THE LITTLE WELLS FAMILY
IN NORTH AMERICA-
THE IMMIGRANT ANCESTOR
PART II: JAMES WELLS (2) 16XX - 1771
By
Harold Henry & Nadine Hull Arnold
1966
Edited by
Harold Hull Arnold
1998
EDITOR’S PREFACE
This is the second part of the two part paper discussing the facts as they are available of the immigration of the original Little Wells ancestor from England to North America. In part I the readers were introduced to two charactors who may have been this immigrant ancestor, James Wells (1), 16xx - 1681/82 and James Wells (2), 16xx - 1771.
Part I, presented the arguments linking James Wells (1) 16xx -1681/82 as the North American originator were given in detail. These arguments while substantially accepted by the original Authors were subjected to a more critical analysis by the Editor with the conclusions that the records supporting the link are not substantial and credible enough to provied the basis for the acceptance of James Wells (1) as the ancestor. The possibility that this person was the immigrant, however, remains.
This Part II gives the records as they are known of James Wells (2) whose historical existence is not only well extablished by the best contempory records but whose link to the Little Wells family is equelly well proved. The question of his status as immigrant ancestor or 2nd generation North American, however, remain uncertain as there are no contemporary records indicating his passage from the mother country, only traditions maintained by several familly branches that it was he who was immigrated from England sometime betwen 1700 and 1725.
The original draft of this material was writen by the Authors about 1966 and widely distributed about the extended family. It is based on their research between the early 1930's and the 1980's. I have prepared this annotated edition for WWW publication. As in Part I any comments or substantial additions or changes in the original test made by the Editor appear in italized type.
JAMES WELLS (2)- WHO WAS THIS JAMES WELLS, IMMIGRANTS OR SECOND GENERATION NORTH AMERICAN?
THE LIFE OF JAMES WELLS (2) AND WIFE, ANN.
The family. In the Part I discussion we noted that between 1716 and 1729 James Wells (2) and his wife, Ann whose last name is unknow recorded the births of 6 childern at the Register of Births in the St. Paul’s Episcopal Parish of Baltimore, Maryland, on file in the Maryland Historical Society Library,as follows:
This marks be beginning of comporary records of the litle Wells family in North America. Where did this James Wells who we have designited James Wells (2) come from. Contempory records locate this family in Baltimore County in the colonial Provience om Maryland at least by the year 1716. This disproves the traditions maintaining the move came as late as 1725. Yet James Wells (2) could have immigrated any time before 1716 leaving the traditions of the move any time fefore 1718 as viable possibilities.
Besides the above children, it is generally accepted by Wells descendants that the oldest son, Thomas Wells, was born about 1709, and that a daughter, Patience, was born possibly between 1709 and 1716. In addition there is a daughter, mentioned as "deceased" in the Accounts on the Estate of James Wells in 1771.
The Records of James and Ann. The first reference to JAMES WELLS after his name appears in 1716 with that of his wife, ANN, in the St. Paul’s Register, happens to be without association with his wife’s name, therefore, it cannot be claimed definitely that the beneficiary of this WILL was our James Wells, who by that tine is thought to have had four children, Thomas, Patience, one (unnamed to us) daughter, and James (3) in 1716. We refer to the Will of John Barrett of Baltimore County, signed March 24th, 1717, with his mark, and witnessed by Alexander Keith, Moses Edwards, and Katharine Lindall. A portion reads:
I Will unto James Wells that is now my Servant to the value of one thousand pounds of Tobacco as my executrix shall think fit to pay it." (The Md. Hist. Magazine for Dec. 1963, p. 335. ( Ed’s. Note: and/or Md. Hall of Records, Liber 14, folio 544-545. This latter source is typed in the margin and it is unclear which source refers to the Will and which refers to the following information on the early 18th century purchasing power of tobacco).
The Value of Personal Estates in Maryland 1700—1710, ( Ed’s Note: I suspect this is from the Md. Hist Magazine article cited above, Ed.) states that "a pound of tobacco brought three pounds of beef; two pounds could be exchanged for a fat pullet, and a hogshead had buying power enough to supply a whole family with necessities for a year." Four hogsheads of 950 pounds were considered a ton for London shipment. This was, therefore, quite a liberal bequest to a Servant, as James Wells was called. Of course, the word Servant in that day probably had a rather broad meaning, as it was an old custom to sign your name to a letter to a friend, as "Your obedient Servant." So "Servant" could mean anyone rather close to the family, possibly one who helped John Barrett in managing his tobacco farm, possibly even while putting in his own crop elsewhere.
Since this James Wells shows up in 1717, it seems very believable that he was James Wells, the husband of Ann. The only land which we have any record of James Wells (a) having at that tins was the fifty acres of Wells Lot which John Thomas had given him in settlement of his suit in 1695 .. Of course, if James had been away in Virginia for a number of years, it may be that by 1716 he had only recently returned to Maryland and. had not yet purchased any land of his own. (Ed's Note: But remember the idenity of James Wells (2) our proven Little Wells ancestor as thesame JamesWells who was a party to the 1696 suit has not been proven. See Part I of this document. If this James Wells (2) )
So far as we know it was not until May 20, 1725, that he (James Wells (2), Ed.) obtained by the assignment of a Warrant from Benjamin Martin of Baltimore County , one—hundred acres of land called "Rogues Ridge," lying in Baltimore County on the East Side of Gwins Falls. James Wells is spoken of as, "of Baltimore County." (Md. .State Land. Office, Liber P.L. No. 6, Folio 288-289).
The following quoted Court Order leaves little doubt that James and Ann were living on "ROGUES RIDGE" in 1733, after having purchased it in 1725, therefore, their son, Alexander Wells, born in 1727, must have claimed, this Tract as his birthplace.
Abstracts of Old Baltimore Co. Records: Court Page 256: June Court 1733 — Cornelius Howard appointed overseer to clear-the road from Givens (Note spelling) Falls back of James Wells’ up the fork of Guinn’s (Note spelling) Falls to Matthew’s Cabin on Patapaco Falls. ( Source: Md.Hist.Mag. Vol. 18—Yr.1923—Page 14)
After quite a number of years James and Ann increased their land holdings, On November 12, 1741
— in consideration that James Wells of Baltimore County...... hath due unto him fifty acres of Land ..... by virtue of an assignment for that Quantity from Charles Ridgely being part of a Warrant for two hundred and fifty acres granted the said Ridgely......" We do therefore hereby grant unto him the said James Wells all that tract or parcel of land called Water Oak Level — lying and being in Baltimore County on the West Side of the main falls of Patapaco River..(Md.Land Office, Liber E.I.No.6—f.438—439.
James Wells did not retain "Water Oak Level" very long: as, by:
This document serves to establish that James Wells, Senior, ( for he had son James in 1716, now near 30 years of age) who had married Ann -------., was indeed the owner of "Water Oak Level." The deed bears the lines,
and at the same time came Ann the wife of the said James, and being privately examined out of the hearing of her said husband declared she acknowledged the within deed..... .. (Source: Md. Hall of Records — Liber T.B. #D, folio 276—278.)
James Wells had possession of "Rogues Ridge" from 1725 until he sold these one—hundred acres in 1748:by "Indenture made this twenty—ninth day of August in the yeare of our Lord one thousand seven hundred forty &eight between James Wells of Baltimore County in the Province of Maryland, Planter of the one part and Thomas Wells of the said County and Province aforesaid Planter of the other part Witnesseth that the said James Wells for and in consideration of the sum of Seven pounds ten shillings Sterling money..... hath sold unto the said Thomas Wells all that tract
Again in this instance came Ann the wife of the said. James Wells and being privately examined..... acknowledges that she freely and voluntarily did give up her right of dower....! (Source: Md. Hall of Records—Liber T.R. No. C, folio 48—49—50. So, it looks like "Rogues Ridge" after 1748, was in the possession of the eldest son of James & Ann, Thomas Wells, almost forty years of age by that time.
THE DEATH OF JAMES WELLS (2)
Although we have been unable to locate during our very limited research opportunities any other land owned by James Wells (2), we would not think that he did not own other property, Even though by 1748 when he sold. "Rogues Ridge" he had reached the age of 72 (if he was born in 1676 as we thought), it seems that he must still have owned some land until a date not too long before he went to live with his son, Alexader Wells. We arrive at that conclusion by reading the following letter which we will copy in full because of its revealing statements: (Really this is a pleading filed byLevins in connection with the the distribution of the Estate of James Wells (2), Ed.)
" Fred. City, Aug 13, 1771.
I am one of the representatives of James Wells of Balt. County, deceased must pray a Citation for Alexander Wells of Balt. City., afsd Admr to the said James to put before your Honor & likewise must object to your Honors passing any Acct. for the board of the said James Wells; as I can prove by the neighbors that he with the rest of the Intestates childn Induced him the said James Wells to Sell Off His Property by promising him that he should live with them or either of them without paying board & that he the said Alexr Wells Admr since the death of the said James has declared that he never meant to Charge the af(s)d Intestate with Board & that he had no Acct agt. him for the same.
N.B.
As I live in freds pray let me know what time your Citation will be retble (Probably meaning returnable. Ed)
I am yr2 (Signed) Thomas Levins.
Mr. Vallette:
Issue Citation as pray’d above returnable to next Court.
Augt 15th, 1771 Yrs
W.Dulany
(Source: Box 80, Folder 21, Maryland Hall of Rec.)
Who Was this Thomas Levins? Since, in the first line, he claims to be one of the representatives of James Wells, he evidently means that he is one of those who are interested in the distribution of the Estate. Undoubtedly he was the husband of the deceased child" of James Wells, mentioned, in the Distribution of James Wells’ Estate. This would make Thomas Levine the father of the "children of the deceased child". Of course, he was interested — and probably a bit jealous of the other heirs. He knew that if Alexander Wells did not figure any Board into the charges against the Estate covering the several years during which James had lived with Alexander, his (Levins’s) children would get a bit larger share. The Distribution papers also.. show: "Debt due from Thos Levins L 13..6.6" so evidently the writer of the above letter was in debt to his father in-law. In naming the representatives, the Distribution, reads: "8 children of the deceased, and. the Children of ONE DECEASED CHILD - names and number unknown." There must have been a "rift" of some kind between the Levins Family and the balance of the descendants, otherwise, they would surely have known the names and number of their dead sister’s children. We presume that the deceased child was the daughter born before 1716 and remains "name unknown" in Family Tradition. In his letter, Levins, bitterly states that the other children had "induced" their father "to sell off his property"— evidently at time he came to live with Alexander, which must have been about 1763, as he was there about eight years. However, since the two parcels of land mentioned previously as having at one time been owned by James Wells (2), "Rogues Ridge" and "Water Oak Level" had both been sold off by 1748, LEVINS must have been talking about some other land. What tracts he meant we do not know.
(Ed’s Note: As to the idenity of Thomas Livins see the last paragraph of this paper where in the authors in a hand written comment added another possibility which in the opinion of the editor is equally likely as the possibility voiced above, that Thomas Levins was the grown son of the deceased daughter).
As a matter of fact, Alexander was fair about charging the board: "Of Common Money allowed this Accountant for the Boarding his deceased father — 3 years before he grew Blind @ 4 lb. per year - but this Accountant relinquishes two years — he only craves allowance for one yr. D 4.0.0 Four Years and "Eleven months after he was BLIND At L5 per year. L 24.11.8’ (?). (Ed.Note: the sord "Accountant" is per the spelling the Authors used. This is also the spelling of the ancient documents. I take it to mean "accounting").
If James Wells (2) was born in 1676 as we considered correct through our discussion of the earlier James Wells (I), then he was about ninety-five years of age in 1771 at death. This is quite old, and we might think we were wrong about his birth date, however, the fact that he went BLIND tends to substantiate the correctness of his birth in 1676. It is supposed that ANN WELLS had died just before 1763, and that it was right after her death that JAMES had gone to live with Alexander Wells.
The names of the Appraisers on the Inventory, "This 1st Day of July, 1771" were Nicholas Orrick (a name to be associated in land ownership along with Alexander Wells), and Thomas Owings (a relative of the wife of Alexander, Leah Owings Wells). Shown as "nearest akin" were Patience McGuire (a daughter born prior to 1716), Thom Wells (b.ca 1709); and the phrase, "Came Alex Wells Admtt of James Wells late of Baltimore County" completed the Inventory. (Source:Md.Hall of Records—Liber 107, folio 296.)
The DISTRIBUTION mentions "a Bond of Richard Wells L 5. 17. 0" and Note of hand of Jas. Wells 1. 7. 2)" (Ed’s Note; These are two of the children of the decedent. Apparently they owed debts to the estate, ? the amounts are to be read as 5 Pounds, 17 shillings, 0 pense and 1 pound, 7 shillings, 2 pense).
The Balance due the Estate is 48. 2. 31/2 (Ed’s Note: apparently 48 lbs. 2 shillings, 3 ½ pence. See Note Below. This probably means total Estate Value. The original authors first used the typed word "unto" which they scratched out substituting a hand written, "due")
Representatives (apparently beneficiaries Ed.): eight children of the deceased and the children of one deceased child- Names and number unknown.
Distribution as follows:
To each of the eight surviving Children: L 5. 6. 11 = L 42. 15. 4 1/2 . To all the Children of the deceased Child to be equally divided between them 5. 5. 6 . 11----------------------
Total Estate Value (added by Ed.) 48. 2 3 1/2
(The Total estate value by the Editor’s calculations based on 20 shillings equals 1 Pound and 12 pence equals 1 shilling)
Perogative Office to Wit )
November 14 th 1771 ) Came ALEXANDER WELLS the within Accountant & Made Oath that the above account is just and true as Stated.
Before WALTER DULANY
Comy General
(Source: Md. Hall of Records, Liber 66, folio 142, of ACCOUNTS)
The eight surviving children are thought to be: Thomas Wells, Patience McGuire, James Wells (3), Prudence Wells, Richard Wells, Honor Wells, Alexander Wells, and Ann Wells. Note: Honor Wells first married Wm. M. Holmes, founder of family of that name. She later married Col. Richard Brown, Nov 17, 1759 in Ohio. (See Pioneer Period & People of Fairfield Co., Ohio by C.M.L. Wiseman-1901).
The "deceased child" thought to have been the daughter previously mentioned as born before 1716, name unknown, and possibly having been married to the Thomas Levins who wrote the above letter. There is another alternative guess: possibly Thomas Levins (who wrote the above complaint) might have been one of the grown sons of the deceased child of James and Ann Wells. (The last sentence was by the authors added in handwritten note by the authors).
Editor’s Conclusion .
I now feel that the descent of the "Little Wells" line from James wells (2) (16xx – 1771) is well established by firm historical evidence. On the question of this founder’s North American origin we are on less firm ground. There is strong traditions saying that he was an original immigrant coming to North America sometime after 1700 and some saying as late as 1725. Any date after the 1716 recording of the birth of a child in the St Paul’s Parish records seems refuted, but the earlier date is certainly a possibility. There is in fact a currently circulating account on the Little Wells mailinglist of the existence of a recording in an unavailable family bible dating the move as in 1700.
But the argument connecting this James Wells (2) to the 1669 immigrant on the "Nightingale of York" cannot be completely ignored. The historical existence of this James Wells (1) is proven by historical recordings as is his 1682 death. There is also credible though indirect and circumstantial evidence indicating that this immigrant James Wells (1) had a son also named James. This James was a recorded resident of Baltimore County during the 1690's. But this James Wells and his supposed brothers Joseph, and Stephen disappeared from Baltimore County about 1705. The problem is that there are no records or other credible evidence indicating that our proven Little Wells ancestor, James Wells (2) who reappeared as a resident of Baltimore County in 1716 is the same person as the 1690's resident named James Wells. Indeed, the shadowy young James, the son of James (1) might have died or moved from the area about the year 1700 to be lost in obscurity, displaced about the same time by the coming of a new Immigrant named James Wells arriving in Maryland about 1700.
While my parents appear to have accepted the proof of the father/son relationship as adequate, I feel we must at this point be content with what we have ,namely that James Wells (2) is the proven founder of the little Wells line and that he himself may well have been an original immigrant. But alternately we can not completely rule out the possibility that he was a 2 nd generation North American the son to the 1669 immigrant. Until some record or other evidence is found linking our post 1716 James Wells (2) as identical to the 1690's resident with the same name, the link to James (1) must remain only a possibility.
Comments? Send E-Mail to: hhullar5@texas.net
Number of Hits since Nov. 8, 1998: 201