abounded, the poor and middle classes were sliding backward into a poverty daily more and more unendurable.

The pressure of over-population in England had become such that, as Winthrop writes, Man "the most precious of creatures, is here more vile and base than the earth we tread upon. . .and thus it is come to pass, that children, servants and neighbors, especially if they be poor, are counted the greatest burdens, which if things were right would be the chiefest earthly blessings." Laborers not only found their pay grown pitifully insufficient, but they grew restive under the severity of unjust laws that compelled their arrest and sale into bondage if they refused to work for wages arbitrarily fixed by their masters. The plagues, too, had swept England heavily, though during the two decades before the sailing of Winthrop's fleet (April, 1630), they had not been quite so disastrous as formerly.

Then the attraction of adventure and frontier life, the lure of a new and little-known part of the world, inhabited by supposedly ferocious savages, and the personal ambition of some of the Puritan leaders and ministers, and the prospect of more freedom where they would not be under the immediate eye or facile control of their uncompromising royal government rounded out the series of reasons for abandoning their homes in England.

The English Home of Robert:

The English home of our Reynolds family has never been established, although a few vague clues have been carefully investigated. One suggestion pretending to definiteness† names Aylesford in Kent, some thirty miles southeast of London. Unhappily the parochial records of the little village of Aylesford, so its kindly Vicar wrote us in the war days of 1915, now extend back only to about 1660, because many years ago "the Register which contained entries from Queen Elizabeth to Charles I disappeared-I believe it was very foolishly and wrongly lent to an exhibition." There were many of our name in and about Maidstone, Canterbury and Aylesford in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, at the time when Robert was born. Another interesting suggestion came in 1922 from the late Dr. H. S. Delamere of Berkeley, California, who had never seen the Reynolds Family Association coat-of-arms (foxes) copied from the gravestone of Joseph Reynolds (d. 1759) in Bristol, R. I.:

"I was called to see an old lady who was living in Berkeley. She was born in England, maiden name Reynolds. On the wall was hanging the Reynolds coat-ofarms (three foxes) worked in worsted. I recognized it when I saw the Association Annuals some years later."

†Genealogy of New England, edit. by W. R. Cutter, II: p. 888. In 1915 Miss Susan Reynolds Simmons of Brockton, Mass., replied to our inquiry: "I assisted Mr. John B. Reynolds somewhat in preparing this paper and it was on my authority that he stated that Robert Reynolds came from Aylesford, England. I, however, cannot definitely remember where I got this information... it may have been from a history of Boston."

In its Annual, 1922, pp. 191-96, and in the 1925 Annual, The Reynolds Family Association began the publication of the records of some old English marriages in which the name of Reynolds figured. Those records indicate something of the wide distribution of the family in England even at that time.

Dr. Delamere stated that the lady had died and that her daughter was living somewhere in western Canada, but could not be found; also that his recollection was that the older lady had been born in Cumberland, England. Another genealogist, without stating his authority, gives Northampton, England, as Robert's home. While none of these suggestions, lacking corroboration, can be accepted, it is possible that Robert's home might have been one of the villages of Suffolk, Essex, Leicestershire, Devonshire, etc., where the name was then common. Governor John Winthrop, in Boston next-door neighbor to Robert Reynolds, seems always to have been a family friend, and he came from Groton, Suffolk County, England.

The Family in England:

For further research in England, it should be considered:

That Robert was born in England about 1580;
That he married there Mary —

between 1600-1622;

That their five (perhaps more) children were born there before 1630; That Robert was between forty and fifty-five when he sailed from England; That the traditional family trade was that of shoe-maker (then called cordwainer);

And that Nathaniel, the name given the only son of whom we know, might also have been a family Christian name in England.

It is quite likely that NATHANIEL, according to the custom of the times, was named for his Reynolds grandfather in England. It is noteworthy that each of the five children of Robert and Mary, except Tabitha (who died after the birth of her only son Matthew, named for her husband), christened one of his (or her) sons Nathaniel. That is, there were among

ROBERT'S GRANDCHILDREN

as suggesting the names of Robert's own parents, and of those of his wife. Though in such assumptions we must go very slowly, we are inclined to think Nathaniel was the name of Robert's father in England, and that the name of his mother was probably Ruth or Tabitha. Until recently we have never seen the name† Nathaniel Reynolds on any English records, and we should be immensely interested in any mention prior to 1630.

Some tribesmen have pointed to certain family resemblances between representative American members and the famous portrait of Sir Joshua

†The only mention of early Nathaniels in England has come to light through researches in England which Mrs. Hyatt caused to be made:

1. The will of a Nathaniel Reynolds of Kelsale, Suffolk, was filed 1656, in Privy Council Chambers-Yeoman; dated 14 March 1655-56. Mentions only wife Sarah; no other relatives. Administration with Will annexed Nov. 24, 1656, to Edward Davis and Edmund Thorne. (Ref. 390 Berkeley P. C. C.)

Reynolds painted by himself; and they argue therefore that our family may be also of Sir Joshua's Devonshire strain. Sir Joshua, of course, was an exemplary bachelor and he was born almost a century after our Robert had left England.

Robert and his son Nathaniel were well educated for their time, and it is believed that both wrote out their own wills. This, in an age when illiteracy was general in the laity in England and signing by mark quite common, indicates that the family in England might have been of some importance. The early settlers of New England, however, were generally of high-grade stock, and for the most part were fairly well educated.

When and Where Robert was born:

So much for Robert's home and family; now for the date of his birth. We read in his will (signed Boston, April 20, 1658):

"I & my wife being stricken in age, & are almost past our Labour.-" The date of his death in Boston, April 27, 1659, and that of his widow Mary, January 18, 1663 (1662-64 old style), confirms ripe old age. The birth of the youngest child, around 1630, when Mary was probably not over 45, was some thirty-four years before Mary's death. Therefore, we should imagine that they attained as much as the venerable seventy or eighty years usual to our old-time generations. Robert's only son, Nathaniel, who died at 81, made his will in 1706, at the age of 79. If Robert were 79 when he made his will in 1658, then he would have been born in 1579. From this discussion, we might conservatively conclude that he was born between 1580-90, and somewhere in eastern or southeastern England.

Robert would have been about eight at the time of the defeat of the Spanish Armada (1588). His boyhood and youth were certainly spent in the Golden Age of Queen Elizabeth (1558-1603) when Shakespeare, Spenser and Marlowe were creating some of the finest works of our literature, and when the religious quarrels culminating a few decades later in the beheading of Charles I during Cromwell's ascendancy-were at white-heat. He was just attaining mature manhood when the Pilgrims removed (1609) from Scroobie to Leyden; and he was in middle-age and married when (1620) the Mayflower and Speedwell† sailed for Plymouth. During Robert's young manhood, the first settlements were being made in Virginia and the English adventurers were making brilliant raids upon Spanish treasure ships in the Caribbean, 'the Spanish Main.'

Robert's Marriage:

Robert married in England, about 1610, Mary, whose maiden name will probably never be known§ to us. Assuming that Robert was

†Commanded by "Captain Reignoldes" of whom we know nothing more.

Frank Wayland Reynolds once said that it was Fosdick, though he admitted that he could not support his belief. Robert's granddaughter married John Fosdick in Boston; and it is possible that Mr. Reynolds was confused by that marriage.

§A Robert Reynolds m. 1617 Jane Watts in London. From Directory of English and Welsh Surnames with Special References to American Instances, by Bardsley. London Licenses, I, 122-0. Another Robert Reynolds m. Mary Pulleyne, at Fremington, Devon, in 1623. (Boyd Marriages Register.)

born about 1580, even 1585, it is difficult to explain his marriage apparently so late in life seemingly not so long before 1620, because the first known child, Ruth, was born about 1622. But it is possible that other earlier children may have died in England, perhaps of the plague. If, as is quite possible, Robert came with Governor Winthrop and John Saltonstall in April-June, 1630, some of his children of whom we have never heard may have been among the two hundred of that party who died in the epidemics during the first six months in America. Mr. Isaac Newton Reynolds at one time tried to connect Robert Reynolds, fisherman of Pulling Point, (1670) as a disowned son of our Robert, but he said he could find no clue, and merely concluded that if—as was highly unlikely that Robert† of Pulling Point was a disowned son, it may have been the reason that the name Robert did not appear for several generations among the descendants of our Robert of Boston.

Our starting point for laying out many of the dates in the table following is our certain knowledge that Captain Nathaniel, the one known son of Robert, was born in 1627, since he declared in an affidavit, "Boston, May 21, 1674," that he was then 'aged about 47.' None of Robert's children, apparently, were married when the family arrived in New England, and we feel sure that all of them were then quite small. In Robert's will the four daughters named in series are obviously given in the order of their birth. Using this meagre evidence in combination with the known birth-dates and ages of Robert's sons-in-law, and upon the assumption that the five children were each of ordinary age when married; and taking 1632-it is surely within two years either way of being correct-as the year when the migration from England occurred, we can deduce some interesting probabilities about this little Puritan family:

†Robert Reynolds, Sr., of Pulling Point, Mass, was buried Sept. 6, 1705, o. s., in property transfers mentioned as 'fisherman' and farmer; administered his son Robert's estate 1705, Boston. His own will dated May 29, 1705, o. s., three days after his son Robert was buried: "Robert Renall of Pulling Point in New England, husbandman-all my estate to be my said wife Elizabeth's—and after said wife's decease my will is what shal then be left shall be equally divided amongst my children surviving; viz.: Elizabeth, Ann, Mary, Sarah, John, Abigail." He signed by mark; letter of administration, Suffolk, Boston, Registry of Deeds: "Robert Renalls late of Pulling Point-yeoman- is hereby committed unto his wife and relict Elizabeth Renalls, sole executor." It is possible his wife was the "Mrs. Reynolds" buried in Boston January 31, 1718, o. s. Children in will probably in order of age: 1. Robert, Jr., b. about 1685, d. 1705, buried May 26, 1705, o. s., four months before his father. "Brazier, of Pulling Point"; unmarried. Letter of administration, May 13, 1705, (sic). "To Robert Reynolds, father of Robert Reynolds late of Boston, brazier, deceased, said son (being bachelor)." 2. Elizabeth, b. January 2, 1669, o. s. 3. Ann, b. August 11, 1670, o. s., m. Thomas Emmons, Jany. 7, 1710, by Rev. Cotton Mather. 4. Mary, b. 1675- 6. Sarah, nothing known. 7. John, (m. Susanna Storey, Sept. 5, 1706)8. Abigail, nothing known.

In a suit of attachment in Boston, "15th of 5th mo. 1662" a Robert Ronals and others were arrested for debt. First Mate of ship deposed that Ronals and others deserted and refused to "doe any worke about the saide ship Anne." Robert thereupon petitioned to be released from prison, signed "Robart Renolls." This is probably a seaman and not the Pulling Point Robert.

The above John may have been one of the following in Boston marriage records: " "John Renolds & Susanna Storey by Rev. Cotton Mather, Sept. 5, 1706." "John Renals & Ruth Pitman, Rev. Peter Thatcher, Presb. Aug. 25, 1720." "John Renalls & Sarah Button, Aug. 19, 1726, (Intention only filed). "John Renolds & Rebecca Lupton, Dr. Benjamin Colman, Presb., Jany. 6, 1731." This last John was of the Wethersfield, Conn., strain. "John Reynolds & Martha Dezekiel, Rev. John Moorhead, Oct. 24, 1734." We have nothing more concerning this Robert of Pulling Point; he seems to have been unrelated to Robert of Boston, though a contemporary of our Captain Nathaniel. Pulling Point is now called Point Shirley and is on the North Shore before Nahant Point.

Suffolk Registry of Deeds, Boston, Printed, Vol. VIII: folio 406.

Of this immigrant family of Robert and Mary Reynolds, we know definitely that Mary (Reynolds) Sanger of Watertown, who died some time after 1711, was the last to die. The deaths in old age of Captain Nathaniel Reynolds and of Mrs. Mary Sanger support our reasoning in considering them the younger children of the family. Sarah, of whose death we have no record, may have been born before Nathaniel. Robert, thef father, died April 27, 1659; Mary, the mother, died January 18, 1663, both in Boston. It is most probable that they are buried in King's Chapel Cemetery, which was part of the first settlement—after William Blackstone-in Boston by Isaac Johnson, August, 1630. Johnson died the next month and was buried on his land which then became the cemetery.

From England to America:

Now, when did Robert and Mary and their children voyage from England to the bleak shores of Massachusetts Bay? In the§ RunnelsReynolds Family, by the Rev. Moses T. Runnels, it is written

"From well authenticated 'private records of long ago', Robert is known to have been in Boston in 1632."

The Reverend Mr. Runnels himself put known in italics; his studies were made half a century ago. It appears that he made this categorical statement upon some satisfactory authority which for reasons of his own he did not care to cite. Of many original wills, deeds, diaries, letters, etc., pertaining to the early history of New England which have come to be in private hands, some have been surreptitiously purloined from the Boston|| archives by over-zealous descendants. Runnels was probably shown some such document privately, and probably by request he discreetly refrained from mentioning the possessor in his book.

The late Isaac Newton Reynolds of Montello, Massachusetts, whose interest and careful researches have been the inspiration of this present

†N. E. Hist. Gen. Register, xviii; 168.

Under the old style calendar which was legal until 1751, New Year's Day fell on March 25th, so that dates prior to 1751 which fell between January 1st and March 24th, inclusive, were ambiguous unless both the old year and the new year were written. The printed records of the Boston Record Commissioners are not in this proper form, and we cannot now tell whether the above year was 1663 modern style, or 1662-1663; 1663-34, or 1663. For a better explanation, read the article upon 'Calendar' in any standard encyclopedia.

Runnels-Reynolds Family, pub., Boston, 1873, by Rev. M. T. Runnels, page 253, No. 3298. The Bostonian, 1895, I; 38-65; 173,552, 'Development of the Shoe and Leather Industry in the U.S.' says Robert came in 1630. Mentions other early Boston cordwainers and shoe-makers.