Spouse: Thomas THOMPSON. Anne WELLES and Thomas THOMPSON were married on 14 April 1646 in Hartford,Hartford,Connecticut. Children were: Esther THOMPSON.

Spouse: Thomas THOMPSON. Anne WELLES and Thomas THOMPSON were married on 14 April 1646 in Hartford, Hartford, Connecticut. Children were: Esther THOMPSON, John THOMPSON, Beatrice THOMPSON, Thomas THOMPSON, Mary THOMPSON, Joseph THOMPSON.

Spouse: Anthony HAWKINS. Anne WELLES and Anthony HAWKINS were married in 1656 in Farmington, Hartford, Connecticut, USA. Children were: Sarah HAWKINS, Elizabeth HAWKINS, Hannah HAWKINS.

Spouse: Catherine CHAPIN. Catherine CHAPIN and Daniel WELLES were married on 30 November 1813 in Trenton,Oneida,New York. Children were: Daniel Hanmer WELLES.

Spouse: Lydia Ann ALLEY. Lydia Ann ALLEY and Daniel Hanmer WELLES were married on 4 April 1852 in Salt Lake City,Salt Lake,Utah. Children were: Mary Minerva WELLES.

Spouse: Martha Givens HARRIS. Martha Givens HARRIS and Daniel Hanmer WELLES were married on 20 September 1849 in Salt Lake City,Salt Lake,Utah. Children were: Emily Harris WELLES.

Spouse: Robert WHITE. Daughter WELLES and Robert WHITE were married in 1491 in Marriot, Somersetshire. Children were: Agnes WHITE.

Spouse: Thomas HOO Baron Hoo. Eleanor(Alianor) WELLES and Thomas HOO Baron Hoo were married about 1446. Children were: Jane (Ann) HOO, Eleonor HOO.

Spouse: James LAWRENCE.

Spouse: Hugh HASTINGS.

Spouse: Heber Jeddy GRANT. Emily Harris WELLES and Heber Jeddy GRANT were married on 27 May 1884 in Salt Lake City,Salt Lake,Utah.

Spouse: Maud De GREYSTOKE. Maud De GREYSTOKE and Eudo WELLES were married in 1416 in Of, , Yorkshire, England. Line in Record @F11826@ (MRIN 7637) from GEDCOM file not recognized:
_STAT MARRIED Children were: Lionel (Leo) WELLES Baron Welles, Mary WELLES, sir William WELLES.

Thomas Welles is the only man in Connecticut's history to hold allfour top offices: governor, deputy governor, treasurer, and secretary. Hewas born ca. 1590 in Stourton, Whichford, Warwickshire, England, the sonof Robert and Alice Welles.
Thomas arrived in Boston prior to 9 June 1636, when his deed waswitnessed, but was probably not the Thomas Welles who was a passenger onthe Susan and Ellen in 1635 as reported in some sources (that Thomas wasprobably the Thomas Welles who became a resident of Ipswich,Massachusetts). Thomas is said to have been a secretary to Lord Saye andSele. While no primary evidence for this has been found, the books in hisestate suggest that he had a good education and he did have closeassociations with Saye and Sele, although he had little to do with thedevelopment of the Saybrook Colony. He perhaps lived at Newtown (nowCambridge), MA for a while, and was probably one of the group of about100 to come to Hartford with Thomas Hooker in 1636.
Thomas Welles served a total of nineteen years in various Colony ofConnecticut positions. He was a member of the first Court of Magistrates,elected March 28, 1637, and was reelected as a member of the Court ofMagistrates from 1638 until 1654. During his terms as magistrate in 1648,1651, and 1654 he sat on the panel hearing the witchcraft trials of MaryJohnson, John and Joan Carrington, and Lydia Gilbert. In 1639 he waselected as the first treasurer of the Colony of Connecticut, and from1640-1649 served as the colony's secretary. In this capacity hetranscribed the Fundamental Orders into the official colony records. OnMay 18, 1654 he was elected as Deputy Governor and became the actingmoderator of the General Court, as the elected governor, Edward Hopkins,was in England. He was elected governor in 1655 and 1658 and served againas deputy governor for 1656, 1657, and 1659. He was a commissioner to theNew England Confederation in 1649 and in 1654. For a more extensivesummary of Thomas Welles' service to the Connecticut Colony, see AppendixB of Siemiatoski's genealogy, below.

Thomas Welles married Alice Tomes soon after July 5, 1615 in LongMarston, Gloucestershire, and the couple had eight children. After herdeath, he married again about 1646 in Wethersfield. His second wife wasElizabeth (nee Deming) Foote, sister of John Deming and widow ofNathaniel Foote. Elizabeth had seven children by her previous marriage;there were no children from the second marriage.

Thomas Welles lived in Hartford from 1636 until the time of his secondmarriage. His house was on the same street as Governors Edward Hopkins,George Wyllys, John Webster, and Thomas H. Seymour, a street that wasknown as Governor Street until more recent times, when the name waschanged to Popieluszko Court. He died on January 14, 1660 at Wethersfieldand was probably buried there. Some sources indicate that his remainswere later transferred to the Ancient Burying Ground in Hartford. Ineither case, his grave is presently unmarked. His name appears on theFounders Monument in Hartford's Ancient Burying Ground.

Bibliography
National Cyclopedia of American Biography. New York: J. T. White, 1898- ,s.v. "Thomas Welles" [CSL call number HistRef E 176 .N27].
Norton, Frederick Calvin. The Governors of Connecticut. Hartford:Connecticut Magazine Co., 1905 [CSL call number HistRef F93 .N 88 1905].

Raimo, John W. Biographical Dictionary of American Colonial andRevolutionary Governors 1607-1789. Westport, CT: Meckler Books, 1980 [CSLcall number E 187.5 .R34].

Siematowski, Donna Holt. The Descendants of Governor Thomas Welles ofConnecticut, 1590-1658. 1990. Baltimore: Gateway Press, 1990 [CSL callnumber CS 71 .W55 1990].

Talcott, Mary Kingsley. The Original Proprietors. Reprint. [Hartford?]:Society of the Descendants of the Founders of Hartford, Inc., 1986 [CSLcall number HistRef F 104 .H353 A26 1986].

Welles, Edmund. The Life and Public Services of Thomas Welles, FourthGovernor of Connecticut 1940.

Welles, Lemuel. "The English Ancestry of Gov. Thomas Welles ofConnecticut," New England Historical and Genealogical Register 80 (1926),pp. 279-447 [CSL call number F 1 .N56].

Portrait
No known portrait of Thomas Welles exists.
Prepared by the History and Genealogy Unit, Connecticut State Library,April 1999.

The Descendents of Gov. Thomas Welles of Connecticut of Connecticut1590-1658
By Donna Holt Siemiatkoski
Gateway Press, Inc
Baltimore, Maryland
1990 pp 11-13

1635: Off to America: As has been noted, Thomas and Alice Welles probablybecame strong Puritans in the late 1620s as they abruptly changed thenaming patterns of their children. Welles' neighbors, George Wyllys, theGriswolds, Rev. Ephraim Huit and Daniel Clark were all becomingassociated with each other, with Say and Sele, and with the group aroundHooker in and around Braintree. Brook and Say and Sele were making plansto develop the area now known as Connecticut. The religious motivationand the economic opportunities coalesced in the minds and hearts ofThomas and Alice Welles. Although economic considerations would have beenimportant, scholars agree that the religious motivation was paramount,especially in the early years of the Great Migration. People ofcomfortable means and social standing such as the Welles family usuallydo not leave a secure living and bring their young children across perilsand into perils merely for material gain, but because they are motivatedby a very strong conviction that they are doing right and that theiractivities will be guided and blessed by God. Virtually all the fivethousand families who came to New England in the Great Migration had anindividual experience with God which they felt enabled them to undertakethis great uprooting and transplanting into an entirely new and untriedwilderness to fulfill a divine purpose for themselves and their nation.They endured the insecurities and discomforts out on an individual innerconviction that they were pursuing God's will and would be blessed in andthrough that undertaking. Though no writings survive to tell us of thefeelings of Thomas Welles, such thoughts were expressed many times overin the journals of those who kept them, and were a given part of themindset of the first settlers in southern New England. Welles' closeassociation with Hooker and the high regard in which he was held from theinitial days of the colony underscore the degree to which he was held tobe a man of faith in a community where faith was a cherished virtue.While he may have been considering his personal motivations for removalto New England, Fiennes may have been recognizing that Welles' leadershipand secretarial skills would be useful in administering the new venture.It has been suggested that although Welles may not have been actuallyemployed as Say and Sele's secretary, the nobleman may have used thisnotion as a ploy to disguise to other authorities Welles' more religiousreasons for removal.

When Thomas and Alice prepared to emigrate to New England, they disposedof the Burmington property over to James Fiennes, and William Sprigg.This action took place 20 Aug 1635. Court testimony shows that Thomas,Alice, and their six children took ship to the new world soon after.

At least one other Thomas Welles came to Boston in 1635. This second manwe now know as Thomas Welles of Ipswich. He is probably the Thomas whocame on the "Susan and Ellen." If Thomas of Ipswich went immediately toIpswich upon his arrival, then the Thomas Welles listed as a householderin Cambridge on 8 Feb 1635/6 is the one who later moved with otherresidents of Cambridge to Hartford, CT. By 9 Jun 1636, Thomas and Alicewere in the Boston area. On that day, they testified in front of JohnWinthrop and Thomas Dudley pertaining to the deed of the Burmingtonproperly.

No evidence exists that Welles was ever at Saybrook Colony. To have beenpart of the community at Saybrook Colony, given his presence in Hartfordin the winter of 1637 and his presence in Cambridge in Feb 1636, he wouldhave to have been there in the winter months of 1636. At that timeSaybrook was only a fort manned by soldiers. The first family there wasthat of Gov. George Fenwick and his wife a few years later. The mostlogical conclusion is that Welles joined Hooker, whom he knew eitherpersonally or by reputation in England, at Cambridge in 1635, stayedabout a year, entering the list of householders, and that he and hisfamily were part of the company of one hundred who trekked to Connecticutin June 1636, journeying over existing Indian trails from the Bay to theRiver for a period of about ten days to two weeks. The trail had beendeveloped by the Indians to provide passage between the Bay and the Fallsabout a hundred miles west where the shad spawned their young everyspring, and fish could easily be caught and dried. The trail followed themost level terrain and crossed the least number of streams. Parts of theOld Connecticut Path still exists, unpaved, in Ashford and along LakeShenipsit in Ellington.

Governing Philosophy: Welles' administrative and clerical skills musthave been well-known to the community as he was chosen as a magistrateand as clerk of the General Court at its first meeting in Mar 1637. Thatcourt was the first that met independent of the authority ofMassachusetts. In the opening session of their independent General Court,the three river towns were given their current names of Windsor,Hartford, and Wethersfield. That court declared war on the Pequots toavenge the savage murders of several early settlers. In the followingyear, Rev. Thomas Hooker preached his famous sermon in which he declaredthat "the foundation of authority is laid in the free consent of thepeople." He closed his sermon with the challenge, "As God has given usliberty, let us take it" (Register and Manual, State of Connecticut,Hartford, 1984, p. 55). In his years as a pastor in England and in theMassachusetts Bay Colony, he had developed a political philosopy sharedby Roger Ludlow and Rev. John Warham, which led to the removal of thoseparties from the Massachusetts Bay to the Connecticut River. Whileagreeing on theology, Warham and Hooker differed with Gay. John Winthropand Rev. John Cotton on the nature of government. Winthrop and Cottonbelieved that God spoke only through the religious officials. Warham andHooker believed that God spoke to all believers and that the entire bodycould therefore make political decisions. Hooker based his theology onthe Old Testament incident in which God told Moses to take ten leaderselected by each of the twelve tribes of Israel to help him to renderjudgments. The General Court, including Welles, spent the ensuing yearworking this theory into a political document under the guidance ofattorney Roger Ludlow, an organizer of the Warham party under Rev. JohnWhite of Dorchester in Dorset. The result was the Fundamental Orders ofConnecticut. This document was the world's first written Constitution,for the first time placing basing of the authority of the government onthe people. It claimed that the basis of government authority lies in thepeople themselves, not a king or any other source, and that the peoplehave the right to chose their own leaders. The little colony along theriver, consisting of perhaps five hundred individuals, had declareditself an independent political entity concerning internal affairs, whileowing general allegiance to the British crown.

Government Service in Connecticut: Thomas Welles served for many years onthe General Court which was the ruling body of the Connecticut Colony.During the first three years of his attendance, 1637-1639, the Court hadtwo representatives from each of the three towns that then comprised thecolony. These men met without titles or moderators. A new structure wasset for the General Court by the Fundamental Orders of 1639. The GeneralCourt consisted of a council of Magistrates and one of Deputies. ThisCourt met twice a year for Spring and Fall sessions.

The Deputies and Magistrates were chosen by the towns whereas theGovernor and Deputy Governor were elected by the General Court itself.The Deputies were chosen twice a year in town meetings in the ConnecticutColony. Each town would pick three or four men to represent it in theGeneral Court. Each town also chose one or two Magistrates. What made theelection of Magistrates different from that of Deputies was thatMagistrates could only be chosen from a list that the General Court hadprepared for the town at the previous session. Thus, each man elected aMagistrate had previous experience in the General Court. Appendix Bprovides a list of the sessions Thomas attended and the positions withinthe Court to which he was elected.

In the 1639 session Welles was elected Treasurer of the Colony. Two yearslater, after his election as Secretary in 1641, he transcribed theFundamental Orders into the official record book in his own hand. Toguard against authority becoming concentrated in one individual, theGeneral Court limited the terms of governors to one year at at time,though a man could serve as governor more than once. For nearly all ofthe remaining twenty years of his life Welles attended the sessions ofthe General Court, which both made laws and, sitting as the ParticularCourt, tried cases under the law. He rotated among the major offices oftreasurer, secretary, deputy governor, and governor. He was electedgovernor in his own right in 1655 and 1658. As noted, he served on thecommittee to negotiate the merger with Saybrook Colony. He also served asCommissioner from Connecticut to the meeting of the United Colonies ofConnecticut, New Haven, Plymouth, and Massachusetts Bay in 1649, 1654,and 1659. As magistrate, he sat on the judge's panel for Connecticut'searliest witchcraft trials in 1648, 1651 and 1654. He heard the casesconcerning Mary Johnson, John and Joan Carrington, and Lydia Gilbert. Heis not noted to have had any special role in these proceedings. Thetrials are well-documented in The Public Records of the ConnecticutColony, Records of the Particular Court of Connecticut 1639-1663, andRichard G. Tomlinson's Witchcraft Trials of Connecticut. Thomas alsoserved on the War Commission for Wethersfield in1653.

He became involved in the establishment of the settlement at Stratford,named for the town near his home village in England. His son John wassent to oversee his interests there. According to tradition, the lastchild of Thomas and Alice, a son named Joseph, was born shortly aftertheir arrival in Connecticut. Primary documentary evidence for this sonhas not yet surfaced. He apparently did not survive as he is notmentioned in his father's will. However, he lived long enough to have hismemory perpetuated in the name of some of his sibling's descendants. Afew years later Alice died, not having reached the age of fifty. in 1646Thomas married Elizabeth Foote, widow of Nathaniel Foote who died inWethersfield in 1643, and sister of Joseph Deming of Wethersfield. Shewas unwilling to leave the homestead of many acres she was managing afterher husband's death. As a result, one of the highest officers in thecolony left his home in the center of Hartford and moved to Wethersfieldwith his younger children, Samuel and Sarah who were raised her youngerchildren Frances, Sarah, and Rebecca.

Thomas wrote his will on 7 Nov 1659. He seemed to be in good health onthe evening of 14 Jan 1659/60, being well after supper, but dead bymidnight. His will left his wife the use of half his housing and orchard,with her own land to his return to her. His own land and house went tohis grandson Robert, the only child of his oldest son to live inWethersfield. He left land to sons Samuel and Thomas, and to Thomas sonof the deceased son John, 20 pounds to Thomas, Samuel, Mary's children,Anne, Sarah, and 10 pounds to Mary Robbins' children. Elizabeth livedanother 22 years, leaving her estate to her children and grandchildren byNathaniel Foote.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second Marriage
Gov Thomas Welles - In 1646 Thomas married Elizabeth Foote, widow ofNathaniel Foote who died in Wethersfield in 1643, and sister of JosephDeming of Wethersfield. She was unwilling to leave the homestead of manyacres she was managing after her husband's death.

As a result, one of the highest officers in the colony left his home inthe center of Hartford and moved to Wethersfield with his youngerchildren, Samuel and Sarah who were raised with her younger childrenFrances, Sarah, and Rebecca.

Thomas wrote his will on 7 Nov 1659. He seemed to be in good health onthe evening of 14 Jan 1659/60, being well after supper, but dead bymidnight. His will left his wife the use of half his housing and orchard,with her own land to be returned to her. His own land and house went tohis grandson Robert, the only child of his oldest son to live inWethersfield.

He left land to sons Samuel and Thomas, and to Thomas son of the deceasedson John, 20 pounds to Thomas, Samuel, Mary's children, Anne, Sarah, and10 pounds to Mary Robbins' children. Elizabeth lived another 22 years,leaving her estate to her children and grandchildren by Nathaniel Foote.

Descendants of Gov. Thomas Welles and Alice Tomes
3. son of Robert Welles
4. of a Warwickshire family for at least four generations
5. a family which owned property but was not listed as gentlemen.
Thomas Welles came to America
6. with his wife and six children in the late summer 1636 and settledfirst in the Boston area, probably Cambridge
7. and probably came to Hartford with Thomas Hooker's party in June1636
8. with his wife and six children.
Thomas Welles' first wife was
9. named Alice Tomes
10. married him about 1615
11. was descended from a Gloucestershire family
12. died of unknown causes between 1637 and 1646.

The "facts" in that genealogy by no means exhaust the misinformationaround the Welles and Tomes families. Errors are made in six areas aboutThomas Welles and Alice Tomes and in the identity of the spouses of theirchildren Ann and John. A discussion of each error and the most currentinformation on the state of knowledge of each topic is given here.

1. Thomas Welles has no known connection to an Essex family of Normandescent or to the family of Sir Lionel de Welles, Baron Welles, Governorof Ireland. He has no known connection to any of the Magna Chartasureties. Thomas Welles' ancestry in Warwickshire for four generations isdocumented by the court proceedings concerning the Burmington land whichhe inherited, and from the presence of a Robert Wellys, possibly hisgrandfather's father, on the tax rolls of Whichford in 1527. Though thefamily owned property and was able to educate Thomas in Latin, they arenot known to be of noble or even gentle birth. In Through the Lich Gate,a history of the neighboring parish of Long Compton by Rev. EdwardRainsberry, the presence of people named Wells/Welles in the villages ofthat area as far back at the twelfth century is documented. Nor is thereany basis in fact for Robert Wellys of Whichford, who was taxed in 1523,being descended in six generations from Simon de Welles, a Crusader in1191, and Eustace de Vesce, a Magna Charta surety, as has been circulatedon papers in the family. Further study of the ancestry of Thomas Wellesmust begin where Lemuel Welles left off in 1926 in "The English Ancestryof Gov. Thomas Welles of Connecticut, " New England Historical andGenealogical Register, vol. 80 (1926), pp. 279-447.

2. Thomas Welles was not born in 1598 which would make him seventeen atthe time of his marriage. The marriage of Thomas Welles and Alice Tomeshas been established by the court proceedings to have taken place shortlyafter he received his land in 5 Jul 1615. Moreover, his wife is shown tohave been born before 1593, making his birth in 1598 unlikely. Thereforehe could not have been born in 1598, but was more likely born around1590, the date the family is using for this event pending furtherinvestigation.

3. The name of the wife of Thomas Welles is given in the courtproceedings as Alice Tomes of Long Marston, then across the county linein Gloucestershire. The origin of the notion that she was named ElizabethHunt may come from a misreading of the court records. Welles's sister'sfather-in-law, Nicholas Hunt, gave testimony.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps some have interpreted this to mean that he was the brother ofWelles' wife, whereas, he is the husband of Thomas Welles's sister, whosename is now lost. A death date of 1640 is given for Thomas' first wife,but no documentation for this has yet been seen. The vital records ofearly Hartford are now lost. Tradition states that Thomas and Alice had ason Joseph in 1637. If Alice did die around 1640, the death may have beenrelated to a late pregnancy, although this idea is purely speculation.Alice's birth date is now known with greater certainty, as a result ofthe production of the Pedigree of Tomes in 1987. The Tomes family papersnote that Ellen Gunne died circa 1593. This date, though undocumented,places the birth of Alice, her youngest child, about five years earlierthan previously assumed, and definitely moves the birthdate of Thomasback from 1598 closer to 1590.

4. Alice Tomes does not have a royal line according to the most recentscholarship on the question. A royal line has been proposed and publishedin earlier editions of Ancestral Roots of Sixty Colonists. However,further investigation by Daniel Lines Jacobus published in The AmericanGenealogist, vol. 28, pp. 164-167, shows that this line fails in twoplaces. Walter Lee Sheppard re-studied the problem and dropped thisconnection from the sixth edition of Ancestral Roots of Sixty Colonists(1988) where Line 98, Alice Tomes, is published, but with breaks at bothpoints. Margaret Mytton may not be the daughter of John Mytton of Westonwho has not been found to have had a daughter by that name (see HaleHouse, p. 780). Moreover, examination of early records by JacquelineBeers in The American Genealogist, vol. 56, p. 228, reveals the strongpossibility that Ellen Gunne is not the daughter of Anne Fulwood, but ofan earlier, and unknown, wife of Richard Gunne. Although the editor'snote to the Beers article is careful not to remove Anne Fulwoodabsolutely, and Sheppard stops short of this also, the link between AnneFulwood and Ellen Gunne remains to be strengthened. The newly discoveredTomes pedigree is inconclusive on this issue. Any attempt to establish aroyal line for Alice Tomes must address the issues raised by Jacobus,Beers, and Sheppard.

5. Thomas Welles did not come to America as the personal representativeof Lord Say and Sele and help establish Saybrook Colony in 1635, thencome upriver to Hartford by 1637. Some have claimed that Welles was asecretary to Lord Say and Sele. However, primary evidence for this facthas not been found, although circumstantial evidence would allow for asuch a conclusion. Welles did have a good education, as evidenced bybooks in English and Latin in his estate. He did have dealings with theFiennes family... James Fiennes and a partner bought his land inBurmington. Welles would have been acquainted with the family as theywere the most prominent lords in the area, seated nearby at BroughtonCastle. As a neighboring fellow-Puritan, Welles must have been aware ofthe Warwick Patent and the plans to develop Saybrook Colony andSaltonstall Park in Windsor as places of refuge for Puritan lords in caseflight from England was necessary. Some have suggested that Say and Seledeveloped the story of Welles being his secretary in order to maskWelles' removal for religious reasons as a business venture. In any case,Welles did have close associations with Say and Sele and did have thetalents of a secretary. However, he had little, if anything, to do withSaybrook Colony. A review of the known facts and literature with ElaineStaplins and Joyce Heckman of the Saybrook Colony Association affirms thebelief that no primary evide nce links this Thomas Welles with Saybrookat any time. He was most unlikely to have been at a fort in 1635-1636with a family of six children. The one family who resided there, that ofGovernor George Fenwick, is noted for being the only such family. Thescenario that Welles and his family came to Boston, sailed to SaybrookColony and lived there for awhile, then sailed upriver to Hartford mustbe rejected. No primary evidence for his ever having been at SaybrookColony exists, and his whereabouts can be accounted for between Boston,Cambridge, and Hartford for the time period involved.

Descendants of Gov. Thomas Welles and Alice Tomes

His arrival in Boston in before 9 Jun 1636 when his deed was witnessed byWinthrop and Dudley, his listing as a head of household in the Feb 1635/6Newtown (now Cambridge), MA, town records and his appointment to theGeneral Court in March 1637 indicate that he was part of the group ofabout 100 people who came to Hartford from Cambridge with Rev. ThomasHooker in June 1636. This sequence allows only the winter of 1636/7 forresidence in Saybrook Fort, not a likely prospect for a young family.Welles association with his former neighbor, Lord Say and Sele, andresulting associations with the Warwick Patentees who operated SaybrookColony place him in the critical juncture between that group and thegoverning group of the Connecticut Colony headed by Hooker and Haynes.When Saybrook Colony merged with Connecticut Colony in 1644, Welles wasappointed as one of the negotiators, presumably because he was known toand respected by both colonies.

6. Thomas Welles and his family did not come to America on the "Susan andEllen" in 1635, as stated in Virkus' Compendium of American Genealogy andelsewhere. 'The passenger listings of the "Susan and Ellen" include thepassengers ages at embarkation. The Thomas Welles listed on the "Susanand Ellen" is too young and lacks Gov. Thomas Welles' large family whichwe know sailed together because the court witnesses so testified. ThisThomas Welles is probably Thomas of Ipswich, born circa 1598, who isapparently travelling on the "Susan and Ellen" as a servant in thehousehold of Sir Richard Saltonstall. The young age and dependent statusrule out Thomas of Ipswich as the Thomas Welles who was a head ofhousehold in Cambridge in Feb 1636, leaving that identification to thefuture governor of Connecticut, who was later associated with otherresidents of Cambridge, the most prominent of whom was the Rev. ThomasHooker.

7. The husband of Anne Welles, Thomas Thompson is not the ThomasThompson, son of John Thompson and Alice Freeman, of royal lineage, bornon 23 Dec 1616 in the Little Preston Parish, Preston Capes,Northamptonshire. His place in the Thompson family of Shropshire isproven by the will of his brother, Samuel Thompson citizen and stationerof London, written 25 Aug 1668, proven 9 Nov 1668. In it he mentions hisnephew Thomas Thompson, now apprenticed to him whose mother went to NewEngland, and his niece, Beatrice, who was named for her grandmotherBeatrice Detton who married and returned to England. (New EnglandHistoric and Genealogical Register 49:395/6--Jul 1895). Full referencesfor his ancestry are found in Flagg's Genealogical Notes on the Foundingof New England, which is completely accepted by Jacobus in Hale House.The Thomas Thompson of Northampton (son of John Thompson and AliceFreeman) had an entirely different family in New England. The Thompsonand Detton families in Burford, Doddington and Neen Savage and can befollowed for generations in the parish registers and the Visitations ofShropshire, details of which will be given in Volume II.
8. The wife of John Welles was Elizabeth Bourne, not Elizabeth Curtis;her origins are presently unknown. The designation of Curtis in earlierworks comes from a misreading of the term sister-in-law in estate papers.Stiles corrected Goodwin's error in 1904. She is not the daughter ofElisha Bourne and Patience Skiff and therefore the granddaughter of Rev.Richard Bourne of Cape Cod. This Elizabeth Bourne was born circa 1675,not a possibility for the wife of a man who died in 1659. She is said tobe related to the Tomlinson family. Further research on the Tomlinsonfamily background in England may yield more clues on her origin. The nameBourne is prevalent in the Warwickshire area.

Welles and Alice Tomes should be noted by all serious students of thefamily and laid to rest. The correct information has been discovered andmade widely available in all cases for decades and is accepted in everycase by serious scholars. The definitive articles on the family,summarized by Jacobus in Hale House, are the Welles/Banks study on theWarwickshire origins published in the New England Historical andGenealogical Register in 1926, and the articles on the alleged Tomesroyal an

Parents: . Parents: .

Spouse: Elizabeth DEMING.

Spouse: Alice TOMES. Alice TOMES and Governor Thomas Gideon WELLES were married on 7 July 1615 in Long Marston, Gloucestershire, England. From Families of Old Fairfield, he m. Alice Tomes, they had six children(b. in England): John, Thomas, Samuel, Mary, Ann, Sarah. (Son) Thomasmarried Hannah Tuttle (widow of John Pantry); their daughter, Rebecca,married James Judson; their son, Samuel, married Ruth Judson, bothchildren of Joseph and Sarah (Porter) Judson.

In this genealogy, other errors have been discovered and corrected asnoted in the text. However, these errors cited above on the ancestry,life, and children of Thomas

Welles and Alice Tomes should be noted by all serious students of thefamily and laid to rest. The correct information has been discovered andmade widely available in all cases for decades and is accepted in everycase by serious scholars. The definitive articles on the family,summarized by Jacobus in Hale House, are the Welles/Banks study on theWarwickshire origins published in the New England Historical andGenealogical Register in 1926, and the articles on the alleged Tomesroyal ancestry in New England Historic and Genealogical Register in 1930,and in Weis and Sheppards' Ancestral Roots of Sixty Colonists (sixthEdition). Jacobus also discussed the related families of Thompson,Tuttle, Hollister, Treat, and Chester in Hale House and gives thecitations for all those lines in England. The line of the Baldwins doesnot have a contemporary study done, although the Baldwin genealogy byC.C. Baldwin contains generations of material from Buckinghamshire takenfrom parish records. The ancestry of Anthony Hawkins is currentlyunknown. More full discussions of the origins of these families will beundertaken in Volume Il.

Thomas Welles

WELLES, Thomas, governor of Connecticut, born in England in 1598; died inWethersfield, Connecticut, 14 January, 1660. He came to this countrybefore 1636 and settled in Hartford, Connecticut, where he was magistratefrom 1637 till his death. In 1639 he became first treasurer of thecolony, and he held that office till 1651. He was secretary ofConnecticut in 1640-'8, and was commissioner of the united colonies in1649 and again in 1654. During the absence of Governor Edward Hopkins inEngland in 1654 he was elected moderator of the general court, and in thesame year he was chosen deputy governor. In 1655 he was elected governor,but after two years he returned to the office of deputy governor. He waschosen governor for a second time in 1658, and in 1659 again held theoffice of deputy governor. Governor Welles possessed the full confidenceof the people, and many of the most important of the early laws andpapers pertaining to the founding of the colony were drafted by him. Thesuccessful issue of Connecticut from her difficulty concerning the forterected at Saybrook on one side and the Dutch encroachments on the otherwas largely due to his skill and wisdom.--His descendant, Gideon,secretary of the navy, born in Glastonbury, Connecticut, 1 July, 1802;died in Hartford, Connecticut, 11 February, 1878, entered Norwichuniversity, Vermont, but, without being graduated, began to study law. In1826 he became editor and part owner of the Hartford "Times," with whichhe remained connected till 1854, though he retired from the responsibleeditorship in 1836. He made his paper the chief organ of the Democraticparty in the state. It was the first to advocate the election of AndrewJackson to the presidency, and earnestly upheld his administration. Mr.Welles was a member of the legislature in 1827-'35, and both in that bodyand in his journal attacked with severity the proposed measure to excludefrom the courts witnesses that did not believe in a future state ofrewards and punishments. He also labored for years to secure theabolition of imprisonment for debt, opposed special and privatelegislation, and secured the passage of general laws for the organizationof financial corporations. He began an agitation for low postage beforethe subject had begun to attract general attention, he was chosencomptroller of the state by the legislature in 1835, and elected to thatoffice by popular vote in 1842 and 1843, serving as postmaster ofHartford in the intervening years. From 1846 till 1849 he was chief ofthe bureau of provisions and clothing in the navy department atWashington. Mr. Welles had always opposed the extension of slavery. Heidentified himself with the newly formed Republican party in 1855, and in1856 was its candidate for governor of Connecticut. In 1860 he laboredearnestly for the election of Abraham Lincoln, and on the latter'selection Mr. Welles was given the portfolio of the navy in his cabinet.Here his executive ability compensated for his previous lack of specialknowledge, and though many of his acts were bitterly criticised, hisadministration was popular with the navy and with the country at large.His facility as a writer made his state papers more interesting than suchdocuments usually are. In his first report, dated 4 July, 1861, heannounced the increase of the effective naval force from forty-two toeighty-two vessels. This and the subsequent increase in a few months tomore than 500 vessels was largely due to his energy. In the report thathas just been mentioned he also recommended investigations to secure thebest iron-clads, and this class of vessels was introduced under hisadministration. In the cabinet Mr. Welles opposed all arbitrary measures,and objected to the declaration of a blockade of southern ports, holdingthat this was a virtual acknowledgment of belligerent rights, and thatthe preferable course would be to close our ports to foreign commerce byproclamation. By request of the president, he presented his ideas inwriting; but the cabinet finally yielded to the views of Sec. Seward.Earn in the war, on 25 September, 1861, he ordered that the negrorefugees that found their way to United States vessels should be enlistedin the navy. He held his post till the close of President Johnson'sadministration in 1869. In 1872 he acted with the Liberal Republicans,and in 1876 he advocated the election of Samuel J. Tilden, afterwardtaking strong grounds against the electoral commission and its decision.After his retirement from office he contributed freely to currentliterature on the political and other events of the civil war, andprovoked hostile criticism by what many thought his harsh strictures onofficial conduct. In 1872 he published an elaborate paper to show thatthe capture of New Orleans in 1862 was due entirely to the navy, and in1873 a volume entitled " Lincoln and Seward." Children were: John WELLES, Thomas Gideon WELLS.