Genealogical notes of Barnstable families - citizen hylbom blog

176 GENEALOGICAL NOTES OF BARNSTABLE FAMILIE8.
prison, where they remained about tvro years. The forty-two
were then released on bail ; but that privilege was denied to Mr.
Lothrop, and he remained in prison "'two foil years," that is till
April 29, 1634, probably till May. About the time the forty-two
were released his wife fell sick, and the Bishop permitted him tO'
visit her. Very soon after this visit she died, either in April or
May, 1634, leaving six children to be taken care of and supported
by Mr. Lothrop's friends. Thomas, the eldest son, was then
thirteen years of age, and Benjamin perhaps not over two. Jane
was older than Thomas, and perhaps Barbara was also. Their
friends had willing hearts, but were oppressed and poor, and utterly
unable to help the families of all who had been imprisoned
by the tryanny of Archbishop Laud. According to tradition, the
children for some little time had no home, and were obliged to
beg bread in the streets of London. Their friends being unable
to protect them and to provide for their wants, sent them to the
Bishop of Lambeth, who had charge of Mr. Lothrop. He cotild
not resist this touching appeal to his mercy, granted their request,
and ordered the release of the father. This was in May or
the beginning of June, 1634. Immediately after his enlargement
he made arrangements to come to New England. The Griffin
and another ship arrived at Boston Sept. 18, 1634, with about
two hundred passengers, among whom were Rev. John Lothrop
and thirty of his followers, Eev. Zachariah Symms, and the famous
Mrs. Ann Hutchinson. Six weeks was an average passage
in those times, consequently Mr. Lothrop left London about Aug.
1, 1634. In the same ship there came over a copy of the commission
granted to the two Archbishops and ten others of the
council, to regulate all plantations.
The object of this commission was to embarras puritan ministers
desirous of coming to New England. All passengers were
required to obtain a certificate from the minister or the magistrates
of the town in which they resided, of their good character
and conformity to the order and discipline of the church of England,
and that they had taken the oath of allegiance and supremacy
and were no subsidy men.
I am aware that King Charles the first made duplicity a
study, and practiced it when and wherever he thought it would
subserve his interests, but his object in 1634 in passing the order
in council was to prevent puritan ministers from leaving England,
and it is very improbable that he should at the very same time order
the release of Mr. Lothrop on the condition that he leave the
Kingdom. I give the statement of Mr. Neal, and that of Mr.
Morton. The latter is undoubtedly accurate. It is in conformity
with tradition, and records preserved by one of his grandchildren.
It is in conformity with a statement made by Mr. Lothrop himself,
as recorded by Gov. Winthrop. In October, 1634, before his set-