(1851 - 1914)


Please use the back button to return to index
















Page  5


Page  7

The Persecution of the Quakers

Page   11

The Heacock Family

Page   13

The Heacocks in England

Page  19

The Conversion to Quakerism

Page  27

The First Emigrant

Page  29

Chester County, Pennsylvania

Page  31

Jonathan  Heacock The Emigrant

Page  37

The Till Family

Page  39

The Second Generation

Page  41

Richland Township

Page 43

The John Morgan Family

Page  45

The Friends Meetings

Page  47

The Sharples Family

Page  49

2nd generation, The Sharples Family

Page  55

The Pyle Family

Page  59

The Third Generation of Heacocks in America

Page  61

The John Family

Page  67

The Pennock Family

Page 71

The Mendenhall & Pennock Families

Page 75

The Gruwell Family

Page 81

The Bloody Town of Boston

Page 87

The Endicott Family

Page 97

The Gaskill Family

Page 105

The Descent of Charles Clement Heacock from the Emperor Charlemagne

Page 121

The Shinn Family

Page 127

The Mott Family

Page 129

Stark County, Ohio

Page 131

The Migration to Iowa

Page 141

The Life of Joel Heacock

Page 147

Joel Heacock’s Book

Page 149

Recollections of Joel and Huldah Heacock

Page 151

Descendants of Joel and Huldah Heacock

Page 153

The Life of Charles Clement Heacock

Page 155







The material in this book has been gathered from many sources. Much of it has been copied from books in the genealogical collections of various libraries, particularly the Library of Congress and the Library of the Daughters of the American Revolution, in Washington, D.C. Some of the material, on the other hand, has not been published before. The Gaskill section is largely original, and much of the information concerning the other New Jersey families has been taken direct from eighteenth century records. The Pennsylvania families had previously been the subject of more intensive research, but there too some points have been cleared up by reference to old records.

Insofar as the lines of descent in America are concerned, there is little possibility of significant error. The records are in most cases complete and indubitable. Only two important items are missing: the birth of the Daniel Gaskill who married in 1735 and the birth of Hannah Owen. Their parentage has been assumed on the basis of circumstances, and is undoubtedly essentially correct. Several other similar assumptions made in the course of the research were proved accurate before the book was ready for publication.


Insert picture here

On the other hand, few of the family trees running back into England can be relied upon. The Heacock family and several others are proven correct for one or two generations prior to emigration. The Owen family of royal descent may be followed several centuries further, the records of nobility being more extensive and more complete.

Because of its effect on the lives and thoughts of most of our ancestors, a brief resume of Quakerism has been included. The great majority of the emigrant ancestors left their homes abroad and settled in the American wilderness because of persecutions brought on by adherence to this creed. While we may not sympathize with the ideas and customs of the early Friends, we must admire the steadfast, stubborn devotion to their faith which brought them to this country. Furthermore Quakerism shaped the spiritual life and determined the thinking of all these people down to the generation of Charles Clement Heacock.

Among our ancestors are some who have lived to almost 100, some who have died in their forties. Some have been prominent, many obscure, some wealthy, some poor. Some have been experts in the use of the English language, others illiterate. Most of the emigrants came from the British Isles, primarily England, during colonial days. Not a single ancestor of Charles Clement Heacock came to America after the Revolutionary War.

The Chester county Quaker meeting minutes for the first part of the 18th century were examined after the printing of the chapter on the early Heacock generations. The first Jonathan does not appear to have been a prominent or active Friend, for his name is mentioned only once after he presented his certificate from England. This was on 7 mo. 25, 1721 at Providence meeting, when Jonathan was appointed to investigate a member applying for a certificate. The record of the first John Heycock who settled in Bucks county in 1682, his land, and his death there can be found in Pennsylvania Archives, 2nd series, vol. xix, p. 261 and 523. This authentic record removes any possibility that this John could be identical with the John who was Jonathan's father.

The first work on the family history was done by Mary Heacock Streeter whose brief notes and outline of the family tree supplied the inspiration and the framework. Her indication that Timothy Gruwell's mother was possibly a Clement has been followed without result. It is impossible to show any likely connection between the two families and the material gathered on the Clement family has been discarded. Most of the research was done by Roger Lee Heacock, an officer of the Foreign Service of the Department of State, while stationed in Washington in 1945. Information concerning the recent generations has been obtained by Joel Gale Heacock, who visited West Branch, Iowa, in 1948, and by Guy Richmond Heacock, who compiled the record of the descendants of Joel and Huldah Heacock. The publication of this book was planned by Joel Gale Heacock, and several sections were printed in his Baldwin Park, California, printing establishment, prior to his death in 1949, and is being completed by his son Charles and his brother Roger in 1950. This book with its hundreds of records of comings and goings can not stop for sentiment or eulogy, but must concentrate on such simple facts as have been preserved. Nevertheless it is not possible to conclude this work without a thought for the daughter and the son of Charles Clement Heacock, without whose interest the book would not have been written and published, who however could not await its completion. The book is, therefore dedicated to the memory of Mary Heacock Streeter and Joel Gale Heacock.




            Little remains of the Quaker tradition in the Heacock family. The spiritual force which caused our ancestors to leave their homes in the British Isles and seek liberty in the wilderness, has been lost, and its importance to them and indirectly to us, has been forgotten.

            In the present day, when the thoughts of men do not center about religion, it is difficult for us to understand how the ideas of the Quakers were taken in such earnestness. But at the time George Fox ( 1624 - 1691 ), God was the central concern of every man’s life. Only a few generations before, Henry VIII had separated the English Church from the Papacy, thus destroying the traditions of a thousand years, and opening up the status of the Church, the Scriptures, God and Christ to public questioning. The King James version of the Bible had been placed in hands of masses about the time of Fox’s birth, and the Holy Word, retained under Catholicism for the learned few, was available to everyone, and everyone could voice a religious opinion and base it on a more or less profound knowledge of the Bible. Sects multiplied, there were the Puritans, Baptists, Calvinists, Catholics, and many others including the Seekers and the ranters. There was also John Robbins who outdid all the rest by declaring himself to be God Almighty in person. Lodowick Muggleton, a tailor, who became a hell - fire fearing Puritan, and his cousin, John Reeve, were impressed by Robbins and declared themselves to be the witnesses of Revelation XI sent to seal the elect and the reprobate with the eternal seals of life and death.[1] They quickly pronounced eternal damnation on any who opposed them, much to the discomfort of the “damned”, who shared the caution of the Greeks who according to Paul set up an altar to an the Unknown God, in order not to risk inadvertent offense to any deity.

            The contradictions and excesses and the then prevailing devotion to insincere forms and flattering manners affected the youth, George Fox, deeply. At the early age of 22, he found his answer, and his experience is described in his journal, 1.8 as follows:

            “When all my hopes in them and in all men was gone, so that I had nothing outwardly to help me, nor could tell what to do, then, O then I heard a voice which said “There is one even Jesus Christ , that can speak to thy condition,” and when I heard it, my heart did leap for joy .... My desires after the Lord grew stronger, and zeal in the pure knowledge of God and Christ alone, without the help of any man, book, or writing. For though I had the scriptures that spake of Christ and God, yet I knew him not, but by revelation, as he hath the key did open, and the Father of Life drew me to his son by his spirit, and then the Lord gently lead me along ......

            This experience constitutes the inward light of the Quakers, and it is all there is of the essence of the Quaker Doctrine. In contrast to the Ranters, the Quakers accepted the guidance of the scriptures, and did not permit direct contact with god to lead to the emotional excesses which led to the emotional excesses which we still may see in the meetings of the “Holy Rollers”. But the Scriptures, while the revelation of the Divine and the Word of God, were not the only Revelation, and were not necessarily superior to the experience of the Inward Light, which constituted direct contact with God. In this respect, the Quakers differed from the sects which advocated return to the original Christian principles, or to the literal word of the Bible, as do some fundamentalists even today.

            Whether George Fox and his followers actually were in contact with God is a question which we need not answer. The sincerity of their convictions, and their ability to help others attain a similar experience cannot be denied. Men do not stay in prison for years rather than renounce a conviction, unless they are sincere.

            The peculiarities of Quaker customs were derived from the bidding of the Inward Light, although justification was also frequently taken from the word of the Bible. Fox writes: “When the Lord sent me forth in the world, He forbade me to put off my hat to any, high or low, and I was required to Thee and Thou all men and women, without any respect to rich or poor, great or small.” As these ceremonies were much more important to the recipients of the honoring gesture than they would be today, the hardships of the Quakers sprung as much from these rejections of ordinary forms of conduct than from any radical content of their religious thoughts as such. Fox also “bore testimony” against “the world’s ways of worship,” including “prayings and singings,” and “men’s inventions and windy doctrines, by which they blowed the people about .... from sect to sect.” The friends rejected the taking of oaths, because the scriptures forbade it, they refused military service because they could not reconcile war with the Christian life. They opposed the levity of feasts, drink, music, and drama, and called men to the solemnity of a truly religious life. Churches they called “steeple houses” and the themselves had only “meeting houses.” Fox suggested that an inscription be set up on each “steeple house” as follows: “God is not worshipped here: this is a temple made with hands: neither is this a church, for the Church is in God, neither are you in Him who meets here.” In his Journal 1.7, he says “ ..... though men called the churches holy ground and the temples of God, He dwelt not in temples made with hands but in men’s hearts - His people were His temple and He dwelt in them.”

            By the beginning of the nineteenth century many of the original principles of the friends had become meaningless forms, similar to the thing which Fox had opposed. The original simplicity of dress had become a rigid and antiquated costume. The use of “thee” and “thou” had lost its significance as the plural “you” was no longer an indication of honor or respect. The conflict in doctrine inherent in the teachings of Fox was also accentuated and eventually led to a schism: the followers of Elias Hicks elevated the conception of the Inward Light to absolute supremacy, while the main body of the Society of Friends minimized the importance of this fundamental principal of Quakerism and accepted the doctrines of Original Sin, Inherent Depravity of Man, and the infallibility of the Word of the Scriptures. Somewhat later, about the time of the Civil War, the Society of Friends officially discarded the antiquated garb, and relaxed other outmoded customs.

            A few quotations from recent writings will illustrate the present status of the Quaker ideas: “ This is their fundamental idea, that every man has - and in fact must have - direct contact with God. Every act of righteousness, every advance in the truth, every hunger of the heart, every pursuit of an ideal proves it, but no less does every consciousness of sin, every sense of shortcoming, every act of self condemnation prove it. the ability to appreciate the right and to know the wrong, the power to discriminate light from darkness - in short, the possibility of being anything more than a creature of sense, living in and for the moment, is due to the fact that man is more than an isolated individual. Dissatisfaction with self no less than consummate joy in the Divine Presence testifies to the truth that the tides of the Infinite Life beat up into the inlets of finite consciousness....”[2]

            This quotation puts Quakerism into the terminology of modern philosophy and psychology, and while it would not be understood by a contemporary of George Fox, it places his ideas in a modern setting, where there validity is evident.

            “Quakerism is the gospel of brotherly love and is based on the teachings of Jesus. According to it, every child is created in the image of God with a spark of divinity in its soul and is innocent and guiltless until it reaches the age of accountability. It then has the freedom of will to follow or reject this “Inward Light.””[3]

            Compare the above with the poem written by Charles Clement Heacock at the birth of his daughter Phyllis Truth in 1899:

                     “ A spark came down from God above

                        descending on its wings of love:

                        An amber mite of mother earth

                        Was brought in glowing to our hearth


                        Earth gives the home - God comes to dwell;

                        Which shall be ruler? Time will tell”

            For a staunch Quaker there has never been a question as to who is his ruler. Neither, the flattery of the Lord Protector of England before whom kings trembled, nor the entreaties of Admiral Penn, nor the threats of torture, death, or banishment, caused an early Quaker to deviate, in the slightest from his obedience to the commands of the Inward Light. There have been those for whom the Quaker life was too difficult, and some of them have remained members of the meetings, others at various periods in the history of the Society, have been disowned. We may tend to scorn those who refused to cooperate in the American Revolution, or who today refuse to fight this country’s enemies. But in the light of the Quaker doctrine, we might rather admire their courage, and realize the value in time of war of the testimony of peace. With regard to their closing their eyes to realities or practical affairs, “No one can honestly maintain that the technique of political action that produced the destruction of the war of 1914 - 1918 and the equal destruction of the victory - peace of 1918 and all that has followed is really practical ....”. These words of a certain Quaker, Carl Heath, quoted in “Beyond Dilemmas” have more meaning now than they did when written, before the second world war and “peace” which has followed.






            The first ten or fifteen years of Quakerism coincide with the Commonwealth period in England (1649 - 1660 ). Under Cromwell persecution was sporadic, and was due to local actions and prejudices, rather than to any concerted policy of the government. With the restoration of the Stuarts under King Charles II in 1660, the situation changed. The established church asserted itself, and parliament, with the background of the Puritan revolution, was suspicious of new ideas. The Quaker Act of 1662 provided penalties for refusal to take an oath of allegiance, and for Quakers who left their homes to assemble in groups of five or more for unauthorized worship. The Conventicle Acts of 1662 and 1670 were still more harsh. Persecutions increased, and the records of the times are full of the names of our ancestors who suffered. Detailed records of these persecutions are found in a large two volume book by Joseph Besse. “A Collection of the Sufferings of the People Called Quakers,” published in London in 1753.

            While many of the persecutions took the form of the seizure of goods, the Quakers refused to pay fines, considering payment and admission of wrongdoing, and preferred to lie in jail for years rather than pay them. What jail meant in those days is illustrated from contemporary records:

            Letter of Edward Burrough written in 1662. ( Besse 1.389 ) “Here is now near 250 of us prisoners in Newgate, ......., Southwest and New Prison. In Newgate we are Extremely thronged, that if the mercy of the Lord had not preserved us we could not have endured: there is near a hundred in one room on the common side amongst felons and their sufferings are great bur the Lord supports.”




            So I was put in a smoky tower, where the smoke of the other rooms came up and stood as a dew upon the walls, where it rained upon my bed: ... and so starved with cold and rain that my body was almost numbed, and my body swelled with the cold. And many times, when I went to stop of the rain off me in the cold winter season my shift would be as wet as muck with rain that came in upon me: and as fast as I stopped it the wind being high and fierce would blow it out again; and in this manner did I lie all that long cold winter till the next Assizes

            Besse ( 11.56)  quotes an account of prison conditions in Evesham, Wocestershire in 1655 which contains these passages.

            “And as for the prison, or hole  where we were kept. It is not twelve Foot square, and one goal - hole belonging to it four inches wide, wherein we take in our food and straw to lie upon, and we are forced to burn candle every day when we have it, by reason the prison is so dark and so close, and so many in so little room, and so little air ..... And some others have not been well by reason of the exceeding closeness of the prison, whereby sometimes the stink of the prison hath been so strong in the streets, that the people could not endure to stand by it. Sometimes when the days were hot, the breath of some prisoners was almost stopped, and they lay for several days like men asleep and when the days are the coldest we have not room nor place either to make fire or to walk to keep our bodies warm......

            Besse “Sufferings” and other early publications contain accounts of the deportation of Quaker prisoners to Barbados and elsewhere during this period. In 1665 thirty seven men and eighteen women were thrown into the hold of the “Black Eagle,” where they remained for seven weeks before the ship left London. In the meantime the plague reached the city and half of them were buried in the Gravesend marshes.

            The attitude of the early Quakers on trial is illustrated by the following account from the trial of Edward Bourne in Worcestershire in 1662 ( Besse 11.66 )

            E. Bourne:             I desire to ask one question in the Fear of the Lord.

            Judge:             That you may in the Fear of the Lord.

E. Bourne: Suppose that Christ and his apostles were here at this time and they should meet together, and would not this law hold on them?

            Judge:              Yes, that it would: But then recollecting himself, he said,

                                    I will not answer your question: you are no apostle.

Judge:              This is the sentence and judgment of the court concerning you. You are fined 5.1 a - piece, and if you do not pay the fines, or if there be no distress to be made in a week’s time you are to be committed to the house of correction, and to be put to hard labor for three months.

            E. Bourne:            The Lord judge between you and us.

            The trial of William Penn in 1670 was an important event in English history. Confronted by a hostile judge, the jury found Penn “guilty of speaking in Gracious Street,” a facetious verdict to which no penalty could be attached. The judge imprisoned the jury and demanded a guilty verdict under the indictment, whereupon the jury returned with a finding of “not guilty.” After three months imprisonment the jury was released, and a year later it was ruled that no jury could be punished for its verdict, a fundamental principle of a free judicial system. Penn, however, was fined and imprisoned for wearing his hat in court.

            Richard Baxter, a non - Quaker, records the effect of the persecution (Reliquiae Baxterianae, pt. ii, 435 - 437 ):

            ..... here the fanatics called Quakers did greatly relieve the sober people for a time: for they were so resolute, and glorified in their constancy and sufferings, that they assembled openly, at the Bull and Mouth near Aldersgate, and were dragged away daily to the Common Goal, and yet desisted not, but the rest came the next day nevertheless, so that the Goal at Newgate was filled with them. Abundance of them died in prison, and yet they continued their assemblies still! And the poor deluded souls would sometimes meet only to sit in silence, when, as they said, the spirit did not speak, and it was a great question whether this silence was a religious exercise and not allowed by the Liturgy ..... Yea, many turned Quakers, because the Quakers kept their meetings openly and went to prison for it cheerfully.

            Whether or not the Quakers were poor deluded souls, there is no doubt that their steadfastness and their scorn of dissimulation accomplished a great service for the cause of liberty. The slightest compromise with their conscience, which was the voice of God, was intolerable. Before God and before the Quaker conscience all men are free and equal, and it has been said that this principle later embodied in the Declaration of Independence is a heritage which the English speaking world has received from George Fox.[4]




            The earliest records of the Heacock family are found in Staffordshire, England. These records beginning with a burial in 1575 go back just about as far as the records of any middle - class family can go, as the registers of English churches began no earlier than 1538, when Cromwell issued an order requiring the recording of baptisms, marriages, and burials.

            The name of Heacock, in its present form, is not much older, There were no middle class family names in medieval times.  While the first traces of them in England are observed at the time of William the Conqueror (1066), they had not become general until the fifteenth or sixteenth century. Names did not originate suddenly, but evolved as did the words of ordinary language, and the fixed spelling is relatively new. The first Heacock to touch the shores of America spelled his name Heycock, Heacock, and Haycock, and a few generations earlier wider variations are noted, the recorders having apparently entered the name in the registers just as it happened to sound to them, with no regard for uniformity.

            Several accounts of the origin of the name have been given by various writers on the subject. There is no doubt as to the fact that Heacock is of Saxon ( i.e. Germanic) origin, and not Latin. Thus the COCK does not come from the Latin coquus, French coq, and has no connection with the English designation for a male chicken.

            Mark Anthony Lower M. A. , in his “English Surnames discusses suggestions which have been made regarding the origin of the syllable “cock”, so frequent in surnames. While Peacock, Woodcock, and others come from animals and may be derived from the Latin “coquus”, he rejects suggestions that the syllable as such is derived from “coquus” or from “cook” as others have suggested. “Cock” is instead a diminutive ending from the old Frisian (Saxon), and has the same significance as the French “ette”, which we use in kitchenette. Except for proper names, the syllable has disappeared from the English Language, but he cites a few examples of the survival of the old meaning:

            “In Lincolnshire a little fussy person is called a Cockmarshall, also elsewhere: Cock - O - my thumb... nor must we forget the use of mysterious syllable in the ancient nursery rhyme of - Ride a cock - horse To Bambury Cross. -

where little horse is evidently intended. Cockney originally meant a spoiled or effeminate boy.”

            The Rev. Henry Barber , M.D., F.S.A., wrote a book in 1903 called “British Family Names”, which contains the following discussion of the syllable “cock”:

            “The diminutives, Frisian, ken, ke, ock, and cock .... there has been much controversy over the termination “cock”. It appears to be derived from the Frisian gok or kok, a foolish, silly, awkward person, hence the Scotch “gow.” The Frisian Jankok ( Johncock ) is equivalent to the German “Hans Wurst”. At first applied to children as a check to thoughtlessness, it would become gradually used as diminutive. Cock and ock are akin to ke. In some cases cock is a corruption of cot found in local names.”

            The origin of the first syllable of the name is less clearly explained. Americana ( American Historical Magazine) , Volume XIX, 1925, page 479, gives the following explanation of the origin of “Heacock” which, it will be noted, accepts the previously given explanations for the final syllable:

            “The name comes from an old German word, ikiko, contemporary in the tenth century, which is a diminutive form of the old Frisian “ig”, a point, sharp edge, i.e., a little sword. This form developed through the English as Heacock and Hickox. The name itself is subject to a great variety of forms. These range from Hitchcock, Hickock, down to Hickox, Hicks, and Heacock. In this line the patronymic is spelled Hickcox.

            The writer of this article does not give his sources, and his connecting of the Heacocks with Hicks, Hickox, etc., does not agree with the conclusions of Lower and Barber. A large dictionary of the German used in the tenth century, in the Library of Congress, does not contain “ikiko” or anything similar. There is however, a word in modern German which may be derived form the old “ig”, and which preserves the implication of “a point". It is "igel" ( porcupine ).

            Barber has the following explanations under his alphabetical list of name meanings in the book already cited:

            Heacock: see Haycock. Haycock; A hill in Cumberland, or Frisian: Heike; Flemish; Haeck; Anglo- Saxon: Hecca; Dutch: Heek, Haeij; Kak; personal name diminuative of Frisian Hayo, see Heyhoe.

            Heyhoe: Anglo - Saxon: Heio; Frisian:Hayo, Heie, Hei, Swedish: Ey; Dutch: Heij; German: Hey, Heyer; personal name ( high).

            These are evidently  names or syllables from which Heacock may have evolved or with which the name may be related.

            Lower in his "English Surnames" Has another explanation for Haycock. He says it is probably a name given to a foundling exposed in a hay field. In this case, the "cock" would not refer to a mound of hay, but would have the pure diminutive significance, "a little one".

            According to Robertson, "British Heraldry" the Heacock coat of arms was granted in 1746. It is described as "Erminois, an elephant azure on a chief of the second a sun between two beehives or, Crest: a hind secant ermonois collored gules, reposing his Dexter on a beehive or". The arms and crest, printed in color, may also be found in the Volume of Americana referred to above. They are also described in fairbairns "Crests".[5]




Many families of Heacocks lived in Staffordshire and adjacent English counties during the reign of Queen Elizabeth. Their names are found in old wills, and in parish registers. Since the ancestors of the American family came from Slindon in the parish of Eccleshire, Staffordshire, the registers of the Eccleshall church contain the entries of chief interest to us. There are three volumes of these registers. The first contains entries from about 1575, the third from 1620 to 1666. The second is largely a copy of the first, made in 1600, with changes in the spellings. All three volumes have been published by the Stafford Parish Register Society.

            Slindon was and still is a small village, located three miles north of Eccleshall. About twenty families appear to have lived there in the sixteenth century. Besides the Heacocks, families bearing these names are recorded: Keene, Meakin, Stacey, Whittington, Tilsley, Ball, Cornes, Bawle, Croxton, and another branch of the Heacock family lived there. Half way between Croxton and Eccleshall is the village of Sugnall Magna, and Heacocks also lived there although apparently a generation of so later than at Slindon and Croxton.

            Parish registers in the early years are too fragmentary to permit of definite conclusions, but it is possible that the Croxton and Sugnall families descended from Thomasen Hacocke, who was buried May 6, 1575, and the Slindon families from Jhon Haicocke, buried November 11, 1576. All the other Heacocks mentioned in the registers can be accounted for as descendants of these two, without doing violence to biological laws. Thomasen and Jhon may have been brothers or cousins, and the settlement in the Slindon neighborhood may have occurred a generation or two before these first records.

            The most common early spelling of the name was Heacocke. John spelled either Jhon of Johannes, was the most common Christian name, although William was also frequent. In the entries which have been copied, the original spellings have been preserved. The spelling of the 1600 copy is given in parenthesis. The family tree is based on the registers wherever there is conflict between them and the information obtained elsewhere.


            Volume I and II - Christenings Vol. II is in part a copy of Vol. I made in 1600

1577             December 1                William Haycocke

1579             October 4                    Margery Haycoke (Haycocke)

1581            November 15              Johannes Heacocke

1582    March 9                      Elizabeth Heacocke

1584    April 8                         Willelmus Heacocke

1584            February 16                Johanna Heacocke

1585            December 6                Johannes Keene

1586            October 7                    Elizabeth Heacocke

1589            November 9                Margarete Heacock ( Hecocke)

1589            February 30 (sic)            Willimus Heacocke

1592    May 22                        Richardus Hichcocke ( Hichcoke)

1593    April 15                    Johannes Heacocke

1593    July 22                         Alicia Heacocke

1594            October 27                  Willelmus Hichcock (Hickcoke)

1596    June 18                        Anne Heacocke

1599            February 25                Ellinge Heacocke

1601    July 15                         Darothye d of William Keene of Slyndon,husbandman

1603            December 23             Ellyne d of William Keene of Slyndon

1606    May 23                        Margreat Heacocke

1606    August 30                    Jhon s of William Keene of Slyndon alias Slyne.

1607    June 9                          Marye s of John Haycocke of Slyndon.

1608    March 29                    Elizabeth d of Thomas Heycocke of Croxton

1608            February 12                Thomas s of William Keene of Slyndon alias Slyne

1610    May 6                          William s of John Haycocke of Slyndon, alias Slyne


            Volume I and II marriages

1578    June 17                         Fraunces Heacocke - Margret Gervis

1582            October 28                  Robertus Heath  - Anna Heakock ( Heacocke)

1583    June 2                          Lewes Case - M(ar)gereta Heacocke

1584    June 25                        Jacobus Tylsly - Anna Heacocke

1589    June 1                          Richardus Hithcoks (Hidgcoke) - Margareta Stacey

1589    January 27                    Thomas Heacocke - M(ar)gareta Meeson

1593    May 20                        Willelmus Gratwood - Tymeson Heacocke

1600    July 10                         Willelmus Keene - Margareta Stacye

1605    March 3                      John Heacocke, of Slyndon and Ellyn Keene, of  Slyndon

1612            November 5                Thomas Chittie alias Sneyde p. de Woolstranton                                                                           and Margareta Heacock de Slindon

1617            December 2                Johannes Wildie, viduar, and Elizabetha Heacocke

            Volume I AND II - burials

1575    May 6                         Thomasen (Thomasina) Hacocke (Heacoke)

1576    Nov. 11 ( Feb. 16)             Jhon Haicocke (Heacocke)

1578    May 25                        Dorytye Heacocke

1582    March 9                      Christopher Heacocke

1584    June 14                         Willelmus Heacocke

1587    May 30                        Helena Heakocke

1588    March 9                      Margareta Keene

1590    March 11                    Margareta Heacock (Hidgcoke)

1592    May 17                        Elizabetha Heacocke

1593            November 30              Robertus Heacocke

1598    March 22                    Ric Hidgcocke, of Wotton, a laborer.

1602            February 5                  Catheran Heacoke of Croxton

1604            February 2                  Anne Heacocke of Slyndon, widow

1606    August 18                    Margret d of Jhon Haycock, of Slyndon alias Slyne

1614    July 30                         Ellene f. Johannis Heacocke de Slindon

1615    March 26                    Fanciscus, spurious Willelmi Hitchcoke

                                                             et Margreatee Ro - (rest torn off)

x Rob. wid Heacocke (Robert H. bur Nov. 30, 1593)

1593            William Keene of Slindon, in the countie of Staffs., husbandman.


1620    March 11        John s of willm. Haycock of Croxton - bap.

1622    April 14        Ellin d of John Haycocke of Slindon - bap

1622             February 6      John Mason of Eccleshall and Ann d of Thomas

                                     Haycocke of Croxton - Mar.

1623    January 8          Anne w. of Henry Keene, a stranger - bur.

1624    May 1              Thomas, s of Willm Haycocke, of Croxton - bap.

1624            November 7    ----- d. of John Heacock of Slindon, and Ellin -bap.

1628    July 13             Robert, s. of Ellin Walker, wid., and Ellin, d of William Keene, - mar.

1629            December 6            Thomas s. of Willm Haycocke, of Croxton and Margarett -bur.

1630    June 4              Willm, Keene, of Slindon - bur.

1632            September 16  John, s. of John Keene - bap.

1634            December 25            Thomas Haycocke - bur.

1634            February 8            Thomas, s. of John Keene - bap.

1635    January 29        Willm. s. of Willm. Haycocke - bur.

1636            February 24            Margaret Keene - bur. ( Keene entries omitted from here on,

                                     many in register.)

1637            February 7      John Haycocke - Margaret Turner - mar.

1638             December 14  Ellin, d. of John Haycocke - bap.

1640    (date torn off)            d. of Robert Haycocke - bap.

1642    June 18            An. d. of Robert Haycocke - bap.

1642            September 29  An. d. of Robert Haycocke - bur.

1643            December 17  John s. of Robert Haycocke - bap.

1644    March 31        John s. of John Haycocke - bap.

1645    August 14            Catherine, d. of John Haycocke - bap.

1645,6 January 1          Ellin, d. of John Haycocke - bur.

1647             November 28  (blank) w. of William Haycocke - bur.

1648    March 26            Thomas, s. of John Haycocke - bap.

1650            October 14            Margrett, d. of John Haycocke - bap.

1652            February 6      John s. of William Haycocke, of Slindon - bap.

1653    January 2          John Heycock (Heacocke) of Hockly (Bromly) - bur

1654    June 20            William s. of John Haycock of Sugnil - bap.

1656            September 8    John Heycock and An Gatten - mar.

1656    April 18        Ann, d. of John Heycock of Marsh - borne

1657            September 4    An., d. of John Heycock - bur.

1658    July 2               Katherine, d. of John Heycock - bur.

1658    July 3               Thomas, s. of William Heycock - bap.

1658    July 11             Margaret, d. of William Heycock - bur.

1659            September 30  John, s. of John Heicock, of Marsh - borne

1661    July 9               Alces, w. of Master John Hencocke - bur.

1666            November 25             Thomas, s. of Robert (Heacocke) of Sugnall Magna - bur.

1666            December 6    John Heacocke, son, of Slindon - bur.


            The following entries, not included in the published registers, were copied from the original volumes ( apparently from the end of Volume II ) in the Eccleshall church, by the Rev. K. J. Foster in 1944, of behalf of Homer B. Heacock of Oaklyn, New Jersey:


1684    May 29            Tho. Heacock - buryed.

1688    April 22        Mary, d. of Thomas Heacock and ...... his wife - bap.

1691            October 4            William, s. of Willm Heacock of Slindon - buryed

1692            October 5        Anne, d. of willm Heacock of Slindon - bap.

1695    August 27        Sarah, d. of William Heacock of Slindon, - buryed

1695            November 10  John Heacock of Slindon at Stafford, a Quaker, - buryed

1695            November 12  Jane Heacock, a Quaker, at Slindon, - buryed

1697    July 3               Mary, d. of Wm. Heacock of Slindon, - bap.

1700    June 4              Widow Heacock of Great Sugnall being 103 years of age - buryed.

1701    May 1              Ann, d. of John Heacock of Slindon - buried.

1702    June 17            John, s. of John Heacock of Slindon - bap.

1703    March 28            Elizabeth Heacock of Great Sugnall - buried

1703            September 23            Margret, d. of Wm. Heacock of Slindon - bap.

1704            November 23            William, s. of John Heacock of Slindon - bap.

1707            November 13  Mary, d. of John Heacock of Slindon - bap.

1709    June 25            Ann, d. of John Heacock of Slindon - bap.

1712    June 25            James s. of John Heacoke of Slindon - bap.

            The Rev. Foster commented as follows on the Heacock entries in these registers:

            These last entries from 1704, November 23 - 1712, June 25, refer only to John Heacock & I find no more referring to William H. subsequently. Thus we find an association of the family with Eccleshall of some 122 years recorded. Of the old buildings which may have been in some way related to the Heacock family an old farm house still exists at Aspley near Slindon and a cottage with some ancient stone and timber work. A very old house which stood at Aspley, a village at which a William Heacock lived according to the register, was pulled down some years ago and a new house built on the site.

            In Slindon nearly all of the houses have been largely rebuilt, but many still contain old timber work incorporated into the later brick structure. Three old houses likewise, we know for certain were demolished many years ago. Ashley, Sugnall, and Slindon have all declined in size, Ashley having now only two farms, one lodge and the cottage referred to above. Ancient structures would appear to exist only in part and they hidden behind Georgian and Victorian restorations.

            It is difficult to tell what occupation any of the family followed, as none is mentioned up to 1695. To hazard a guess is difficult and uncertain but one might say they were farmers or small holders; once only in an entry of the restoration period (1661), is one called "Master Hencoke" which seems to imply ownership of property in some form or employment of labour. The Quaker faith of the family is first mentioned , Nov. 10 - Nov. 12, 1695, which implies that they joined the Friends a little after their founding by George Fox in the middle of the XVII century. John Heacock of Slindon, a Quaker, was buried at Stafford and Jane Heacock of Slindon seems to have been buried at Slindon.[6]  Slindon burial ground is but 50 years old, and the nearest Quaker cemetery is at Shallowford, this might bear enquiry. There is no further entry re. William Heacock after Sept. 23, 1703: thus one may suppose that William left for America about that date. It is certain that no deaths took place in his family after that date, 1703, because even if he was a Quaker the law demanded an affidavit surrendering for all deaths, and for burial to the person in control of the burial places in the Parish.

            I know of no actual bearers of the name Heacock in the Parish today and also of nobody christened Heacock as a family name. The family here seems to have either left the district or maybe died out.

(This section was published in 1952 to replace page 17 and table facing page 16 of "Ancestors  of Charles Clement Heacock 1851 - 1914)

(Library of congress index card :  CS741-.H432 1950, Heacock, Roger Lee)




The English records of the Heacock family[7] of Slindon in the Parish of Eccleshall, County of Stafford, England, go back a good deal further than the previous record had revealed. John Heykoke the elder, and another John Heykoke, perhaps his son, were already living in Slindon in 1539, both being of military age, as is revealed in an old muster roll for the Hundred of Firehill, in which Eccleshall Parish lies. It is therefore reasonable to suppose that that family settled in Slindon before the end of the 15th century. Even in 1539 there were persons bearing the name living in nearby villages, who may or may not have had a common ancestor.

            It seems likely that John Heykoke the elder, whom we find in Slindon in 1539 is an ancestor of the Jonathan who immigrated to America over 170 years later, although there is little chance of definitely establishing the time further back than the John Heacocke who married Ellen Keene in 1605. The elder Heykoke mentioned in 1539 must have been three or four generations earlier.

            The name of John Heacocke reappears in various records throughout the 16th and 17th centuries, many of which identify him ( them ) as a resident or landholder at Slindon. It is not possible to determine which records refer to one individual and which to another, but there was a John Heacocke ( or similar spelling ) living at Slindon throughout these two centuries. Other persons of the same name also lived nearby. The old records which have been copied follow.






(The Hundred of Firehill is the northwestern division of the county of Stafford in which Eccleshall lies. Byll, gestern, and payer of splints - all these terms refer to armor and weapons.)


A list of all able bodied men liable for military service between the ages of 16 and 60:

Offley (High?) - Thomas Heycocke - a byll

Eccleshall - John Heacocke - bowman

Whitgreve - John Till - able bodied. Hugh Till - a payer of splints. John Till

Slindon - John Heykoke the elder - able bodied, a gersterne and bill. John Heykoke

Little Sugnall - Robert Heakoc.




(In feudal times the King, as head of the realm, gave large areas of land to his Barons in consideration of the service they should give him in time of war. These holdings were called manors and the people who lived there were the servants of the lord of the manor. Small farms and holdings were given to these tenants in consideration of the service they in their turn should render to the lord. This was known as copyhold tenure as the land was held by a copy of the court rolls. Eccleshall was held in those days by the Bishop of Litchfield, who lived at Eccleshall Castle. All sales and purchases of land within the manor were recorded on the court rolls and as these go back to the time of Elizabeth they form a very valuable historical record.)


13th December 1692


            Slindon - John Heacocke elected Decimar (i.e. supervisor, officer of the court.

            The court in the view of Frankpledge of the Lord the King and the court Baron of William, Lord Bishop of Coventry and Litchfield held at Eccleshall May 1698.

List of the inhabitants within the manor:


Sugnal Magna - freehold tenants: Ellen Heacocke; widow; John Heacocke.

Horsely - cottagers: Mary Heacocke, widow.

Slindon - Freeholders: William Heacocke; John Heacocke.

Croxton, Wetwood and Faireoake - Freehold tenent: Richard Till.






(This was a tax levied in the reign of Charles II and a tax on every hearth or fireplace in every house. Only the owner or tenant of the house is mentioned in the return. It was not intended to be a census so no sub - tenant or other lodger is mentioned). One hearth charged to each of the following persons:

Croxton - William Heacocke

Slindon - John Heacocke

Whitegrave - James Till. John Till de Hawthorne. John Till de Lake. John Till deGreene. John Till de overhouse. John Till de Greene, junior.

Sugnal Magna - Robert Heacocke


Heacocks who were church wardens of Eccleshall:

            1633 - John Heacocke

            1655 - Robert Heacocke

            1667 - John Heacock, church warden             for the Woodland Quarter.

            1680 - John Heacock, church warden             for the Cotes Quarter.

            Overseers of the poor :

            1682 - William Heacock of Slindon,                         Overseer for Cotes.

            1701 - John Heacock of Slindon,                                Overseer for Cotes.

Rate assessment, 1679.

            Great Sugnal - John Heacocke, 1s 6d.;                         Widow Heacock, 2s 0d.

A catalogue of the lands paying ancient yearly compositions in lieu of Vicarial Tythe: (Written by Richard Milward, Vicar of Eccleshall, 1720)

Slindon                                    Assessment

J. Heacock                               10d.

T. Keene                                  1s 4d.

J. Keene, Jun.                          2s 6d

William Heacock                    1s 0d.

Great Sugnal

Heacocks living                      0D.



William Heacock

John Heacock

Sugnall Magna

Sir Thomas Peshall, James Smith, John Heacock. £1 10s 0d.

On a fly leaf of the book is a certificate, dated 19th May 1709 acknowledging that George Heacock is a parisher of Eccleshall.



            these Parish records have only been transcribed and printed to 1666. The registers  down to modern times are at Eccleshall and in the custody of the Vicar. Before 1840 the Parish of Eccleshall was one of the largest in Staffordshire, comprising the hamlets of Slindon, Aspley, Sugnal, Croxton, Horsely, Wootton, etc.

            The entries which follow result from a new search of the registers for the years 1666 - 1684, for which no records appeared in the previous search:

HEACOCK. Variants : Heacocke, Heycock, Haycock. period 1666 - 1684 - Register Volume IV


            1673. June 27 - Robearte, son of                                 William Heacock of Slindon.

            1675. July 10 - Lues (sic) of William                         Heacock of Slindon. 

Marriages - No  entries for period.,

no banns of marriage recorded.,


  1666. Nov. 12 - Thomas, son of Robert                    Heacocke of Sugnal Magna.

  1666. Dec. 6 - John Heacock Sen. of                        Slindon

  1678. Aug. 8 - John Heacock of Sugnal Magna.

  1684. May 29 - Tho' Heacock.

The above entries are true copies of the entries in the Register Book Volume IV  in the Parish Church of Holy Trinity, Eccleshall in the county of Stafford, England. Kenneth J. Foster   May 7, 1952 Curate.

  The baptism in 1674 of John Heacock, son of John Heacock of Slindon, almost certainly refers to the brother of Jonathan the emigrant. Probably the parents  become Quakers after this date and before the birth of Jonathan  (circa 1680) which would account for the absence of any record of his baptism.






(Depository of Old Staffordshire Wills and Probate Records)

            The records on preceding pages as well as these wills have been obtained through the cooperation  of Norman W. Tildesley, of Willenhall, Staffordshire, a trustee of the Salt Historical collection in Stafford, and an authority on history of the locality. He comments as follows on the wills :

            "The will of Thomas Heacock of Chebsey may have been of interest but unfortunately it is now lost. Chebsey is the next parish to Eccleshall and the interesting thing is that there is no trace of this man in any of the contemporary documents relating  to this parish. The early record of Chebsey is lost so we cannot refer to that. 

            "Very few wills of Eccleshall exist before 1660 as most of them were destroyed during the siege in 1642 at the time of the Civil War. These documents were housed in the church and are said to have been burnt by Cromwell's men after the surrender of the Castle. The will of John Heacock proved in 1663 was that of John Heacock senior, who was buried in 1654. The Eccleshall Probate Court was suppressed  during the commonwealth and it was not until after 1660 that the various executors brought the wills to the new Probate Officials for proving. I have come across several instances of this at Eccleshall".





Will of Thomea Heycocke of Chebsey, Staffordshire


Proved 3rd May 1548. This will is no longer extant. An entry in the Act Book states that the will was proven by Eleanor, his widow and relict, and John Palmer who were sworn as executors.




  The calendars of this court have been searched from their commencement to 1732 and are all the Heacock ( and variant ) Wills and Administrations found for that period :


 Will of John Heacock of Bromley (near Slindon) in parish of Eccleshall, Staffordshire. Dated 16th June 1651.

 Being perfect in mind but sick in body - no place of burial mentioned.


  To my daughter Ellin £10. To my daughter Susanna £12. To my brothers William and Robert 6d. each. To my sister Ellin Stevenson wife of Toby Stevenson 6d. To my sister Elizabeth Roe wife of William Roe 6d. To  my cousin John Stevenson 6d. To my cousin Isabel Mason 6d. To John Heacock son of my brother William Heacock 10s. To my goddaughter /ellin Thomson 1s. To Elizabeth daughter of my brother William 5s. To my wife Margaret all the Messuage or tenement wherein I now dwell for her maintenance and that of her children until my son John shall attain the age of 21 years. If she remarry before that time the house shall lie in the hands of trustees to pay my wife £4 per annum until John shall attain his majority then it shall revert to him on the condition that he pays his mother the said sum of £4 per annum. Residue to my wife Margaret. 


 Executor - My well beloved friend John Broughton of Whittington, gent.

  Signed - John  (X) Heacock

  Witnesses - William (X) Heacock. Ellin (X) Walker.

  Proved at Eccleshall 13th October 1663.

 Inventory of goods and chattels of John Heacock of Brook House in the Manor of Bromley, parish of Eccleshall. Dated 13th. April 1654. Appraised by John Keene and John Kenricke. Total amount £24 15s. 8d.


 Will of John Heacock of Slindon, parish of Eccleshall, Staffordshire, yeoman. Dated 4th. November, 1--6. Being aged and weak in body but yet in perfect memory - To be buried  in the church yard of Eccleshall.

  To my daughter Mary Walker one brass pan. To my three other daughters Ellin, Ann and Margaret 12d. each. To my grandchild Sara Walker 12d. To my goddaughter Margaret Keene 12d. To my two grandchildren John and Thomas Symkin 12d. All my real estate of land in Slindon to my son William Heacock and after his death to John his eldest son the said John paying to his two younger brothers William and Thomas £10 each. If John dies childless then the estate to go to William and failing heirs to Thomas the youngest son


  Executor - My son William

  Overseer - My second son John

  Signed - John (X) Heacocke.


 Witnesses - John Steedman, Thomas (X) Symkins, John Tilsley.


 Proved at Eccleshall 7th. August 1666 by William the executor named.


 Inventory dated 20th. November 1666 appraised by John Keene and Edward Horton. Amount £17 10s. 0d.



 Administration of the estate of William Heacock of Slindon, parish of Eccleshall, Staffordshire.


 Dated at Eccleshall, 28th February, 1683-4.


 Bondsman - Mary Heacock of Slindon, widow. John  Keene of Slindon, yeoman.


 Bond - £60.


 Mary Heacock widow of the deceased was appointed administratrix. Inventory dated 20th March 1683 - 4. Amount £28 11s. 8d.


 Administration of the estate of Thomas Heacocke of Eccleshall, Staffordshire. Dated at Eccleshall 30th. September 1684.


 Bondsmen - William Heacocke, husbandman, of Slindon, Francis Crispe of Eccleshall, husbandman.


 Administrator - William Heacocke.


 Inventory of Thomas Heacocke of Slindon, maltster. dated 29th. September 1684:


            barley and mault          £18 4s. 6d.

            2 strawe Wiskitts               6s. 2d.

            1 little coffer and box         5s. 4d.

            1 fowling peece                  9s. 3d.

            1 haire cloth                       8s. 0d.

            3 baggs                              10s. 0d.

            2 peales  ?                          2s. 6d.

            1 sive and 1 riddle                  8d.

            one grate in the kilne          1s. 4d.

            his purse and

            wearing apparel            £3 2s. 0d.     







Debits owed by the said Thomas Heacocke.


            To John Steedman       £4 15s. 0d.

            To John North             £2 13s. 4d.

            To William Tayler      £2 10s. 0d.

            To Thomas Walter      £2 10s. 0d.

            To Walter Whittington      5s. 0d.

            To Mary Carswell              5s. 0d.

                                              £12 18s. 4d.


 Administration of the estate of John Heacocke, yeoman of Slindon, parish of Eccleshall, Staffordshire. Dated 20th. February, 1695-6.


 Bondsmen - John Heacock of Slyndon, yeoman, Joseph Ferber of High Offley, yeoman, and William Heacock of Slyndon, yeoman. Administration granted to John Heacock son and heir of the deceased. Inventory dated 24th. November 1695 appraised by John Simkin.

                                        Amount £47. 11s. 6d.




  In addition to the preceding, there were about 25 Heacock wills and Administrations proved in the above court between 1535 and 1650. These people  ( Thomas, William, John, Dorothy, Robert, Isabel, etc.) Lived 60 miles from Eccleshall in Warwickshire and probably had no connection with the Heacock families of Slindon. Their existence, however, shows that the name was widespread even early in the 16th century. The name appears also in records for other parts of England, suggesting that many families adopted ( or evolved ) simultaneously the name Heacock (Haycock) and discouraging the assumption that any relationship exists except where shown or implied by specific records.



 Originals at Sommerset House, London in official custody of the British Government. Copied from copies at Friends House, London.


  1695 9 mo. 6, - John Heacock, Stafford, Slin. (Book 249 P. 57)

 1695 9 mo. 15 - Jane Heacock, wife of John.

 1762 6 mo. 12 - Jane Heacock, age 83, buried   1762 6 mo. 15 at Stafford.


  (The first two entries almost certainly refer to the parents of Jonathan, the third to his sister)




 (Preserved at the Wm.Salt Library in Stafford)

  Monthly Meeting at Rugeby, 12th 5th mo. 1715. This meeting is informed that Jane Heacock of Stafford has kept company (for some considerable time) with a man that is not of our community, in relation to marriage, concerning which, sundry Friends have given her their advice, as namely Jon Alsop, Adam Key, with his wife, Eliz: Morris, and Edward Firth the younger, yet she seems to persist therein: Therefore this meeting desires to appoint Jon Alsop, Edward Frith the younger, Richard Morris, or any two of them, to speak to her, as from this meeting, and admonish her to take Friend's advice, not to keep company, or give him any encouragement for the time to come: and inform her (if she do goe on therein) what will be the consequence of it.

12th 7th mo. 1715 pd. Jane Heacock in full for firing - 6s. 0d.. The Friends appointed last Monthly Meeting to speak to Jane Heacock concerning keeping company with a man that is not a Friend: they report to this meeting that they have done their endeavour to bring her to a right understanding of the matter, but she seems at present not inclinable to take Friend's

advice: this meeting desires the Friends before seems at present not inclinable to take Friend's advice: this meeting desires the Friends before recommended may continue their endeavour with her, in such methods as may seem most meet, and agreeable to our Christian profession, whilst any hopes are left, laying before her the consequences of her acting against our advice. This meeting further adviseth, that Friends of Stafford Meeting, and particularly the friends appointed to speak to her do desire her to discontinue her abode at the meeting house (as in habitation) till she can find freedom to desist in her procedure with the person above mentioned.


            3 8mo. 1715 Edward Frith and Richard Morris, the Friends appointed to continue their care toward Jane Heacock, have taken occasion to discuss her further: and her answer to them was to this effect: viz: that she purposed and concluded to take Friend's advice and not to have any more to do with the man that had lately kept her company, as was observed some meetings past.

  8 3 mo. 1716 Paid Jane Heacock 5/4

            The death record before cited indicates that Jane, after bowing to the will of the meeting, never took another chance to marry. The final mention of the Heacock family in Stafford Quaker records seems to be on 23 4 mo. 1744: ".This place and time we should have had something of, or in the name of a Monthly Meeting: but there is only John Hargrive and Richard Morris besides James Heacock." James must have been a nephew of Jonathan and Jane.

            The records have probably disappeared which would have told us what happened in these early days to bring some, but not all of the Slindon Heacock family to Quakerism. A little booklet issued in 1930 by the Stafford Friends entitled "Some Notes on the Society of Friends in Stafford to Commemorate the Bi - Centenany of the Meeting House in Forgate Street 1730 - 1930" opens with the following paragraphs.

Staffordshire first heard the message of George Fox in or about 1651 or 1652, when the protagonist preached at Caldon in the Moorlands, declaring "truth among a meeting of professors there." It is not then surprising to find that the first centre of Quakerism in this county seems to been in Leek and its neighbourhood. It was here that Richard Hickock preached in 1654, creating the first of the long series of interruptions of services that sent so many to the County Gaol. One of his most ardent converts was Humphrey Woolrich, of Newcastle under Lyme, who was the first known preacher of Friends views in Stafford. Later he went on to meetings at Eccleshall, Chesby, and Shallowford where some, he tells us, were convinced and were so well satisfied with the testimony for the truth that he bore amongst them, that they received it and him also into their houses.

This preaching of Humphrey Woolrich nay well have led to the establishment of a meeting at Stafford. Members of a family bearing his name were established at Eccleshall, Mill Meece, and Shallowford, in the parish of Chesby; and Eccleshall also gave

to the cause Edward Stanton, who suffered much during subsequent years. The circumstances of the time called forth the utmost courage and devotion and Stafford Friends had to meet the responsibility of doing what was possible for the welfare of their friends committed to County Gaol. The Commonwealth Government recognized its insecurity and looked with suspicion on any new sect which might upset the balance of the parties whose differences were at once religious and political. Indeed the close connection of the two explains a large part of the prejudice that Friends incurred throughout the 17th. century, whether from the officials of the commonwealth or of the King, who was restored to the throne in 1660. In that year 183 persons were arrested from six meetings mostly in the north of the country.

John Till, of Whitegreave was another early convert and both he and Edward Scotson of Eccleshall were imprisoned for six years. Both were neighbors to the family of Woolrich, of Shallowford, in the parish of Chebsey.


            Probably John and his wife Jane became Quakers soon after the baptism of their elder son John in 1674, before the birth of Jane in 1679 and Jonathan in 1680.  This would account for the lack of baptismal records for the later two. The nephew of John, William's son John, probably became a Quaker at the same time, shortly after he came of age, as he preceded William Penn to Pennsylvania. The eldest son of John and Jane apparently remained with the established church into which he had been baptized, as his marriage and the birth of his children are recorded by the parish register, his son James later becoming a Quaker. The members of the elder branch of the family, descendants of William and Margaret, except for the John who went to Pennsylvania before Penn, apparently did not join the Quakers.

            It seems quite obvious that Jonathan Heacock and Ann Till immigrated to Pennsylvania for economic reasons, rather than because of persecution, which had practically ceased long before they left England in 1711. Jonathan's elder brother John had inherited their father's property, and Jonathan sought his fortune across the sea, possibly influenced by his cousin William's deeding him the land left in Bucks County by the first emigrant, John.

            The wills which have been quoted establish the relationships in the last three English generations beyond any reasonable doubt. For John Heacock who died December 6, 1666, left a will naming both his son William and his son John, as well as William's three eldest children. The deed of William's second son William to his cousin german Jonathan, points to the later as the son of John and Jane, since we have no record of any other possible parentage for a Heacock cousin of William. This deed, a most important document in establishing this line of descent was quoted by William Lloyd (The Lloyd Family -- Lloyd Manuscripts published about 1900 and available in the Library of Congress). Lloyd unfortunately did not give his source, which seems to have been American (Pennsylvania Archives ?). Lloyd simply refers to "a deed dated 19 February, 1710. William Heycock of Slindon, in the County of Stafford, second son of William Heycock the elder ...... and next brother and heir of John Heycock, formerly of Slindon, but late of the province of Pennsylvania, and Mary, wife of the said William Heycock, the younger, to Jonathan Heycock (Heacock) of the borough of Stafford (England), cousin German of the said William Heycock, for land in Pennsylvania of the said John Heycock (Heacock), late of Bucks County, Pennsylvania, deceased.

            The will of John Heacock of Bromley from June 16, 1651, pertains to another branch of the Heacock family, doubtless closely related to the Slindon families. John of Bromley was apparently the son of Thomas Heacock of Croxton, buried December 25, 16334, who in turn may have been a brother of one of the Slindon line of Johns, or may descend from the Thomas Heycock living at High Offley in 1539. References in this will to "cousin" most certainly mean “niece” or “nephew”. Persons who can be identified through this and the Slindon wills account for about all of the Heacock entries in the Eccleshall Parish Registers in the 17th. century, except those for Sugnil. They probably relate to a line descending from the Robert Heykoke living in Little Sugnil in 1539. Thus even in these earliest times there were distinct and at most probably only distantly related lines of bearing the Heacock name and living within a few miles of each other.



            The first Heacock to whom we can point with certainty as a Quaker is Jonathan, the founder of the family in this country. He married and emigrated as a Quaker and it is a reasonable assumption that his parents brought him up in that faith. Furthermore a member of his family landed in Pennsylvania when Jonathan was two years old, which is an indication of Quakerism in an earlier generation. The family was very likely one of the earliest to embrace the faith.

            Quaker history records Richard Hickock of Staffordshire among its earliest (if unstable) converts:

            Staffordshire developed strong groups of Friends, if we may judge by the fact that there were one hundred and eighty three imprisonments in 1661 from this county. The history is obscure, but contains some passages of singular interest. Richard Heacock, the son of old Richard Hickock, the host of the Green Dragon, at Chester, after suffering imprisonment there came into the moorland corner of the county adjoining Derbyshire at the end of 1654. He convinced many persons in Leek and the nieghborhood, and settled several meetings.The Leek magistrates strongly objected to the meetings in the town itself; they stationed men with halberds at the door and kept the town’s people from coming. A letter from Hickock to Margaret Fell (wife of George Fox) in 1658, gives a good idea of his work as it had then developed. There is scarcely a first-day meeting in Staffordshire, he says, which has an attendance of less than a hundred, sometimes there will be above two hundred at a meeting. He has had two in Newcastle under Lyme and finds it a pretty moderate town. He has also been twice lately among the Ranters at Leek, all their mouths were stopped, only one woman belonging to the Family of Love stood up at the last meeting and opposed. The Baptists are much dashed to hear of the great Quaker meetings in market towns and elsewhere. Hickock wrote a tract to Ranters in 1659, and published another in the following year. A few years later, “...... giving way to the imaginations of his own heart, (he) was drawn into whimseys, and so lost the knowledge of the eternal power: he degenerated from the Truth and became an obsolute apostate, and many that were convinced by him in this country turned back from the Truth also.”[8]

            In view of the previously cited studies on the origin of names, Richard Hickock of Staffordshire may have been a distant cousin of the Heacocks of Stafford.




            While Jonathan Heacock appears to be the forefather of every Heacock now residing in the united states and Canada, he was not the first of his line to emigrate to America. There is a definite record of one John Heacock of Slivo in Staffordshire arriving in 1682, twenty eight years before Jonathan.

            This record is contained in the “Book of Arrivals”, an original document required by the Form of Government of Pennsylvania, and in 1887 the original, time worn and barely legible, was still to be seen in the register’s office at Doylestown.[9] This the exact record as it appeared: From the Book of Arrivals: a registry of all the people in the County of Bucks within the Province of Pennsylvania that have come to settle the said county.

                        ARRIVALS                                                                 SERVANTS:

John Heycock of Silvo, in Eccleshall parish, in the county              James Morris

of Stafford, husbandman, came in the Friends of Adven-

ture,arrived in Delaware the 28th of 7th mo. 1682

TIME OF SERVICE AND FROM WHEN:                                   WAGES AND LAND:

To serve four years                                                        to have 50 acres of land.

Loose the 28th of 7th mo. 1686.

            Thus the first Heacock arrived with his servant a few weeks before William Penn. He was one of the original purchasers of land in Falls Township, which is near the bend in the Delaware River in Bucks County,[10]  and died there on November 19, 1683.[11]

            This John is identified in Robert’s book as the father of Jonathan:

            John Heacock (John, John, William), son of William and Mary, baptised at Eccleshall, Staffordshire, on 12 mo. 6, 1652-1653, came to Pennsylvania in the “Ship Friends Adventure” arrived in Delaware River 7th mo. 1682. He brought with him a servant, named James Morris, but was not accompanied by his wife and children. He had purchased of William Penn before leaving England, in partnership with Thomas Barrett, 875 acres, of which the Heacock share was 250 acres, by deed of lease and release dated 11th and 12th of 2nd mo. 1682. He took up his 250 acres Falls Township, Bucks County, and also 50 acres adjacent on rent, the purchase of which he never  completed. Having secured his home in the Pennsylvania, he returned to Staffordshire for his family and died at Slindon 9 mo. 10, 1695. His wife, Jane died 9 mo. 15, 1695. The records of the land office of Pennsylvania show that letters of administration were granted on his estate to Elizabeth Venalbles, a sister to Barrett, and that she sold the 300 acres to Gilbert Wheeler, and that the real estate was resurveyed on 1 mo. 24 1700 - 1701, and patented to James Paxon, a purchaser of Wheeler.




            The earliest settlers in the Delaware Bay area which become Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey were the Swedes and the Dutch. The territory was under the jurisdiction of New Amsterdam in 1664, when that city was captured by the British and became new York.

            In 1861 William Penn received from Charles II a grant of land west of the Delaware river and north of the fortieth degree of latitude, and north of a circle drawn twelve miles north of New Castle. This southern boundary of Pennsylvania became the subject of bitter controversy between the proprietors of Pennsylvania, and the Lords Baltimore, to whom an earlier English king had granted some of the same territory.

            When Penn’s deputy arrived in 1681, not more than 500 white persons resided in the limits of what was to become Chester County. These people lived only on the rivers or tide - water creeks; inland there was but untracked forest, inhabited by a few thousand Indians. There were some Quakers at Upland and a Monthly Meeting was held across the Delaware in Burlington, New Jersey. William Penn had been interested in that colony at an earlier date.

            In 1682 Quaker immigrants began to arrive in numbers. William Penn arrived at New Castle on October 24, 1682, from whence he proceeded to upland, which he renamed Chester. In a letter written from that settlement on December 29, 1682, he said:

            “As to outward things, we are satisfied; the land good, the air clear and sweet, the springs plentiful, and provision good, and easy to come at; an innumerable quantity of wild fowl and fish.

            “Blessed be the lord, that of twenty-three ships none miscarried; only two or three had the small pox, else healthy and swift passages, generally such have not been known; some but twenty-eight days, and a few longer than six weeks.

            There were a number of our family in these first ships: John Sharples, John Heycock who settled in Bucks County, Robert Pyle, Samuel Levis, John Bowater, Benjamen Mendenhall, Christopher Pennock, Robert Stovey, Elizabeth Hickman and her son Robert Chamberlin, Ralph Lewis, and Robert Pennell all arriving before or within four years of Penn. All accounts agree with Penn’s as to the bountifulness of nature in the Delaware Bay region. the deputy governor of East Jersey wrote in 1683:

            “There is not a poor man in all the province, nor that wants; here is abundance of provision; pork and beef at two pence per pound; fish and fowl plenty; oysters, I think, that would serve all England; wheat four shillings sterling per bushel; Indian wheat two shillings and sixpence good venison plenty, brought in to us at eighteen pence for the quarter; eggs at three pence per dozen; all things very plenty; land very good as ever I saw; vines walnuts, peaches, strawberries; and many other things plenty in the woods.”[12]

            Other accounts show the hardship which accompanied settlement. Those newly arrived from the seat of an ancient civilization had difficult adjustments to make. The following was written during the Revolutionary war, based on documents then old:

            “Besides, these adventurers were not all young persons, and to be able to endure the difficulties and hardships which are mostly unavoidable in subdueing a wilderness .... but there were among them persons advanced in years, with women and children; and such as, in their native country had lived will and enjoyed ease and plenty.

            “Their first business, after their arrival, was to land their property, and put it under such shelter as could be found; then while some of them got warrants of survey, for taking up so much land, as was sufficient for immediate settling, others went diversely further into the woods  often  without any path or road, to direct them; for scarce any were to be found above two miles from the water side; not so much as any mark, or sign of any European having been there ......... So that all the country, further than about two miles distant, from the river, ( excepting the Indians movable settlements ) was an entire wilderness, producing nothing for the support of human life, but the wild fruits and animals of the woods.

            “The lodgings of some of these settlers were, at first, in the woods; a chosen tree was frequently all the shelter they had against the inclemency of the weather: This sometimes happened late in the fall, and, even in the winter season. The nest coverings of many of them were, either caves, in the earth, or such huts, erected upon it, as could be most expeditiously procured, till better houses were built; for they had no want of timber.

            “It is impossible that these first adventurers and settlers, who had never seen, nor been accustomed to, such a scene, could, at first, have that proper idea, or method of improving this wilderness, which experience afterwards taught. It is likewise certain, that the great difference, between the finely improved, cultivated open countries, with the near connections, which many of them had left behind, and the appearance of a wild and woody desert, with which they had now to encounter, among savages, must have created, in them, very sensible ideas, and made strong impressions, at first, on their minds: ------that likewise the consideration of the long and painful labour, and inevitable disappointments and hardships, which, more or less, are naturally inseparable from such undertakings, and for a series of years must necessarily be endured, before a comfortable subsistence could be procured in the country, and a sufficient portion of land brought into proper order, for that purpose, must undoubtedly have very affecting to a thoughtful people, in this new, remote and solitary situation”[13]

            The early settlers were fortunate in their relationships with the Indians. During the period of Quaker domination in Pennsylvania, the peace was not broken. The Indians were regarded by the Quakers as children of God, and not as heathens to be murdered with impunity. William Penn bargained with them for each tract of land which the emigrants settled, and the Indians were paid for it. Measures were taken to discourage the selling of liquor to them, although violations occasionally came to the attention of the courts. William Penn wrote in 1683: “We have agreed, that, in all differences between us, six of each side shall end the matter. Do not abuse them (the Indians), but let them have justice, and you win them. The worst is, that they are the worse for the Christians; who have propagated their vices, and yielded them tradition for ill, and not for good things were miserable, indeed, for us to fall under the just censure of the poor Indian conscience, while we make profession of things so far transcending."

            The histories tell of one incident where William Penn's peaceful principles quickly eliminated a potential cause of bloodshed. One day in 1688 it was reported in Chester that 500 Indians were assembled at Naaman's creek to exterminate the whites. The reports were convincing, as places and names of the first victims were given. "The Council were at that time, sitting at Philadelphia on other affairs, when one of them, a friend, supposed to be Caleb Pusey, who lived in Chester County, voluntarily offered himself to go to the place, providing they would name five others to accompany him, without weapons; which being soon agreed on, they rode to the place; but instead of meeting with 500 warriors, they found the old king (Indian Chief) quietly lying, with his lame foot along on the ground, and his head at ease, on a kind of pillow, the women at work, in the field,  and the children playing together.[14] When the unarmed Quakers viewed this scene of peace, the dangerous rumor was discredited.

            Early official records of Chester County contain frequent references to persons connected with the family. Some of the records follow.

            At a court held "the 1st day of ye first weeks in ye 1st month, 1684" "John Gibbons was summoned and att this Cort presented for selling ye Indians Rum" John Mendinghall was guilty of the same offense, "butt upon his petition remitted."

            Commissioners present: John Blunstone, John Simcocke, George Maris, Bartholomew Coppock, Samuel Levis, Robert Wade, Robert Pile. -- Robert Eyre clerk."

            The following does not appear to involve any of our family, but does refer to one of the colleagues of Samuel  Levis and Robert Pyle, mentioned in the above as members of the court: "1682". "J-------- M------- was called to the bar to answer a presentment of the grand jury, for abusing John Bristow and John Simcock, two of the King and Queen's Justices of the peace, in calling them a pack of rogues, and the jury was called & the said M------ did then, in open court, affirm that the said parties was two of the greatest rogues that ever came to America."

            Mach 1687-1688 "The names of ye Constables Chosen to serve ye ensuing year, Middletowne - Robert Pennell."

            List of landholders, 1689, "An Alphabetical List  of lands taken up by several purchasers, Renters and old Renters within the County of Chester and the Quantityes certified by Rob: Longshore to be taken up by them respectively &c: viz



            "Jon. Harding, now Benj. Mendinhall...................................       250

            "Sam'l Levitt (Levis?) ........................................................... 492

            "John Mendinhall...................................................................            300

            "Robert Piles..........................................................................  150

            "Robert Pile............................................................................ 100

            "John Sharples, P Patent........................................................            240

            "John Sharples, P Patent........................................................            330

            "John Sharples, P Patent........................................................            300"

            ( The entire list contains about 250 names. )

            List of Taxables. 1693. The Township of Beathell, Robert Pile 8s. 4d., Nickoles Pile 4s. 2d.: The Township of Concord, John Mendinghall 2s. 6d., Benjamin Mendinghall 3s., Ben. Mendinghall for Tho. Hoope 6s., The Township of Darbye, Samuel Levis 8s. 4d.; The Township of Haverford, Ralph Lewis 2s. 6d.; The Township of Middletowne, Robert Pennell 3s. 4d; The Township of Radner, John Morgan 2s. 8d.; The Township of Ridley, John Sharples ( son) 3s. 4d..... (The entire list contained over 250 names. In Marple where Jonathan Heacock settled some 20 years later, there were only 15 taxables. Marple remained rural - it had only 895 inhabitants in 1910.)

In March 1694 -1695 a tax of one penny per pound was ordered "for finishing the prison and defraying of the old debts & for wolves heads." In October 1695 the Grand Jury found the county to be in debt, and the treasurer "out of purse ....... and that the prison is not yet finished, and several wolves heads to pay for" and levied a new tax of one penny per pound on real and personal property and three shillings per head on freemen. Land was to be valued at one pound per acre if cleared and in tillage, rough land by the river ten pounds per hundred acres and land in the woods five pounds per hundred acres. While this assessment may not represent full value, it indicates that land under tillage was ten times as valuable as unimproved land near the river and twenty times as valuable as unimproved land in the woods. Horses and mares were assessed at three pounds, cows and oxen at two pounds ten shillings, sheep six shillings, male Negroes sixteen to sixty years old twenty - five pounds per Negro, female Negroes twenty pounds. A new list of taxables was prepared in 1696, containing among others the following names not listed in 1693: Concord, Robert Chamberlin; Middletown, John Bowater; Thornbury, Joseph Hickman and Benjamin, Hickman.

            At the July court, 1698, a deed was acknowledged to the justices of the County, among who was Samuel Levis, "for all that piece of land whereon the new court house stands."

            In 1699 the yellow fever devastated Philadelphia and the Chester Court adjourned without transacting any business, presumably due to epidemic. Returning from England for his second residence in the province, William Penn landed at Philadelphia in November, after the yellow fever subsided. In 1700 a tax was laid in Chester County "for repairing the prison and other public charges." The valuation was similar to that of 1695, lands fronting the river were assessed at ten pounds per hundred acres, rough land back, both settled and unsettled, at five pounds per hundred. This compares with the original price of two pounds per hundred acres which John Sharples and other purchasers paid to William Penn.

            10 mo. 9, 1701 "James Sandiland by his attorney, David Lloyd, delivered a deed to John Blunston, Caleb Pusey, Ralph Fishburn, Robert Pile, and Philip Roman for a piece of land being 120 foot square in the township of Chester." The grantees delivered a declaration of trust showing that the property was for the use of the county.

            1701 - 1702. Account of purchases in the Welsh tract by David Powell, surveyor, contained this entry: "and to Robert William, 300 acres."

            The following entries are found in Pennsylvania Archives, Second Series. Volume IX:

            Officers of Chester County

            Coroner: John Mendenhall, October 4, 1726, 1727.

            Justices of the peace: Robert Pyle 1684, April 6,1685,  1692; Samuel Levis 1686, Nov. 2 1689; Nathaniel Newlin Sept. 25, 1703; July 4, 1718, Aug. 25, 1726; Nicholas Pyle 1709, Feb. 19, 1729-30; Joseph Pennock Feb. 19, 1729 - 30, Nov. 22, 1738, April 4, 1741, Dec. 17, 1745, May 19, 1749.

            Members of the Provincial Assembly: Samuel Levis 1686, 1689, 1694, 1698, 1700, 1706 to 1709; Robert Pyle 1688, 1689, 1695, 1699, 1700, 1705; Nathaniel Newlin 1698, 1701, 1705, 1710, 1711, 1713, 1714, 1717, 1722; Nicholas Pyle 1704, 1710, 1711, 1714; Benjamin Mendenhall 1714; Joseph Pennock 1716, 1719, 1720, 1722 to 1724, 1726, 1729, 1732 to 1734, 1743, 1745; Nathaniel  Pennock 1749 to 1755, 1760 to 1768.

            During the interim between his two residences in Pennsylvania, in the year 1693 William Penn was deprived of his proprietary rights by William and Mary, who had overthrown King James II. Penn, who had been a friend of James, was accused of disloyalty to the new rulers, but was later cleared, and Pennsylvania was returned to him. In the meantime, Benjamin Fletcher, Captain General of New York, had been made governor of Pennsylvania. The colonists feared  loss of their rights, and the following letter was addressed to the new governor:

            "The humble address of the freemen of the province of Pennsylvania, presented by their delegates, Members of the Provincial Council, showeth,

            "That whereas, the late King Charles the second, in the thirty - third year of his reign, by letters patent,            under the great seal of England, did, for the consideration herein mentioned, grant unto William Penn and his assigns, this colony..........

            "By virtue, and in pursuance whereof the said Proprietary, William Penn, with the advice and consent of the freemen of this province....  did enact, at that time for the meeting of the freemen, to chuse their deputies, to represent them in Provincial Council ( consisting of three persons out of each county ) should give their attendance, within twenty days after election, in order to propose bills: and the members of the assembly, being six out each county, should meet on the tenth of the third - month, called May, yearly, in order to pass those proposed bills into laws....

            "We, therefore, earnestly desire, that no other measures may be taken for electing, or convening, our legislative power, than our recited laws and constitutions of this government prescribe, ......."

Seven Names are signed to this address including Samuel Lewis ( Levis )

            1735. "To George the Second, King of Great Britain, etc., In Council: The petition of the people called Quakers, from their Quarterly Meeting, held at Concord the 12th day of the third month (May), 1735, comprehending all of that profession who inhabit within the County of Chester, in the Province of Pennsylvania, and the Countys of New Castle, Kent, and Sussex on Delaware in America, Humbly Sheweth,

            "That the majority of the first adventurers for settling and cultivating these counties under William Penn, our late proprietor and Governor, being Quakers, chearfully transported themselves and familys from their native land that they might in this Retreat enjoy Ease and Quiet.....

            "That the few of these first adventurers who are yet alive among with their Descendants and Successors on the borders of Maryland perceiving that the Ld. Baltimore by his commissioners declin'd executing the agreement for settling the boundaries, and hearing of the threatening us'd by some of the inhabitants of that Colony that the said Ld. Baltimore would use his endeavors to possess our Lands and our Labor ....... "

            ".......everything we hear and feel raises in our minds and establishes our dependance on thy Justice and Benevolence, Giving us the Assurance humbly to beseech thee to take our case into consideration, and then we have good cause to hope That the prayer of the Petition of Charles Ld Baltimore for a grant of that part of the Peninsula which was inhabited by Europeans Before the date of the Charter granted by King Charles the first to his predecessors, and never posses'd or cultivated by them..... Will appear too unreasonable to be granted, and that Our King will be graciously pleas'd to continue to us the Liberty we have Long Enjoyed."

            The above excerpts from the petition to the king indicate the basis for opposition to the claim of Lord Baltimore for the territory granted by King Charles I to the proprietor of Maryland and by King Charles II to William Penn. The colonists held that the original grant to the Baltimores was invalid because the land was, at the time, settled by the Dutch and the Swedes, and was not the king's to give.  At the time of the grant to Penn, it had been captured from the Dutch and ceded to England. The petition was signed by over 200 Quakers, including: Joseph Pennock, John Sharples, William Pennock, Benj. Meddenhall, John Mendenhall, Saml. Levis, Samuel Lewis, Joseph Sharples, and other familiar names.

            In 1736 Thomas Cresap, a man wanted for murder in Lancaster County, was used by the adherents of Maryland to attempt to oust some German residents from the disputed area. Thomas Penn, son of William Penn, was then in Philadelphia as proprietor and governor, and he addressed the following letter to Joseph Pennock and others:

 "Gentlemen -- As a most wicked conspiracy hath been lately discovered to be carried on by several of the inhabitants of your county in conjunction with the Governor of Maryland, with intention by force of arms to turn out of their Houses and Plantations the persons and familys of  more than fifty of his majestys subjects inhabiting this province, the execution of which it is very probable might have been attended by the most unhappy consequences to the people, on both sides, and to the very great disturbance of the King's peace: and as it is absolutely necessary, in order to apply a proper remedy to so dangerous a disorder, that some persons should use their endeavors to discover any besides those whose names wee already have that are concerned in the association, and that any who are leaders, and on whom others will depend, may be committed as disturbers of the peace till they can find security, or be otherwise discharged by due course of the law.


            “I have thought proper to desire that you would do in this acceptable service to your country as well as to myself, and believe it would be convenient for you to call at the house of  Wm. Miller with Jeremiah Starr and Robert Smith, or any other persons likely to inform you of the true state of this ill designed affair.......

                                                                                    Your very Loving Friend,

                                                                                                Tho. Penn”

Philadelphia, November the 18th, 1736.

            On November 23, Joseph Pennock and the other addressees acknowledged the letter from Thomas Penn, promising: “We shall make the best Enquiry that we possibly can for the future to discover all persons now or that shall be hereafter concerned in such vile practices, ....."

            The investigations were made, and indicate that the Governor of Maryland was involved in the instigation of the trouble, and in the arming of Cresap and his Confederates. Cresap was captured and kept in irons for some time.

            England declared war on France on March 29, 1744, and in 1753 the French invaded Western Pennsylvania, and succeeded in arousing the Indians against the British and the  Colonists. In 1756 the Delaware Indians had joined the French and attacked the frontier settlements. The Governor of Pennsylvania was no longer a Quaker, and he declared war on the Delawares, but through the instrumentality of the Quakers and the friendly Indians, the trouble was soon ended. Some Quakers enlisted in the armies, and were disowned by their meetings, others were disowned for seeming too ready to furnish wagons and provisions for Braddock's expedition and other military undertakings. The legislature had a Quaker majority, but it voted liberal funds "for the king's use", which were actually war appropriations. On October 16, 1756, Mahlon Kirkbridge, William Hoge, Peter Dicks, and Nathanial Pennock of Chester and Bucks Counties resigned from the seats to which they had been elected in the Provincial Assembly, that they might be filled by persons whose religious principles would allow them to prepare without scruple all laws necessary for the defense of the province.

            In November 1755 there arrived in Philadelphia three ships of Acadian exiles, the people whose sufferings were the subject of Longfellow's "Evangeline". In March the assembly passed "an act for dispersing the inhabitants of Nova Scotia, imported into this Province, into the several counties of Philadelphia, Bucks, Chester, and Lancaster", and one of the commissioners to carry out the act in Chester County was Nathanial Pennock.



            Jonathan Heacock and his wife Ann set out for America shortly after their marriage, which took place at the Wolverhampton Monthly Meeting, according to "Early Friends and Families". The date of their marraige shown in the Till family tree is obviously false, as Ann Till was only twelve years old on the date shown there. The story of the emigration is best told by T. Reece Heacock, who evidently had seen John's diary when he wrote his history of the Heacock Family in 1869. He writes:

            We have received it traditionally that three brothers emigrated to America: Jeremiah Heacock who settled near Wilmington Delaware, who remained single, Jonathan whose line we are considering, and the third brother who settled near Boston, Mass., and whose descendants are scattered through the Western country, the latter spell their name Heacox.

            We find in an old account book kept by Jonathan Heacock the following memoranda in his own handwriting.

            Jonathan Heacock Feb. 27th. -- direct for Joseph Heacock at Jonathan Harrison's in Trione Corte in Red Lion Street, Spittlefield, London.

            Jonathan Heacock and Ann his wife went on board the Three Sisters, the 13th of Mar. 1710 - 11, bound to Bellfast in Ireland, the 14th instant.

            Sent a letter on the 20th of instant from Ireland to Staffordshire.

            Sent a letter the 19th of the 2nd month from Belfast Lough in Ireland by the Nupten Bregeteen bound for Liverpool, and came from Barbados.

            Left Ireland the 23rd and came to Loughrane Scotland on the same day, about 1 o'clock in the afternoon.

            Sayled from thence the 26th at one o'clock in the morning.

            It would appear from his accounts kept with individuals that he was a dealer in wool and manufactured worsted drugget, tammy &c. At first he rented, but aftrerwards he purchased a farm in Marple near the Springfield Township line, and cleared it.

            Prior to their departure the Heacocks obtained a certificate from the Friends Monthly Meeting at Wolverhampton, Staffordshire, which was dated 12 mo. 13, 1711. This certificate was not presented to the Chester Monthly Meeting until 7 mo. 29, 1718, and the whereabouts of Jonathan and Ann during this seven year interval are unknown. It was during this interim that four of their six children were born, and it may cover the period of their renting, before purchasing the property in Marple. The farm in Marple was about ten miles from Philadelphia. Jonathan died in 1764 at the age of about 84, after an eventful life, having withstood the dangers of an ocean voyage and the hardships of pioneer life to establish the Heacock family in this country.




            The history of the Till family, insofar as it is preserved is condensed into the family tree on the preceding page, which has been copied from Lloyd Manuscripts. This publication appears to be based on careful examination of the records in England made near the beginning of this century for William Lloyd, who is descended from Jonathan Heacock through his son, John.

            The name of John till appears in the early Quaker records as one of the victims of persecution. Besse "Sufferings" contains these records in the chapter on Staffordshire:

            ANNO 1666:

            Vincent Heawood and his son, William for fines on them for absence from the National Worship had Goods taken away to the value of 16s. And for the same cause Thomas Woolrich, Peter Littleton, John Till, Edward Scotson and James Kendal, were committed to prison.

            ANNO 1672. In this year King Charles the Second issued his letters for a general discharge of the people called Quakers, then in prison for diverse causes therein mentioned, in consequence of which Thomas Taylor, Thomas Woolrich, Peter Littleton, Edward Scotson, John Till, and James Kendal, were set at liberty; the first of them after ten years, and the other five after about six years imprisonment.

            ANNO 1674.   The meetings of this people in the town of Stafford were several times molested by Thomas Ward, their mayor, and his officers: He sent one of them to prison for preaching, and another for a Misdemeanor in telling him a displeasing truth, viz. That persecution was of the Devil.

            ANNO 1675 ......Also John Till, of whitegrave for the 2s. 6d. demanded by William Bailey, Priest of the parish called St. Marys in Stafford, for Tithe - rent had taken from him pewter and bedding to the value of 2 l.  Taken this year in Corn and hay for tithes from John Preston of Tervall, John Till of Whitegrove and John Hall of Wall, to the value of 20l. 7s..

            This John Till is referred to by T. Reece Heacock as the father of Ann Till, but Lloyd Manuscripts, which is more authentic, shows that he was her grandfather's brother.

            The General Pardon of 1672 under which John Till was released, also provided for the release of John Bunyon, author of "Pilgrim's Progress", although he was not a Quaker.


(Endorsed) Order of the Council for the Quakers general pardon.

At the Court at  Whitehall

the 8th of May 1672

The King's most excellent Majesty,

            Whereas his majesty of his Princely Clemency was graciously pleased to direct that letters should be written from this board to the Sheriffs of the respective Counties and Cities and Countries within his Majesty's Kingdom of England and Dominion of Wales, requiring then to return perfect lists or Calendars of the Names times and causes of commitment of all such prisoners called Quakers as remaine in their several Goales, or prisons, which they accordingly did, and the same were by order of his Majesty in Council of the third of this instant delivered into the hands of the right Honorable the Lord Keeper of the great seal of England, who having been considered thereof did this day return them again them again together with his opinion thereupon as followeth, vizt.

            The returnes that are made touching the prisoners in the several Goales are of several Kindes.

1          All such of them as are returned to be convicted to be Transported or to be Convicted of a Priemunire (upon which convictions I suppose judgment was given) are not legally to be discharged but by his Majestys pardon under the great seale.

2          All those that are returned to be in prison upon writs of Excommunicato Capiendo not mentioning the cause ought not to be discharged till the cause appeares, for if it be for Tithes, Legacies, Defamation or other private interest, they ought not to bee discharged till the party be satisfied.

3          All those that are returned to prison for debt of upon Exchequer process or any of the other courts at Westminster, are not to be Discharged till it be knowne for what cause those processes were issued and those debts to be discharged.

4          Those that are in prison for not paying their fines ought not to be discharged without paying their fines or a Pardon. All the rest I conceive may be discharged.Which being this day taken into consideration his Majesty was graciously pleased to declare, that he will pardon all persons called Quakers, now in prison for any offense committed relating only to his Matie and not to the prejudice of any other person. And it was thereupon ordered his Majesty in council that a list of the names of the  Quakers in the several prisons, together with the causes of their commitment be and is herewith sent to his Majestys Attorney General who is required and authorized to prepare a bill for his Majestys Royal Signature containing a pardon to pass the great seale of England, for all such to whom his Majesty may legally grant the same and in case of any difficultie that he attend the Lord Keeper and receive his Directions therein.

A General pardon to Quaker prisoners in the goals several counties of England, for all offenses, contempts and misdemeanors by them or any of them committed before the day of last agt several statutes, in not coming to church, and hearing diuing service, in refusing to take the oath of allegiance and Supremacy and frequenting seditious Conventicles and c and of all premunires Judgment convictions sentences and excommunications and c.12th  June 1672




            From T. Reece Heacock's book: The children of Jonathan and Ann Heacock as we find their names entered in an ancient Bible;

            Mary,               born 26th of  3rd mo. 1712

            John,                born 23rd of  9th mo. 1713

            Jonathan,         born 10th of  3rd mo. 1715

            William,        born 13th of  1st mo. 1718 - 1719

            Ann,                 born 11th of 12th mo. 1718 - 1719

            Joseph,             born 31st of  3rd mo. 1722

            Only two of the children remained in Chester ( now Delaware) county, the eldest son John and the youngest, Joseph, who married Hannah Massey and settled on his father's homestead in Marple. His youngest son, James, who inherited the property in turn, never married and with his death the property passed out of the family.