Thomas L Stokes, Jr.

LITTLE-KNOWN ADVENTURE OF THOMAS STOKES-1665

By MILTON RUBINCAM, WASHINGTON D. C.

The Genealogical Magazine of New Jersey Vol. 12, No. 4 Oct., 1937 Page 73

The Stokes family has long been prominent in New Jersey. Among the many citizens of that State who have, during various periods since the arrival of their immigrant ancestor in 1677, reflected credit on the name, may be mentioned: the first Dr. John Hinchman Stokes who contributed materially to the advancement of science in that region, in the early days, Hon. Edward C. Stokes President of the Senate and Governor of New Jersey, at the beginning of this century; and Dr. John Hinchman Stokes III, Dr. Henry Newlin Stokes and Mr. John Stogdell Stokes, at the present time. (See Who's Who in America, 1936-37)

Much has been written about the immigrant founder of the line, Thomas Stokes, of Lower Shadwell, London. Richard Haines, of Medford, N. J., in his genealogy of the Stokes family (1903), gave a brief sketch of him, and Judge John Clement, of Haddonfield, N. J., in his history of the first settlers of Newton Township, Old Gloucester County (1877), presented a rambling account of the progenitor and his immediate family. Of great value is the two-volume manuscript genealogy by Mr. Samuel E. Stokes of Kotgarh, India, which is preserved in the collections of The Historical Society of Pennsylvania, in Philadelphia, and also his printed work, Letters of Nancy Evans Stokes (1916), a copy of which is in the writer's private family archives, through the kindness of Mr. Stokes.

None of the modern biographers, however, seem to have been aware of the fact that the original Thomas Stokes had a sea adventure, which threatened to alter his entire career. The tale is told by that indefatigable chronicler of the sufferings of the Friends, Joseph Besse.*

Early in the year 1665 Thomas Stokes was seized and cast into Newgate Prison, London, because of his adherence to Quaker doctrines. With one hundred and nineteen others he was sentenced to banishment. The Sheriffs were puzzled as to the best means of ridding themselves of those persons who had been doomed to life-long exile. The captains of ships about to sail for the West Indian plantations refused to transport the Friends overseas because, as Besse put it, they were "conscious of the Men’s Innocence." Moreover, the plague regarded by some simple folk as "a Judgment on the Nation for thus persecuting the Innocent" was rapidly depopulating the city.

"But at length," Besse informs us, "a Man was found to answer their purpose; one Fudge, a Fellow so hardened as to say, That he would not stick to transport even his nearest Relations. With him the Sheriffs agreed to carry the Prisoners to Jamaica, and accordingly on the 20th of the 5th Month, 1665, fifty-five of them were taken out of Newgate, put in a Barge at Black-Fryars, and carried down the River to his Ship, called the Black Spread-Eagle, lying in Bugbey's Hole." But here the authorities ran into difficulties, for the seamen, in the master's absence, refused to permit the captives to be hauled aboard the vessel. A heated argument followed, during which only four of the prisoners were pushed aboard. Worn out by their exertions the jailers finally retreated to the prison with the rest of the Friends.

It is not certainly known that Thomas Stokes was in this first contingent, but he is named as one of the thirty-seven men who (together with eighteen women) figured in the second attempt at deportation, which occurred on the 4th of the 6th month, 1665.

Placed on the barge once more, Stokes and his fellow-prisoners sailed down the Thames with an escort of troops from the Tower of London. They were accompanied in other boats by friends and relatives who made themselves so obnoxious that the soldiers threatened to sink them if they did not withdraw. Their real trouble began, however, when they reached the Black Spread+Eagle. To quote Besse again

"So they went to work, the Soldiers in the Barge laying hold on the Prisoners, dragged some, kickt and puncht others and heaved up many by the Legs and Arms, and so tumbled them into the Ship, and in about an Hours time got them all on Board . . . . .

"Being on Board, all the Men were thronged together between Decks, where they could not stand upright; and the Pestilence coming into the Ship which was long retarded in the River, (Fudge being arrested and imprisoned for Debt) it was about seven Months before she got to the Land's-End, in which time twenty+seven of the Prisoners on Board died.... "

On the 23rd day of the 12th month (February, 1666) the ship with its cargo of hapless victims sailed from Plymouth. But the reigning powers had not reckoned on the fortunes of war. Our ancestral homeland was engaged at that period in a long struggle with Holland. Ships from The Netherlands made frequent and daring raids into English waters, and, indeed, the very day after the Black Spread-Eagle had left the port of Plymouth a Dutch Privateer hove in sight. Flight was useless; she was quickly overtaken, her crew's resistance, if any, was quashed, and she was taken to Hoorn in North Holland, where the convicts of England were held by their national foes to be exchanged as prisoners of war.

Stokes and his comrades entered the town and were conveyed to the local jail, while the authorities sought to exchange them for their compatriots in English hands. His Majesty's Government could hardly be expected, however, to return Dutch military captives to their Fatherland in order to recover the members of a despised sect, of whose presence they had sought to rid themselves. Care-free Charles II and his ministers must have been much amused at the thought.

At length, realizing the futility of their designs, the Dutch officials provided the Quakers with passports and shipped them home to England. "Thus eminently did the Hand of the Lord appear for them, and against their Persecutors," says Besse, with quaint but unconscious humor. The charges against them seem to have been dropped; they were not rearrested and within a short time Thomas Stokes set foot once more in London.

On the 30th day of the 10th month, 1668, in the Westbury Street Meeting House in London Thomas Stokes was united in marriage with Mary Barnard, daughter of John Barnard and Frances Munt, and granddaughter of Samuel Munt of Peldon Hall, County Essex, yeoman, who died about I657.*

Eleven years after his return to England as above described, we find Thomas Stokes and his wife on the high seas. This time he definitely turned his back on the land of his birth. His exile was self-chosen, not decreed by the police authorities. Early in the year 1677 he had attached his name to the document known as "The Concessions and Agreements of the Proprietors, Freeholders, and Inhabitants of the Province of West New Jersey, in America," thus endorsing a program that was destined to have far-reaching consequences in our colonial history. They settled on the Rancocas Creek, in Burlington County, where they and their sons after them acquired large landed estates. His wife, Mary Barnard Stokes, died in 1699; Thomas Stokes survived her more than two decades, dying in the year 1720 at the residence of his son, Thomas Stokes, Jr., in Waterford Township, Gloucester County, New Jersey.

The children of Thomas Stokes and Mary Barnard,so far as known, were as follows:

1 Sarah Stokes, married, 1693 Benjamin Moore (9 children).

2 Mary Stokes, married. 1696 John Hudson (2 children). Haines gives only one, a daughter, Mary; but there was also a son, John. (See N. J. Archives, Vol. XXXIII, Abstracts of wills, Vol. I, p. 243, Will of John Hudson, 9 Jan. 1704).

3 Henry Stokes, died. 9-30-1674, aged 20 months. (Friends Quarterly Meeting Records of London and Middlesex, in the Gen. Soc. of Pa.). This child is not given by Haines, but is mentioned by Samuel E. Stokes in the printed volume above cited. He suggests that giving this name to the first born son indicates a relationship to Henry Stokes of Stepney, who died. in 1665.

4 John Stokes, born. 1675; died. between. 10-28-1743 and 11 Sept., 1749. Married, 1712 Elizabeth Green (4 children). Haines and others are wrong in stating that theirs was a shipboard romance, for John was only 2 years old at the time of his family's migration.

5 Joseph Stokes, died. between. 28 Dec. 1757 and 28 June 1759; married first, Judith Lippincott (10 children) ; married second Mrs. Ann Haines (3 children).

6 Thomas Stokes, born 1682; died. 11-7-1746; married first; Deliverance Horner (6 children); married second, Rachel Wright (8 children). His first wife was a cousin to his second wife, a fact not generally known. Deliverance was a daughter of Isaac Horner and Lydia Wright, who was a daughter of Sergt. Peter Wright, one of the founders of Oyster Bay, L. I.; and Rachel was a daughter of Job Wright, the above mentioned Lydia Wright's brother.

The sons Joseph and Thomas were born after the family had established themselves in their new home.

The descendants of Thomas Stokes have traveled far since those days in 1665-1666 when their ancestor sailed across the seas, first a prisoner of his native England, and then a captive of Holland. They are to be found in every state in the Union and in many foreign lands. The most distant branch (geographically speaking) was founded in India in I904 by Mr. Samuel Evans Stokes of Germantown, Philadelphia, who married Agnes, the daughter of Babu Benjamin, (prior to his conversion known as Gokul Chand), whose family deduces its lineage from the Sun. In the veins of their children flows the blood of the Ranas of Pandoh, in the State of Mandi, who lost their throne about two centuries ago. Mr. Stokes, whose residence is

“Harmony Hall” at Kotgarh, Simla Hills, in the Punjab, and in 1931 issued Satyakanta or "True Desires" (being Thoughts on the Meaning of Life).*

Thomas Stokes, Jr. (1682 - 1736) is John Weedon's 9th great grandson.

More information on the project Descendants of John Weeden

If it interests you please join and be a contributor.

GEDCOM Note

GEN: !RELATIONSHIPS: including both wives Gen. Mag. of N. J. Vol 12 p 73 GEN: !MARRIAGE:date "The Stokes Family Warren Co., Ohio" GEN: !RELATIONSHIP: father's will GEN: !BIRTH: "Notes on My Stokes Ancestry" pg 15 Thomas ged three

GEDCOM Source

@R1250717649@ Genealogy of the Stokes Family : Descended From Thomas and Mary Stokes Who Settled in Burlington County, N.J. (Indexed) Ancestry.com Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. 1,1864::0

GEDCOM Source

1,1864::40

GEDCOM Source

@R1250717649@ Genealogy of the Stokes Family : Descended From Thomas and Mary Stokes Who Settled in Burlington County, N.J. (Indexed) Ancestry.com Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. 1,1864::0

GEDCOM Source

1,1864::4956

GEDCOM Source

@R1250717649@ Genealogy of the Stokes Family : Descended From Thomas and Mary Stokes Who Settled in Burlington County, N.J. (Indexed) Ancestry.com Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. 1,1864::0

GEDCOM Source

1,1864::40

GEDCOM Source

@R1250717649@ Genealogy of the Stokes Family : Descended From Thomas and Mary Stokes Who Settled in Burlington County, N.J. (Indexed) Ancestry.com Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. 1,1864::0

GEDCOM Source

1,1864::4956

https://archive.org/details/richardhaineshis01hain/page/60/mode/2up page 61