son, so he made the transfer in the form of a "Bill of Sale." He did this on September 12, 1778, just six days after Lewis hadregistered his claim. The recorded copy of this document reads asfollows:
"BILL OF SALE
Know all men by these presents that I William Sparks of the County of
Surry and State of North Carolina for and in Consideration of the Sum
of one Hundred Pounds to me in hand paid by Matthew Sparks of theCounty
and State aforesaid have Bargained and sold unto the Said MatthewSparks
One Grist Mill and Improvement of Land lying and being in SurryCounty
on the North fork of Hunting Creek Which Mill and Improvement I dowar-
rant unto the Said Matthew Sparks from any person or persons Layingany
Just Claim thereunto Except the Lord of the Soil.
Given under my hand thisd 12th day of September 1778
his
William O Sparks
mark
Test
William Davis
William Roysdon
North Carolina Surry County November Court 1778
The Execution of the within Bill of sale was aknowledged in open
Court by the sd Wm Sparks and ordered to be Recorded
Recorded according &c [signed] Jo Williams C C
[Surry Co. Will Book 1, p. 121]

"On the Monday following the signing of this bill of sale, MatthewSparks appeared before the Surry County Entry Taker, Joseph Winston, tochallenge the claim made by Lewis. This was called making a "caveat tothe claim," and the law required that such a caveat then be filed wit hthe Secretary of State's office. Winston was also required to turn thedispute over to the County Court for a jury to determine who wa s therightful claimant. He wrote in the margin of the caveat: "Sept ember 14,1778--caveated by Matthew Sparks--returned to Court."

"When the Surry County Court met on November 11, 1778, four justiceswere present (John Hudspeth, William Hall, Michael Howzer, and WilliamHankins). They listened to William Sparks's explanation of the sale ofhis mill and improvements to his son, as well as Matthew's challange ofthe claim of William T. Lewis for his father's land. Unfortunately,court minutes of this period are almost always quite brief, and the onlyentry regarding this matter by the clerk reads: "Deed from William Sparksto Matthew Sparks. " From this entry, however, it appears that thejustices accepted Wi lliam's bill of sale as though it had the authorityof a deed. The clerk, for a reason we do not understand, recorded thisdocument in the county's will book rather than in its deed book, eventhough it was customary to record bills of sale with the deeds ratherthan among the probate records.

"Subsequent records prove that Matthew Sparks did, indeed, come to ownthe land upon which his father had built the mill as well as the millitself. Whether Matthew had to compensate Lewis in some manner, we do notknow--no formal grant of the land to Matthew by the state has beenfound. Many years later, however, following an adjustment to thedividing line between Wilkes and Surry Counties, a grant was issued toMatthew by the state on December 3, 1795, (#2054) for 350 acres whichincluded "Sparks ' former survey." (Surry Co. Deed Book I, p. 437)

"Curiously, on November 12, 1779, William T. Lewis transferred toWilliam Sparks a warrant for a 200-acre tract he had obtained on the sameda y (#1734). This tract was described in the warrant as "near the watersof Deep Creek, including William Cates's Improvement." In making thetransfer, however, Lewis stipulated: "I Transfer this warrant to Wm.Sparkes that he obliges him self not to Lay it on the place it calls forbut to put it on some other land that he may chuse at his own Risk[signed] Wm. T. Lewis." Why Lewis made this transfer to William remainsa mystery.

"From subsequent tax lists of Surry County, it appears that WilliamSparks was able to use this warrant to acquire a tract on a spur ofBrushy Mountain about three miles northeast from his mill, near landwhich his oldest son, William Jr., had acquired. This tract, describedas "joining Gilbert Keens LIne," and comprising 200 acres, was shown on a1781 tax list for Surry County. This tax list also credited William withfive horses and nine cattle, as well as "40 pounds of money at interest." It was n ot until July 19, 1794, however, that William actually receivedthe g rant from the state for this land. [See Surry Co. Deed Book G, p.240] The chain carriers were James Sparks [the 3 great-grandfather ofJames J. Sparks] and Thomas Sparks.

"While the record pertaining to the attempt by William T. Lewis toappropriate to himself the land on which William Sparks had squatted isnot entirely clear, there is less mystery regarding Solomon Sparks's lossof his land. Mention was made earlier regarding the reference toSolomon' s "plantation" in the report of the commissioners charged withdetermining the dividing line between Surry and Wilkes Counties in 1777.The line had been drawn through Solomon's "plantation," leaving his houseand the bulk of "his" land in Surry County while the smaller part now layin Wilkes County. This tract on which one Moses Darnell had squattedinitially, contained 490 acres. It will be recalled that Darnell hadsold his "improvement," which doubtless included a house, to Solomon,but, of course, Solomon had no title to the land itself. We can assumethat Solomon had continued to make improvements with the explanationthat, eventually, he would be able to purchase this land from Granville'sheirs. The line drawn by the commissioners had left 340 acres, includingSolomon's house, in Surry County and 150 in the n ew county of Wilkes.

"Being the "celebrated old Tory" that he was (using the words ofThomas Parks), Solomon Sparks could scarcely have taken the oath ofallegiance required in order to enter a claim when the state of NorthCarolina authorized the sale of "vacant" land beginning in 1778. Notsurprisingly, the same William T. Lewis who tried to "steal" WilliamSparks's land and mill, also entered a claim for the 150 acres of SolomonSparks's "plantation" that lay in Wilkes County. He did this on November29, 1779. [Wilkes Co. Entry #1322] Another wealthy land speculator,however, had gotten ahead of Lewis in making a claim for that part ofSolomon's land lying in Surry County. This was Richard Goode, anotherSurry County Militia Officer and, beginning in 1779, a justice of thepeace. On August 13, 1778, Goode made claim to "340 acres of land inSurry County on the waters of Hunting Creek including Solomon Sparkesimprovement for compliment." [Surry Co. Entry #537] No caveat wasentered against either claimant, and in due course Richard Goode andWilliam T. Lewis acquired titles to the land that Solomon Sparks had onceconsidered to be virtually his own. Neither man seems to have been in ahurry to pay for the required survey, however. Lewis did not receivedhis deed from the state for the 150 acres in Wilkes County until October23, 1782 [Wilkes Co. Deed Book A-1, p. 290], and it was not until October13, 1783, that Goode obtained his deed for the 340 acres he had climed inSurry County [Surry Co. Deed Book B, pp. 352-53].

"Richard Goode permitted Solomon Sparks and his family to continue tooccupy their house and to farm the land, although he probably chargedthem rent. A document dated January 1, 1791, proves this. On that date,Henry Speer, a deputy surveyor for Surry County, made claim to a 300-acretract which may have been land confiscated from a Loyalist [Surry Co.Entry #0120]. In making his claim, Speer described the tract as "300acres on the waters of Hunting Creek adjoining the south side of RichardGoode's land whereon Solomon Sparks now lives including the long meadowand both sides of the road that leads from Allin's Iron Works Mines atYeate's place." A survey of this tract was made for Speer "Beginning ata pine the second corner of the old Mill Tract in Matt Sparks line."Here we have proof of how close the land on which Solomon Sparks hadsquatted was to the tract on which William Sparks had built his mill.

"The sons of Solomon Sparks must have had strong attachment to theirfather's "plantation," as it had been called by the commissioners who hadsurveyed the line between Surry and Wilkes Counties in 1777. On January12, 1791, Solomon Sparks, Jr. purchased from William T. Lewis the 150acres which lay in Wilkes County, for which he paid Lewi s six pounds andeight shillings [Wilkes Co. Deed Book F-1, p. 153] . Robert Lewis andJoseph Sparks, another son of Solomon and Sarah Sparks, witnessed thisdeed. (Solomon Sparks, Jr. was born about 1764 ; an article about himand his family appeared in the QUARTERLY of June 1959, Whole No. 26,although at that time we did not realize that the land which he purchasedfrom Lewis had been part of his father' s "plantation.")

"On August 11, 1792, Reuben Sparks, born about 1755, who was anotherof the sons of Solomon and Sarah, purchased the 340 acres in Surry Countyon which his parents' home was located. He paid Richard Goode "fiftypounds current money." [See Surry Co. Deed Book E, pp. 229- 30] Thewitnesses to this deed were John Cooley, Sr., John Cooley, Jr.,

Turn to the notes for their son George Sparks for a short article on theChristian Newsanger deed of April 26, 1764, not included here for reasonsof space limitations.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *
-5443-

A MYSTERY SOLVED!

WHERE DID WILLIAM SAMPLE SPARKS GET HIS MIDDLE NAME?

FROM HIS MATERNAL GRANDFATHER, WILLIAM SAMPLE (DIED 1682)

By Russell E. Bidlack

We begin this article with grateful acknowledgement to Joyce Bastasch, along-time member of our Association, who lives in Palos Verdes Estates,California. It was Mrs. Bastasch who discovered and called this writer'sattention to information contained in the published court records ofearly New Castle County, Delaware, thus enabling us to solve a mysterythat has long mystified descendants of William Sample Sparks(ca.1700-ca.1765), son of William, Jr. and Margaret Sparks. An articleabout William Sample Sparks was published in the QUARTERLY of December1989, Whole No. 148, to which further details regarding his life wereadded in the QUARTERLY of June 1997, Whole No. 178, as part of an articledevoted' to his daughter, Rachel (Sparks) Bicknell. The mystery haspertained to the source of the middle name of William Sample Sparks. Therecord noted by Mrs. Bastasch is the will of William Sample father ofMargaret Sample, the future wife of William Sparks, Jr. Dated December11, 1682, William Sample's will was probated three weeks later, onJanuary 1, 1683. (The old Julian Calendar was then in use, so these datesare slightly different under our Gregorian Calendar used since 1752.) Thefull text of the will of William Sample will appear later in thisarticle.

Typical of the time, the name "Sample" was spelled in a variety of waysamong the court records of early New Castle County. When Williaim Samplemade his will, for example, he signed his name "Will: Sempell." When hehad been granted a tract of land (600 acres) in the colony of Delaware onApril 19, 1681, his name was recorded as "William Semple." In a taxrecord dated June 12, 1684, for this same 600 acres, his widow's name wasgiven as "Widdow Sample." Although William Sample Sparks seems to havesigned his name by mark, others spelled his middle name as Sample.Except in quotations, we will use that spelling here.

Because of the mystery pertaining to the origin of the name Sample, wehave noted our inability to account for it in a number of articles thathave appeared in the QUARTERLY. Our earliest mention of William SampleSparks was in the issue for June 1961, Whole No. 34 (p.557). There wenoted that the signatures (by mark) of William Sample Sparks and RachelSparks had appeared on the inventory taken in 1749 of the estate ofJoseph Sparks who had died that year in Frederick County, Maryland.Joseph Sparks was an uncle of William Sample Sparks. (Maryland law thenrequired that two relatives, as well as the estate's two major creditors,sign the inventory of the possessions of a deceased person as part of theprobate process.) There were other references to William Sample Sparksin later issues of the QUARTERLY, often including the question of why thename Sample had been chosen for him.

It was not until the issue of the QUARTERLY of December 1989, Whole No.148, that we presented a detailed record of the life of William SampleSparks. There we noted that he had used his middle name only when hemight otherwise have been confused with a cousin or nephew also namedWilliam Sparks. We even speculated that he might have chosen "Sample,"himself, to use as a middle name merely to prevent this confusion, ratherthan having been christened "William Sample Sparks." this remains apossibility, but whether chosen by his parents at the time of his birthin or about 1700, or whether it was added by himself at a later time, wecan be sure it had come from the name of his maternal grandfather,William Sample. While this grandfather had died some two decades priorto the birth of his namesake, William Sample Sparks's mother, Margaret(Sample) Sparks, dooubtlesstold him of her father who had died while shewas still a little girl.

****************
-5444-

Based on a predominance of evidence gathered over many rears, we statedin the 1989 article, as we had done in earlier references, that WillamSample Sparks was a son of William Sparks, Jr. William Sparks, Jr. wasthe eldest son of the immigrant, William Sparks, who died in Queen AnnesCouny, Maryland, in 1709. (See the articles in the QUARTERLY of March1971, Whole No. 73, and December 1992, Whole No. 160, for information onWilliam Sparks' [died 1709] and his family.) We also noted in the 1989article that William Spatks, Jr. had been married twice, his first wife,Margaret, mother of William Sample Sparks, having died prior to 1730.

Until Mrs. Bastasch's discovery, we believed that the maiden name ofMargaret had been Hamilton based on a New Castle County, Delaware,document of March 31, 1696, that had been copied incorrectly. Thiserroneously copied record appears in New Castle County, Delaware, LandRecords, 1673 -1710, compiled by Carol Bryant, pp.76-77. It can easily beunderstood how this error had been made from the 200-year-old handwrittencopy of the original by a Court clerk. Furthermore, women then rarelyowned land, so in copying this document, Ms. Bryant had doubtless justassumed that the land in question had pertained to a man.

A photocopy of this 1696 deed, recorded in New Castle County deed bookB1, pp. 101-02, has been obtained from the Hall of Records in Dover,Delaware. In this there is the identification of "William Sparks of theprovince of Maryland and Margaret his wife, the daughter of JosineHamilton, later of New Castle, Delaware ..." In this first recording ofthe name "Josine" in the 1696, it could easily be interpreted as"Josiah," but when her name was repeated later in the deed, the spellingis clearly "Josine." We now know that, following the death of WilliamSample in 1682, his wife, Josine, had been married to a man namedHamilton. Margaret, wife of William Sparks, Jr., was, asthis 1696 deedindicates, a daughter of Josine Hamilton, but Josine had been JosineSample when Margaret had been born in the 1670s.

A transcription of this entire 1696 deed follows, with a minimum ofpunctuation added for clarity:

Know all men that John Bisk of the Town of New Castle, Taylour, andWilliam Sparks of the province of Maryland and Margaret his wife, thedaughter of Josinh [?] Hamilton late of New Castle deceased, for avaluable Consideration to whom in hand paid by Benjamin Sweet of theTown of New Castle aforesaid the recept whereof they do herebyAcknowledge Have given, granted, Enfeofed and by these presentsConfirmed unto the said Benj. Sweet a certain Lott of ground in the Townof New Castle containing in bredth thirty foot and in lenth from sewer tostreet bounded to the Eastward by Front Street, to the Westward by LandStreet, to the Northward by the land of the said John Bisk and to thesouthward by a house and gound lately belonging to the said JosineHamilton, deceased, which said lott was confirmed by patent from FrancisLovelace, Esqr. Governour under his Royall highness James Duke of Yorkthe Eighth of Aprile 1672 unto Isaac Tine with other lotts theretoadjoyning To Have and to hold the sd lott of ground and premisses withfencings and Improvements to the sd Benj. Sweet and his heirs and behoefof him, his heirs and assigns forever under the Yearly rent according tothe Lord of the Soyle. And the said John Bisk, William Spark and Margarethis wife the premesses & every part thereof to the said Benj.Sweet andhis heirs against them and their heirs and all other persons whatsoevershall and will warrant and forever defend by these presents
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
-5445-
(Transcription of deed, continued.)

In witness whereof
they have hereunto sett their hands and sealls this 31st of March 1696
Sealled and delivered in
the presence of

Lendorr 0 sterhaven John Bisk
Jacob Allrichs Eliz: Bisk
Henry Wright William Sparks
Sarah Bisk
Acknowledged in Open Court held at New Castlethe 16th
of June 1696 as wittness my hand and seal of the court

Based on the published copy of this deed, as noted earlier, this writerstated, erroneously, in his 1989 article, as in earlier references in theQUARTERLY, that Margaret, wife of William Sparks, Jr., had been adaughter of "Josiah Hamilton." We know now that Josiah Hamilton did noteven exist. The photocopy of the officially recorded copy of the deed inquestion clearly reveals that it was Margaret's mother who was describedas "late of New Castle deceased." Although when Margaret's mother,Josine, died, she was married to a man named Hamilton, her earlierhusband had been William Sample (or "Semple"), as proven by his willdated December 11, 1682. This will was recorded "vetbatim" in the recordsof the Court of New Castle meeting January 1, 1683, at Which session "Thelaest [i.e. last] will and Testament of William Sempill, Late of NewCastle, deceased" was produced (i.e., probated) by two of the witnesses,John Biske and Jonas Arskin. The text of this will follows:
The Last Will and Testament of William Sample

In the Name of God amen this 11th day of december in the yeare of or LordGod 1682. I: William Sempill, Inhabitant of New Castle upon delawareRiver being Sick and weake in Boddy but of perfect mind and memorythankes be Given unto God, Therefore calling unto mind the mortality ofmy Boddy and knowing that itt is appointed for all men once to dye, Doemake and ordayne this my Laest will and Testament in manner and formefollowing That is to say first and Principally I: give my Soule into theHands of God who Gave itt to mee and for my boddy I: commend itt to theEarth, to bee burried in decent Christian manner, noteing butt att theGennerll: Resurection I: shall Receave the same againe by the mightypower of God, And as touching Such worldly goods as itt hath bin pleasedGod to bless me in this Lyfe tyme wth I: Give devyse bequeath anddispose the Same in manner & forme following Vizt: First I: give, devyseand bequeath unto my dearly beloved wyfe Josyn Sempill and my Littledaughter Margaret wth: Rest of my wifes Children all my p'sonall Estate as goods and Chattles & moveables to be Equally divyded and distributedto my wife and daughter Margret and the rest of my wyves Children to use,occupy and dlspose of as Shee my said wyfe Shall See necessary andconveniety for the use of my sd: wyfe and daughter Margaret and my wyvesChildren, only Excepted -5446-

I: doe devyse and bequeath & Give unto my Little daughter Margaret allmy Estate in Christina Creeke or upon a brainch of the said Creeke boathReall & personall movements and imovables, goods and Chattles wth: allthe increase to the Soale and proper use and behoffe of she my saiddaughter Margartet itt being my will that first of all my wyfe JosynSempill puts on and upon the Plantation in Christina or brainch of thesd Creeke for the use of my daughter Margaret Soe manny Cowes, Sowes andother Chattell and What Els I: am allreaddy obliged to put upon theaforsd Plantation all being for the Soale and proper use and behoofe ofmy daughter Margret, until Shee Marryeth or Comes of age, the Increaseto be att the disposal of my wyfe Soe Long as she remains a widdowprovyded She my wyfe Keepes the old Stoke good, and in the next place, ifitt please God to call mee out of this world I: doe ordaine Constituteand appoint my beloved friends Mr. James Walliam & Samuel Land of theTowne of New Castle, to bee executors: of what what worldly Estate Ishall Leave behind mee, and to use the best of their Indeavors for thebennefitt of my wyfe, my daughter Margret and my wyves Children, with allthat my wyfe Josyne Sempill pay all Just debts due from me, to others,and that sheereceive all debts due from others to mee, and I: doe herebyutterly disallow Revoake & Annull all and Every other former Testaments,wills, Legacies, bequeaths. Executors: By me in any wise before this typenamed, willed, or bequeathed, Ratifying and Confirming this and noneother to bee my Laest [last] will & Testament whereof I haue hereuntoSett my hand & Seale the day & yeare above written--

[signed] Will: Sempell (LS)
Signed Sealed published
pronounced. declared by
the sd: William Sempill
as his Laest will & Testament
In the Presence of us --
J. D haes [Johannes DeHaes]
Jan Bisek [John Bisk]

In this will, a symbol from Old English and Old Norse, the Runiccharacter called the "thorn," was used for the letters th, as in the,this, etc. The symbol resembles the letter y, and many editorssubstitute a y for the thorn, thus spelling the word "the" as "ye" or"that" as "yt " implying that "the" had been pronounced "ye" or "that" as"yet;." Since the thorn was not a y, this writer prefers to substitutethe letters "th" to retain the pronunciation that the original writer hadintended.

From the will of William Sample, it is apparent that his wife Josine, hadbeen married previously, and that she had had children by that earlierhusband. Unfortunately, however, William Sample did not mention thesurname of Josine's children by her earlier marriage. We will return tothis question later in this article.

From the wording of his will, its seems apparent that William Sampleintended that his two friends, James Walliam and Samuel Land, serve asexecutors of his estate, although he qualilied their appointment with thewords "use the best of Indeavors for the bennefitt of my wyfe, mydaughter Margret and my wyves Children... The Court record indicatesthat when this will was presented to the Court for probate, WilliamSample's widow, Josine, made the claim that her husband had intended thatshe administer his estate, and that James Walliam and Samuel Land should"bee understood only as overseers & assistants to the widdow [herself] inthe performand of her husbands will." Josine must have been a strong andbold woman for her day, for the justices accepted her argument.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *
-5547-

Before returning to a discussion if the provisions that William Samplemade in his will, it may be appropriate to review the dating system thenin use in England and her colonies. As noted, it was on January 1, 1683,that William Sample's will was presented for probate in the New Castlecourt. The meeting dates for this session of the court were recordedhowever, as follows: "Att a Court Held in the towne of New Castle...thefirst and 2d dayes of the Elleventh month called January annoq.Dom.1682/3." It was under the old Julian Calendar, which remained inuse in England and her colonies untill 1752 that January was counted asthe eleventh month of the year and February as the twelfth. The new yearbegan on March 25th, in keeping with vernal equinox, but all of March wascounted as the first month of the year.

Dating back to the time of Julius Caesar, the Julian calendar had beenadopted in the Christian world during the Nicene Council in A.D. 325.While based on the solar year and divided into 365 days, plus an extraday every fourth year, the Julian calendar was found to exceed the solaryear by eleven minutes, amounting to a full day every 131 days. This wascorrected in 1582 with the adoption of the Gregorian calendar, which weuse today, by having no leap year in centenial years not divisable by400, and to correct the cumulative error that had grown over thecenturies, ten days were dropped and January was designated as the firstmonth of the year. Because it was Pope Gregory XIII who ordered that thenew calendar be adopted, it was named for him. For this reason, theGregorian calendar was ridiculed by Protestant nations, includingEngland, calling it a "Catholic Calendar".
With Henry VIII having broken with Rome, England insisted on continuingto count the passing of time with the old Julian Calendar longer than didthe rest of Europe. Particularly in the world of trade and travel, thetwo calendars caused growing confusion. In the American colonies, thecustom grew to use "double dates" during January and February and themost of March. Thus, the New Castle Court session beginning on January 1,1682 under the Julian Calendar was written "1: January: 1682/3" Underthe Gregorian Calendar this was New Year's day, 1683. The Englishparliament finally adopted the Gregorian Calendar in 1752, by which timeit was necessary to drop eleven days, and throughout England and thecolonies in 1752, September 2 was followed by September 14.

Early Historical Events in the Colony of Delaware

Another historical matter needing discussion in order to understand thedifficulty in tracing the forebears of William Sample Sparks is thecomplicaterd evolution of the the colony of Delaware. First it isimportant to note that New Castle County, Delaware, the place ofresidence of William Sample when he died in December 1682, very nearlyadjoins Queen Annes County, Maryland, the home of William Sparks, Jr. Itis not surprising that William Sparks, Jr. became aquainted with MargaretSample, for, though living in different colonies, they grew up but a fewmiles apart. They were probably married in Delaware in or about 1695.

Delaware did not come under English rule until 1664, the same year thatEngland took possession of Amsterdam in New York. Although its shore onthe Delaware River had been visited in 1609 by Henry Hudson, a Britishsea captain in the service of the Dutch West India Company, it had beenSweden, not Holland, that succeeded in establishing a settlement at whatis now Wilmington in 1638.

In 1651, the Dutch established a colony and built a fort at what is nowNew Castle, and in 1655 New Sweden capitulated to the Dutch.The Swedishcolonists on the Delaware remained, however, coming under Dutch rule.Then in 1664 when a war between England and Holland spread to the NewWorld New Amsterdamand other Dutch possessions in America were taken byan English expedition under James, Duke of York. The Swedish and Dutchsettlers on the Delaware River were permitted by the English to remain ontheir land byswearing allegiance to the King of England, and in 1673 theDuke of York's Bookof Laws introduced them to the English legal system.In the 1696 deed quoted earlier, the reference to "the Lord of the Soyle"meant the King of England. It is only after English rule do localrecords exist for what became the colony of Delaware.

In 1682, King Charles II extended the proprietary rule of William Penn toinclude, beyond the colony of Pennsylvania, the land on the DelawareRiver that eventually would become the colony of Delaware. Initially,however it became known as the "Lower Counties" of Pennsylvania. Thesethree "Lower Counties" were called New Castle, St. Johns, and Sussex,although St. Johns was changed to Kent County in 1682. In 1703, thesethree counties were granted their own assembly, which was an importantstep toward their becoming the separate colony of Delaware.

William Sample, Immigrant to Maryland

Although our earliest reference to William Sample in New Castle County,Delaware, found thus far is dated October 22, 1677, we believe that ifthere existed Dutch and Swedish court or land records prior to Englishrule, we would probably find his name there. We are certain, however,that he was neither a native of Holland nor Sweden, but that he had comefrom England. We further believe that he was the same William Sample whoarrived in Maryland in February 1653/4, i.e., it was 1653 under the oldJulian calendar but 1654 under the Gregorian Calendar.

At the Maryland Hall of Records there is a very early handwritten volumeof land records called "Liber A. B. & H." An expert in locating andinterpreting Maryland records, Dr. Carson Gibb, who has done researchfor us over a number of years, has provided us with photocopies of anumber of pages in this volume pertaining to William Sample.

As explained in The EarlySettlers of Maryland by Gust Skordas (Baltimore:Genealogical Publishing Company, 1968, p. ix), this "Liber A.B.& H" is atranscription completed in 1717 from much earlier records, most of whichare no longer extant. Included in this 1717 transcription is what wasonce called "Liber H (1650-55)," which no longer exists.

To interpret the earliest record pertaining to William Sample in "LiberA.B.& H." one must note that, to attract settlers to Maryland, LordBaltimore, the proprietor of the Colony, offered free land to any man orwoman who came to his colony
at his/her own expense. The number of acres provided had been reducedfrom 100 to 50 per immigrant by 1653 when William Sample came. Shippassage from England to Maryland cost about 20 pounds at that time, a sumthat few individuals desiring to emigrate to Maryland could pay. Manysuch men and women therefore, came as indentured servants, agreeing towork for the person paying their passage for varying numbers of years fortheir passage. The person paying for the passage would receive hisservant's "right" to the 50 acres.

The immigrant who "transported himself," i.e., paid his own way, or theperson who "transported" someone, would, soon after arrival in Maryland"demand" a "right" to the promised 50 acres. Upon receiving the written"right", he/she could then transfer (sell) it to another person. (For amore detailed account of this form of acquiring land in Maryland, see theQUARTERLY of December 1992, Whole No. 160, pp.4025-26.)

* * * * * * * * * * * * *
-5449-

On page [folio] 382 of "Liber A.B.& H" appears the following entry dated26th January 1653: "William Sample" Demandeth Fifty acres of land fortransporting himself into this province about February last." (This wouldhave been February 1653 under the Julian Calendar, but it would beFebruary 1654 under the Gregorian Calendar.)

The name "Sample" was by no means a common surname in the 1600s nor isit even today. No one else named Sample appears in the Skordas volumecited earlier or in Carson Gibb's A Supplement to The Early Settlers ofMaryland.

The exact same entry that appears for William Sample on page 382 of"Liber A.B. & H". was made also, on the same page, for each of two othermen who had transported themselves, i.e., paid their own way, fromEngland to Maryland. They were Samuel Graves and Richard Harris.Whether Graves and Harris might have come to Maryland with William Sampleis not known.

Sometime prior to July 3, 1654, William Sample had transferred his"right" to fifty acres to a man named George Bushy (also spelled Bussy).George Bushy had also arrived in Maryland about the same time as hadWilliam Sample, Samuel Graves and Richard Harris as revealed in an entryon page 380 of "Liber A.B. & H." Just above the George Bushy entry isthat of Henry Keyne who figures later with William Sample, Samuel Gravesand Richard Harris in the sale of their "rights".

"Liber A.B.& H." Folio 381.
26th June [1654] Henry Keyne Demandeth one Hundred and fifty
Acres for Transporting himself and Richard and Edward Kene, his
two Brothers into this province about February last.

[Same Liber, same folio, & same date.]

George Bushy Demandeth two hundred and Fifty acres of land for
Transporting himself, his Wife and George and Henry Bussy [sic]
their Sons into this province about February last with John Jenkins
his Servant.

No written record has been found by which Henry Keyne, William Sample,Samuel Graves, and Richard Harris transferring their "rights" to GeorgeBushy (oe Bussy) has been found, but that they had done so is indicatedby the following entries on folio 384 of "Liber A.B.& H."
3d July [1654] George Bussy [sic] Demandeth as pr Titles two
Hundred and Fifty Acres in his own Right and one hundred and
Fifty in the right of Henry Keene and his Brothers and fifty acres
a piece in Rights of Samuel Graves, William Sample and Richard
Harris, in all Five hundred and fifty acres.
Immediately following this entry, at the top of folio 385 appears thefollowing:
3d July [1654] Warrt [i.e., Warrant] to lay out for George Bussy [sic]two Hundred and Fifty acres and for Henry Keene and his Brothers Onehundred and Fifty acres and for Samuel Graves Fifty acres, for WilliamSample Fifty acres and for Richard Harris fifty acres being in all Fivehundred and Fifty acres of land in any part of the province not formerlytaken up. retd 1st January.

One other Maryland record has been found pertaining to William Sample.On April 1, 1660, he and one Francis Carpenter witnessed the will ofRichard Hix in Calvert County. Hix was identified in the will as livingon "Patuxent River". Here William Sample signed his name as "Wm.Sampell." Perhaps it was from Calvert County Maryland that he went toDelaware while it was still under Dutch rule.

-5450-

Because he had had the resources to transport himself to America, WilliamSample must have been a young man of some means. By the time he appearsin the English Delaware records, he seems to have been a man of bothFinancial resources and status in his community, as will be seen below.

Records Pertaining to William Sample in Delaware

We have had no access to any records that may have been kept during theDutch rule of Delaware, but English Court records survive and those from1676 to 1699 were published by the Colonial Society of Pennsylvania intwo volumes, 1676-1681
in 1904 and 1681-1699 in 1934. Both volumes have been reprinted by theClearfield Company of Baltimore, Maryland, in 2000.

It was on April 4, 1677, that William Sample first appeared in theEnglish Court records of New Castle. This was a case in which he andWilliam Hamilton were plaintiffs against James Besevick, claiming thatBesevick owed them "by his bill bearing date 8th of Novembr Last [1676]the sume of seven hundred fourthy and seven gilders & three styvers."The Court, comprised of three justices of the peace who served asmagistrates, ruled in favor of Sample and Hamilton. There were subsequentcases in which William Sample and William Hamilton were co-plaintiffsregarding money due them, suggesting that they may have been partners insome manner. For example, at a session of the Court on February 18,167718, William Sample and William Hamilton were plaintiffs against theestate of John Askin, deceased, "for the sume of three hundred and sixgilders and seven styvers."

In a Court record dated July 24, 1677, a jury was empaneled to consider acase involving a stolen coat; William Sample was one of the jurors, aduty that he would perform thereafter on several occasions.

In the autumn of 1677, a census was taken of the "Tydable [tithable]prsons living in the [New Castle] Court's Jurisdiction." A total of 307male heads of households were listed in such a way to suggest that theirarrangement was geographical. That in which William Sample's nameappeared was headed "from the next side" and comprised 42 names. WilliamHamilton's name followed that of William Sample in the list, suggestingthat their houses were probably side-by-side. Close neighbors includedMath: d' Ring, John Bisk, Jan Boyer, Joh: d' haes, and James Walliam, allbeing persons mentioned as Sample's associates in later records.

That William Sample was a prominent citizen of New Castle County isproven in the Court's minutes of July 17, 1678. A petition was then drawnup addressed to the Governor, Sir Edmund Andross, requesting that threeadditional justices of the peace be appointed to serve as magistrates onthe Court. Included in the petition were the names of four citizenspresented "as the fittest prsons" from whom the Governor might choosethree: "Mr Johannes Dehaes, Mr William Semple, Mr Abram Man, and MrHendrick Williams." William Sample was one of the three who wereappointed by the Governor, and as one of the now seven magistrates, heattended his first Court session on November 5, 1678.

Governor Andross, whose principal duty was to govern the colony of NewYork, then also governed the three Delaware counties, which meant thathis Delaware subjects rarely had personal contact with him. In July 1679,four of the New Castle magistrates, including William Sample, agreed tobe available on occasion to travel to New York to represent New CastleCounty before the Governor. It is interesting to note that when the NewCastle Court met on July 6, 1681, it

* * * * * * * * * * * * *
-5451-

adjourned without acting because Justice Otto was ill and "Justice Will:Sempill is absent at New York." Sample served as a member of the NewCastle Court for the remainder of his life.

References From the New Castle Court Records
Pertaining to Josine Sample

In attempting to gather information regarding Josine Sample in order totell something of her life, we are fortunate that she was mentioned anumber of times in the extant Court records of New Castle. It is alsohelpful that she was the only person with the forename Josine in theserecords. Her name is also spelled Josyn, Joslyn, and, on one ocasion,Usyn.

This writer is quite certain that her maiden name was Boyer. She wasmarried, first, to a man named John Marshall by whom she had a number ofchildren; he had died prior to 1675. Josine was married, second, toWilliam Sample; they were the parents of one child, Margaret Sample. WithWilliam Sample's death in 1681, Josine again became a widow. Sometimeprior to 1686 she was married, third, to William Hamilton. She died priorto March 1696. The Court records revealing her marriage and other eventsin her life are discussed below.

(This articleis continued in the notes for Anne's "child" The remainingnotes for Wm. Sample Sparks.)

Information concerning this line of the descendants of James and Lucinda(Sparks) Hanks was provided by Dottie Reid (Dreid10278@@aol.com) in May,2000. She is the daughter of Lena Mae Harmon but she didn't provide thename of her father.

.

!NOTES:
See THE MATTINGLY FAMILY IN EARLY AMERICA by Herman E. Mattingly (1975);
pg 9: "The head of the little family died early in 1664 without makin g awill.
The widow Elizabeth, was given letters of administration...(see note sunder
her spouse Thomas regarding the probate). Meanwhile, the widow, Elizabeth,
married one Walter Pake(s), himself a widower."
At pg 11: "Nothing is known about the later activities of the wido w,Eliz-
abeth. After the tragic death of her second husband we find no recor dof her;
although there is a record of an Elizabeth Peake receiving "personalt y"in
1671 in the Will of one Mordecay Hamon (citing St. Mary's Co., MD. Wi lls,
Liber 1, folio 473."

!NOTE:
Robert Cole mentions Elizabeth as his wife in his will though he disclaims
any interest in her estate. It is assumed that she is the mother o f the
children listed.