.jpg)
Richardson, William
Abt 1620 - 1657 (~ 37 years)-
Name Richardson, William Born Abt 1620 Newbury, Essex, Massachusetts 
Gender Male _COLOR Red Died 25 Mar 1657 Newbury, Massachusetts Buried Massachusetts, Essex, Newbury Person ID I27415 USA Last Modified 10 Oct 2019
Family Wiseman, Elisabeth, b. Abt 1636, d. 1 Dec 1667, Hampton, Rockingham, New Hampshire (Age ~ 31 years) Married Abt 1653 Newbury, Essex, Massachusetts Children 1. Richardson, Joseph, b. 18 May 1655, of Newbury, Essex, Massachusetts , d. 4 May 1724, Newbury, Essex, Massachusetts, United States (Age 68 years)2. Richardson, Elizabeth, b. Abt 1656, West Newbury, Massachusetts , d. DECEASED3. Richardson, Benjamin, b. 13 Mar 1656, Newbury, Essex, Massachusetts , d. 14 Mar 1658, Newbury, Essex, Massaschusetts (Age 2 years)Last Modified 5 Aug 2021 Family ID F9355 Group Sheet | Family Chart
-
Notes - WILLIAM RICHARDSON,1 supposed to be a brother of the preceding; born inEngland, about 1620; came to America, and settled in Newbury, about 1640, or not long after; married ELIZABETH WISEMAN, Aug. 23, 1654. He lived in Newbury, probably in what is now West Newbury. In 1656 he was a creditor of Henry Fay, of Newbury. [From file in clerk's office.] His widow Elizabeth made oath to an inventory of his estate, dated March30, 1657, amount 52. His real estate consisted of "a house and foure akers of land prised at 23." He died March 25, 1657, probably under forty years of age. Newbury was apparently not the typical Puritan village where all residents went to great lengths to avoid conflict. On several occasions the Richardsons found themselves in the midst of controversy. William Richardson and his brother Edward were among 60 men who signedthe Pike Petition dated May 14, 1654. according to Currier, History of Newbury Mass 1635-1902, p.163. Joseph Dow, in his History of Hampton, recounts the circumstances which led to the presentation and withdrawal ofthis petition: "In the year 1653, the General Court passed an act, to restrain unfit persons from preaching the gospel. This law was occasioned by gross irregularities, as they were then regarded, in the conduct of two men, livingin that part of Salisbury, which is now the town of Amesbury, who wereaccustomed to exhort the people on the Sabbath, in the absence of a minister. Many of the people disliked this law, regarding it as arbitrary and far too severe in its positions. Among those was Lieut. Robert Pike, of Salisbury, who did not conceal his views, but spoke with some severityof the magistrates and deputies, by whom it had been made. The languageused by him was regarded as a slander upon the court, and Lieutenant Pike was not only heavily fined, but also disfranchised, and put under bonds for good behavior. Petitions, numerously signed, were sent to the General Court, not only from Salisbury, but also from Newbury, Haver hill, Andover and Hampton, praying that the fine and punishment might be remitted. "The court, so far from granting the prayer of the petitioners, considered them highly censurable; and, in the language of the record, did 'deeply resent, so many persons, of several towns, conditions and relations,should combine together to present such an unjust and unreasonable request,' since Lieutenant Pike had been fully proved guilty of defaming thecourt, and charging the members with a breach of oath. 'In this extraordinary case,' commissioners were appointed, to call together the petitioners in the several towns, and 'require a reason of their unjust request, and how they came to be induced to sign the said petition.' "At the next session of the General Court, in 1654, Capt Thomas Wiggin,the commissioner for Hampton, reported that the petitioners from this town--more than thirty in number--had, with two exceptions, acknowledgedtheir offence and humbly asked the court to pass it by. Christopher Hussey and John Sanborn, having refused to give any satisfactory answer, were put under bonds of Ð10 each, to keep the peace. In relation to these proceedings, Joshua Coffin justly remarks: 'The whole case is a very instructive one. It exhibits, on the one hand, the watchful jealousy of thepeople in consequence of any supposed, or real, encroachment on their civil or ecclesiastical rights; and, on the other hand, the determinationof the magistrates not to have their authority lightly called in question.' " All of the petitioners
DEATH: Savage Vol.III, p.538. BURIAL: From Ancestral File
DEATH: Savage Vol.III, p.538. BURIAL: From Ancestral File
- WILLIAM RICHARDSON,1 supposed to be a brother of the preceding; born inEngland, about 1620; came to America, and settled in Newbury, about 1640, or not long after; married ELIZABETH WISEMAN, Aug. 23, 1654. He lived in Newbury, probably in what is now West Newbury. In 1656 he was a creditor of Henry Fay, of Newbury. [From file in clerk's office.] His widow Elizabeth made oath to an inventory of his estate, dated March30, 1657, amount 52. His real estate consisted of "a house and foure akers of land prised at 23." He died March 25, 1657, probably under forty years of age. Newbury was apparently not the typical Puritan village where all residents went to great lengths to avoid conflict. On several occasions the Richardsons found themselves in the midst of controversy. William Richardson and his brother Edward were among 60 men who signedthe Pike Petition dated May 14, 1654. according to Currier, History of Newbury Mass 1635-1902, p.163. Joseph Dow, in his History of Hampton, recounts the circumstances which led to the presentation and withdrawal ofthis petition: "In the year 1653, the General Court passed an act, to restrain unfit persons from preaching the gospel. This law was occasioned by gross irregularities, as they were then regarded, in the conduct of two men, livingin that part of Salisbury, which is now the town of Amesbury, who wereaccustomed to exhort the people on the Sabbath, in the absence of a minister. Many of the people disliked this law, regarding it as arbitrary and far too severe in its positions. Among those was Lieut. Robert Pike, of Salisbury, who did not conceal his views, but spoke with some severityof the magistrates and deputies, by whom it had been made. The languageused by him was regarded as a slander upon the court, and Lieutenant Pike was not only heavily fined, but also disfranchised, and put under bonds for good behavior. Petitions, numerously signed, were sent to the General Court, not only from Salisbury, but also from Newbury, Haver hill, Andover and Hampton, praying that the fine and punishment might be remitted. "The court, so far from granting the prayer of the petitioners, considered them highly censurable; and, in the language of the record, did 'deeply resent, so many persons, of several towns, conditions and relations,should combine together to present such an unjust and unreasonable request,' since Lieutenant Pike had been fully proved guilty of defaming thecourt, and charging the members with a breach of oath. 'In this extraordinary case,' commissioners were appointed, to call together the petitioners in the several towns, and 'require a reason of their unjust request, and how they came to be induced to sign the said petition.' "At the next session of the General Court, in 1654, Capt Thomas Wiggin,the commissioner for Hampton, reported that the petitioners from this town--more than thirty in number--had, with two exceptions, acknowledgedtheir offence and humbly asked the court to pass it by. Christopher Hussey and John Sanborn, having refused to give any satisfactory answer, were put under bonds of Ð10 each, to keep the peace. In relation to these proceedings, Joshua Coffin justly remarks: 'The whole case is a very instructive one. It exhibits, on the one hand, the watchful jealousy of thepeople in consequence of any supposed, or real, encroachment on their civil or ecclesiastical rights; and, on the other hand, the determinationof the magistrates not to have their authority lightly called in question.' " All of the petitioners