390 I. parents of Shubael? Did he have any 61. Fox.- Daniel of East Haddam, m. 1737, A. C. G. 63. Pinkney.-Jane, dau. of Philip of 65. (a) Holmes.-Tryon A, d. Nov. 15, 2. Cornelius Secord. had 1. Electa E., m. Augustus Rich. Tryon had a sister Maria A., who m. Cornelius Secord of New Rochelle. Who were parents of Tryon? It is said his father was a sea captain from Bedford, N. Y., whose wife is said to have been a Miss Jones, who ran away from her home in England. m. H. A. H. (b) Holmes, Nathaniel from Rhode Island to Colchester, Conn., m.Stranahan and had Curtis who m.and had Curtis. Who were parents of C. H. Nathaniel? (c) Holmes, Daniel of Rocky Hill, Conn.-his father said to be Scotch-and had 1. Allen, b. May 27, 1789, d. June 7, 1841, m. abt. 1802, Martha, b. Sept. 30, 1786 dau. of Giles Wright of Rocky Hill. 2. Lemuel, m. -and had 1. Eliezer. 2. Cynthia. Who were parents of Daniel? E. H. 66. Bordman.-Gamaliel, son of Lieut. Richard and Sarah (Camp) Bordman, was born in Newington Parish, Oct. 2, 1711, m. Sarah Sherman, who was born about 1716. He died in Newington, Sept. 17, 1754. His widow, Sarah, married Aug. 31, 1759, Sam'l Wolcott, and died March 6, 1794, aged 78. Information wanted as to ancestry of Sarah Sherman, and date of her first marriage. J. B. 67. (a) Clark.-Ebenezer, b. Nov. 29, 1651 (son of James of New Haven),m. 2nd Elizabeth, widow of Isaac Royce who d. 1682. Who was she? (b) Horton.-Abigail, m. as 2nd wife (d) Loomis.-Daniel, b. Nov. 2, 1710 (h) Bailey.-John, who settled in (1) Bowers.-Jerathmeel (son of George) b. Cambridge, Mass., May 2, 1650, d. Groton, Mass., April 23, 1724, m. perhaps 1670 Elizabeth, b. abt. 1645, d. Mch. 4, 1721. Who was she? (k) Buttolph.-Davidson of Lt. John of Boston and Wethersfield) b. May 7, 1669, d. Simsbury, Apr. 5, 1717 m. perhaps 1693, Mary, and lived in Simsbury. Who was she? (1) Clark.-Joseph, b. 1695-6, d. Middletown, June 8, 1765, m. there May 28. 1724, Miriam Cornwell, b. there Sept. 27, 1702, d. there May 27, 1772. Who was he? (m) Fitch.-Mary, d. 1693, m. Thos. Sherwood, b. Eng. say 1586, d. Fairfield, Oct. 1655. Who was she? (n) Harrison.-Amey, d. Middletown, May 26, 1759 m. there as 2nd wife, Oct. 13, 1742, Nath'l Bacon, b. there Feb. 16, 1706, d. 1792. Who was she? (0) Hilton.-Mary, b. perhaps 1673, m. in Middletown, Mch. 23, 1698-9 John Cornwell b. there Aug. 13, 1671. Who was she? (p) Hopkins.-Mary, m. 1644, Capt. Wm. Lewis, b. England, d. 1690. Who was she? (9) Kelsey.-Lt. John, (son of Wm. of Hartford), m. say 1667, Phebe, b. Dec. 20, 1646, dau. of Nicholas Desborough. Killingworth records have wife, Hannah died. How was this? (r) Phillips-Mary, d. Oct. 21, 1736, in Middletown, m. Feb. 10, 1702-3. John Hubbard b. there July 30, 1678, d. there Jan. 2, 1726-7. Who was she? (s) Steele.-James, b. England abt. 1623, d. 1712. Steele book says she m. Oct. 18, 1651, Anne, died 1676, dau. John Bishop of Guilford. Guilford history says she m. John Jordan abt. 1640. Who was Steele's wife? (t) Watson.-John (son of John), b. 1646, d. W. Hartford, 1730, m. Anna and Sarah. Who were they? (u) Porter.- Mary, d. Middletown, June 10, 1707, m. Middletown, Dec.29, 1670. Joseph Hubbard, b. Hartford, Dec. 10, 1643; d. Middletown, Dec. 26, 1686. Who was she? W. P. BACON, New Britain, Conn. The DAUGHTERS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION have been much in evidence of late. The sixth annual conference of the Connecticut Society was held with the Each of Stamford Chapter on May 22. the forty-one chapters was represented, about 400 members being present, including two "real daughters," Miss Nancy Warren of the Stamford Chapter and Miss Lucy M. Osborn of the Danbury Chapter. Mrs. Sara T. Kinney of New Haven, the State Regent, presided, and the President-General Mrs. Daniel Manning and regents from several other states were present. The sessions were mostly taken up with the reading of historical papers. The Katherine Gaylord Chapter of Bristol has recently forwarded to our soldiers at Manila a large box of reading matter, which is sure to be appreciated in that far away land. On June 8 the Ruth Wyllys Chapter of Hartford held a largely attended reception at the Athenæum, for the purpose of meeting those who had aided the Chapter in its effort to improve the old Center Church burying ground. The seventeenth of the same month witnessed the consummation of the work in the formal delivery of the deeds, which, with the widening of Gold Street, brings the old cemetery once more to the light of day. With the erection of the contemplated iron fence and completion of the restoration of the crumbling monuments, the Chapter will have accomplished the most important work ever undertaken by any chapter of the D. A. R. The annual meeting of the Connecticut Society SONS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION was held at Hartford on May 10th. The former officers were re-elected, including Jonathan Trumbull of Norwich, president; Charles G. Stone of Hartford, secretary; and Hobart L. Hotchkiss of New Haven, registrar. The present membership is 972. Essays to the number of 200 were handed in as the result of the offering of prizes to the school children of the state. At the annual meeting of the Connecticut SOCIETY OF COLONIAL WARS at New Haven on May 3rd, the old board of officers was re-elected, including James J. Goodwin of Hartford, governor ; George D. Seymour of New Haven, secretary; and Frank B. Gay of Hartford, registrar. THE HE GENERAL ASSEMBLY of Connecticut closed the session of 1899 last month after a considerable amount of hard and not unimportant work. Its Its committees deserve high praise for a large amount of conscientious and valuable labor; a great deal of which was neither seen nor heard of by the public at large. Individually and collectively the members seemed actuated by the best of intentions, and with few exceptions, undoubtedly strove honestly to do their duty. It was on the whole as clean and disinterested a body as it is possible to get in these days. Improvements may come when the people are educated up to a fit appreciation of what government is really intended for, and when the Decalogue, or something like it, has a binding force among men once more. We have little sympathy with the kind of criticism that condemns wholesale the work of our state legislatures, assumes that their members are all dishonest and generally guilty of seizing every opportunity to plunder the public treasury. This kind of indiscriminate accusation and baseless imputation is as common as it is unjustifiable, and it is unfortunate that reputable journals help to give it circulation by printing as news what they know very well is only irresponsible rumor. There is, however, a legitimate criticism which is not only always in place but necessary. In his inaugural address the Governor said of the special commission appointed in 1897 to reduce state expenses, "If this committee has gone to the root of evils, it will report in favor of vigorous legislation which will result in large retrenchment. . . . If you shall give to this report your careful consideration you will save to the state for the next two years hundreds of thousands of dollars, and so be able to vote increased appropriations for objects that are worthy and urgent." The recommendations of the commission were independent and courageous, and, as the Governor anticipated, in the main reasonable. But they might as well never have been made so far as the Assembly was concerned for it took but scant notice of them. The financial extravagance was as unexpected as it was needless and unreasonable. Salaries were raised where there was not the slightest real need and appropriations were refused where the necessity for them was crying. The application of the Boston and New York Telephone Company for a charter was refused, perhaps rightly, but in this connection it is proper to say that the relations existing between the members of the General Assembly and the company 394 now enjoying a monopoly of the business in Connecticut give rise to unpleasant reflections. This company issued to every legislator a free pass book, franked his messages, and granted him practically an unlimited use of its wires gratis-a privilege few were slow to take advantage of. We think it is only reasonable to say that this does not commend itself to citizens who desire their representatives to be freehanded and uncompromised in all their actions. The bill that gave to a private company the sovereign right of eminent domain was engineered through the two houses by Gov. anything but creditable means. Lounsbury is entitled to the hearty thanks of the people whose rights he guarded and protected by promptly vetoing the charter granting such enormous privileges. The senate at last put itself on record as opposed to the payment of gratuities to newspapers or their reporters. This is a step in advance for which the whole state will be sincerely thankful, as the matter had become a standing disgrace to the fair name of Connecticut. But the dis graceful scenes enacted in the closing BOOK NOTES AND REVIEWS. History of the Kimball, Kemball, Kymbould Family in England and America is a work in 2 vols. 1,278 pp., by Leonard A. Morrison, Windham, N. H., and Prof. Stephen P. Sharples, Cambridge, Mass; This is the price $6.00 per copy. first general history of the Kimball family. The work treats of the descendants of Henry Kimball of Mistley, Eng. and Watertown, Mass.; Richard Kimball of Rattlesden, Eng., Watertown and Ipswich, Mass.; Amos Kimball of Vergennes, Vt. ; Phineas Kimball of West Fairlee, Vt.; Kimballs of York Co., Me., Nathan K. of John Mallett, the Huguenot, of Fairfield, Conn., and his descendants, is an |