The below story was written by J. Russell Bullock in his book entitled INCIDENTS IN THE LIFE AND
TIMES OF STUKELEY WESTCOTE, with some of his descendants; printed in 1886 (50 original copies). Copied and typed in sections to be printed in the WESTCOTT FAMILY QUARTERLY, by Lorraine A. Carrington, descendant, for the reading enjoyment of all interested Westcott descendants. Retyped for the website by the webmaster.

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3

It appears that after the death of Stukeley Westcote’s wife, his son Amos went with his family to live at the homestead of his father, and took care of him until the latter was driven away by the Indians to Portsmouth, where he died. This was probably the reason why Westcote, by his unexecuted will, gave this homestead estate to his grandson, Amos, junior, the eldest son of his son Amos, and why the Town Council in the will they made gave the same estate to Amos, senior, for life, and upon his death to Amos, junior, in fee. Amos, the son, died prior to 1688, having on the 23rd day of January, 1685-6, deeded all of his estate to his wife, Deborah; and on the 18th day of May, 1688, his son, Amos, junior, who seems not to have been a very thrifty young man, borrows of his step-mother, Deborah, £3, for a term of three years, giving her for the use of it a life estate in the homestead farm, and agrees further that if he did not pay his stepmother this loan when due, she should have the Estate in fee forever. Amos, junior, died in 1692 without paying the £3, and Deborah remained in possession and claimed the Estate.

In the meantime, Zerobabel Westcote, who resided in “Kingstowne” and who was the eldest son of the deceased Robert, who was the eldest son of Stukeley, became of age, and taking legal advice is informed of the English law of primogeniture, as well as of the invalidity of the unsigned will of his grandfather, and also of the invalidity of the will made by the Town Council. Whereupon Zerobabel, in November 1697, brings art action of “detainure” as it is called, against Deborah to recover possession of the homestead estate of his grandfather Stukeley, and after two trials at law, recovers judgment for possession. The situation of Deborah, the widow of Amos, now becoming precarious, she summons to her aid her father, Samuel Stafford, and her step-son, Abraham Lockwood. Stafford and Lockwood petition the Town Council in Deborah’s behalf to establish the unexecuted will of Stukeley Westcote, for if this can be established, it was thought the title to the Estate in question would be vested in Amos, junior through whom she claimed her title.”

This action of the Town Council upon this petition is best stated in the words of the decree itself. It reads as follows: ‘Wee the Towne Counsell of Warwick being assembled the 15th of February 1694 at the house of Capt. Peter Greene, upon the application by petition presented unto us by Samuel Stafford and Abraham Lockwood, in behalf of the widow Deborah Westcot, concerning a controversle raised concerning the Estate of Mr. Stukely Westcott late of Warwick deceased, which Estate the aforesaid widow hath been peaceably possessed on several years past, and to make the mather more piainly apeare before the Counsell have produced the last will and testament of the said Stukely Westcott deceased as being proved by three positive testimonies taken before Major John Greene Deputy Governor the first of November 1695.”

Whereupon the present Town Counsell saw cause to peruse what hath bin done by the former Counsell in the year 1677, January the eleventh, and upon examination of the mather do find that the Counsell then through a misunderstanding being ignorant of the law of England that approves of a will so made and witnesses thereto, although a person be disabled to sign and seal thereunto shall be effectual, and also wee being better informed, that the Town Counsell have not power to dispose of lands in case a person had died intestate. But the Counsell taking the matter into their serious consideration concerning the written will bearing date January 12, 1674 and atested before the Deputy Gov. John Greene, the first of November 1695 by three witnesses, we cannot but declare our opinions that it is sufficient probation thereof’.”

The tenor of this decree, in language not only quaint, but somewhat involved and ambiguous, recites: that more than a year before its date oral testimony had been taken before Deputy Gov, John Greene to prove this unsigned will and then proceeds to overrule the action of the Town Council of Jan. 1677, in language anything but complimentary to the legal knowledge of this latter’s body, and in effect establishes the unexecuted will as a valid will, and this, too, after more than twenty years had passed since it was first prepared for signature. This last decree, however, does not seem to have stayed the hand of the Sheriff armed as he was with a writ from a higher court ordering him to put Deborah out of the possession and Zorobabel into possession of the disputed estate. Deborah therefore next applies to the General Assembly for relief, styling it a “Court of Chancery or Conscience”. In her petition for relief from this judgment of court, which is addressed “To the Honored Governo’ Deputie Governo’ Assistants and Deputies of his Majesties Collony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations sitting in a General! Asembly at Warwick October 27th, 1697”, and which she terms “The humble Petition and complaint of Deborah Westcote of Warwick Widow”, she represents:

‘‘ That whereas my father in law Stukely Westcote toward the latter end of his life by reason of age and weaknesse of body atending, was very much disabled to take care of himself or his affaires of his house, and therefore was willing his son Amos (my late husband) should continue with him in his old age which accordingly was done for many years; many expressions at sundry times spoken which divers neighbors are not ignorant of, that his son Amos should enjoy after him the greatest part of what himself was possest of, which did also appear that he so determined by his written will though it wanted sighning and scale thereunto. And we peacably were possessed of what the ancient gentlemen bestowed on us and enjoyed the same without molestation, we also were ingadged in payment of debts, which we were diligent to performe as we had ability, yet not withstanding of Cate Zorobabel Westcote hath fomented an action of detainure which hath bin brought to a triall at the comon law once and againe which hath carried against yo’ petitioner, which brings a saying to mind that extream right may be extreame wrong, for if your petitioner should be disposest of that meanes of livlyhood which she at present enjoyed it must be of necessity her utter ruination, yo’ poore petitioner not being able otherwise to raise meanes to provide for herselfe and especially such as one as of necessity and depend upon her (note: this refers to her step-son Solomon, who was retarded from birth) which hath caused this apeale to this honoured Assembly Court of Chancery or Conscience for reliefe in this case.
Yo’ petitioner doth most humbly pray, earnestly request and suplicate this hono’ assembly that you will please to take this matter into yo’ serious consideration, that your poore petitioner may be the object of your compassion so farre that the extremity of law may be abated execution stopped and yo’ petitioner continued in her possession being her proven right, and yo’ petitioner shall ever pray, etc.’’

What action, if any, was taken by the General Assembly upon this petition, doth not appear, as no records of that session are to be found, either in the town of Warwick or in the office of the Secretary of State. The fact, however, that Zorobabel subsequently conveyed the Stukely Westcote homestead place to his brother Robert, who on the 14th day of June 1708, sold it to Moses Lippitt (of John, of John) the ancestor of all of that name in Rhode Island, in whose possession and in the possession of whose descendants it remained until a comparatively recent period, shows that what Deborah in her petition calls “extreme right”, meaning thereby probably the strict rules of the law, prevailed in the end over all of the equities so forcibly presented in her petition to the General Assembly.

The case of Westcote was not the only case in which the Town Council of Warwick assumed to make wills for persons dying intestate. At a very early day in the history of the town. John Greene and Randall Holden, both men of influence, placed upon record their opinions that the Town Council possessed this power. This was followed in 1666 by an official declaration by the Council that if any person “shall die intestate,” the Council “shall dispose, bequeath and distribute the whole estate, and draw up a writing thereof” for record, “which writing shall stand and bee authentick for the will of the dead.” As early as 1648, they proceeded to make a will for Rufus Barton, renewing and confirming it in 1666. Before June, 1656, they made one for Robert Cole Then they made one for Robert Potter. In 1663, they made one for John Smith, senior. In 1659, they not only made a will for Ezekiel Holliman, who baptised Roger Williams, but appointed a committee of two of their number to wait upon Mary, his widow, and demand her formal acceptance of it, and of the office of executrix under it.

These proceedings of the Town Council of Warwick, and also like proceedings in some of the other towns, furnish an interesting commentary upon the manner in which judicial power was exercised by the inferior and local tribunals in those early days. By the Law of England, as well as by the statute of the colony, no unsigned will was of any effect, and no signed will was effectual to pass property unless attested in the presence of the testator by the signature of three or more witnesses. By the statute of 1647, Town Councils were empowered to take possession of the estates of persons dying intestate, and distribute it among his heirs. But this law conferred no power to make a will for the intestate, nor was it intended to confer any such authority, thus substituting themselves, not only in the place of the intestate, but also in the place of the ‘‘Statutes of Descent’’ to determine who should inherit his estate. Both the lay, of primogeniture and the statutes of 22d and 23d of Charles II (1682-83) were then in force in the colony; the latter regulating the mode of distributing the personal estate of intestate, and the former, passing the real estate to his eldest son, and if he was dead, then to his eldest son.

But we would not forget that these sturdy and self-reliant “non conformists’’ cherished no deep regard for the laws of England, whose rigorous enactments had driven them from the homes of their fathers, through many trials, here. At the advent of ‘‘The Commonwealth.’’ believing it to be the harbinger of a larger freedom, they hastened to yield to it their allegiance, and reluctantly tore from their records and concealed the evidence of their loyalty when the monarchy was restored. They ignored, so far as they could, such laws of the mother country as seemed to them unequal or unjust, and appealed to its authority only when their jurisdiction or rights were menaced by the stronger Colonies surrounding them on either side. A century later, James Arnold, the assistant, and William and Jacob Greene, Charles Holden. Jun., and John Waterman, the Deputies from this ancient town, descendants from its early settlers, truly voiced the sentiments of the men of Warwick when, two full months before the great “Declaration of Independence,” they heartily joined in the passage of the Colonial Assembly of an act abjuring all allegiance to the British crown, and striking forever from the arms of the Colony, and from all of its Executive, Legislative and Judicial Acts and Precepts, every existing symbol and insignia of royalty.

Investigations are in progress to learn the parish in which Westcote was born and of his parentage, the maiden name of his wife, and the pursuits he followed anterior to his departure from the mother country. (Note: Mr. Whitman found that Stukely Westcott was married to Juliana Marchant at the old church at Yeovil, England). His name would imply and he doubtless was a descendant of the “St. Leger Westcot” who about the year 1300 intermarried with a daughter of the line of the Stukeleys of Affeton. Inquiries now incomplete may upon future investigation confirm a belief which already exists, that his ancestors are to be found of that old nobility who ruled England prior to the “Conquest” but whose rank and whose politician importance were measurably lessened by the coming of those titled Normans into the land coincident with the advent of William the Conqueror. Thrust down through these Saxon nobles were, as Freeman says, yet they lost nothing of their ancient pride and independence, but became in time the stout gentry and the sturdy and prosperous freeholders, who were and who yet remain the strength of the realm.

What manner of man Stukely Westcote was can be gathered only from the known incidents of his life. From his known religious views in America, Stukely Westcote must in England have been a “Separatist”. To entertain such views during the reign either of the first James or the first Charles, were to close to him even avenue of social or political preferment. Arriving at Salem (Mass.), his zeal gathered new strength, for he declared that he wished the churches of Massachusetts to be true churches, and to hold no communion with the Church of England. He agreed with Roger Williams that it was needful to confess to the wrong done in communion with that church while there. In crossing the ocean at this early day, bringing with him his wife and his children; in leaving Salem after a residence of two years. and traversing with them on foot the uninhabited forests and swamps that then stretched from the bay of Massachusetts to the Narragansett — shows that he was no dissembler, no man who to gain his peace would affect opinions he did not entertain; that he had deep conviction of duty, and a determined will to go where and do what duty demanded, at any sacrifice. His following of Roger Williams to Providence, and with him laboring to organize there a form of government whose earliest legislation declared that no man should be holden to answer before the civil law for his religious opinions, shows that the same freedom of conscience he claimed for himself he was willing to allow to others.

That Stukely Westcote was a man of good character and of upright life is apparent from what has already been written. He was a freeman of the Colony of “Massachusetts Bay” at a time when none were received as such but members of the church. He was an intimate friend of Roger Williams, and as such was first named by him in his deed of gift of the lands at Providence to his associates. He was one of the founders of the First Baptist church there. On settling at “Old Warwick” he with five others at once united in forming a church there, whose simple yet comprehensive creed was to “support in faith and practice the principles of Christ’s doctrine.” That he was esteemed a man of sound judgment, and worthy of the confidence of his fellow-men, is evidenced by his having been eight times chosen a member of the Colonial Assembly, and twice selected as one of the General Assistants to the Governor, retiring from public duties only when he had nearly attained the allotted years of man.
Stukely Westcote had five children, three sons and two daughters. Robert, the eldest, one of the original purchasers of Quidnesset (Wickford), and who was killed by the Indians in the War of 1675. Amos, born 1631, and who died prior to 1688. Jeremiah, who died in 1686. Damaris, who married Benedict Arnold (son of the first William), and who was Governor of the Colony from Nov. 1663 to May 1666, and from May 1669 to 1672, and again from May 1677 until the time of his death in office on the 20th day of June 1678. And Mercy, who died March 25th, 1700, and who married Samuel Stafford, the son of Thomas well known in the early history of the Colony.

Religious, and not worldly considerations, undoubtedly led Westcote to leave England and come to America. But like William Blackstone, the first white man whose feet first trod the banks of that river which for more than two centuries has borne his name, Stukely Westcote soon found that he had fled from the “lord bishops” only to fall into the hands of the “lords brethren”. It was not enough that he had left the home of his youth and the graves of his ancestors, and had crossed an ocean and reached a distant and almost unknown continent. It only remained to him to suffer the degradation of imprisonment or to pass beyond the remotest limits of both the Massachusetts and Plymouth patents. And it was not until, weary with long and pathless journeying, he had crossed the “Seaconk” and reached the “Watchcare”, “Welcome”, shore, already consecrated through all coming time to the cause of religious freedom, that he was permitted in peace and safety to worship God according to the convictions of a matured, and it would seem, also, of a thoughtful and earnest life.

And now, in looking back over that life in the light of the few fragmentary records which remain, may not his posterity, scattered in many States, cherish a just pride in that they have descended from one who was willing, first, to incur the manifold discomforts and sacrifices of self-exile from the land of his nativity, and then to bear the stigma of excommunication from the church of which he was a member, and of expulsion from the settlement where he had just established his home, and of which he was a peaceable citizen, rather to abandon, or feign to abandon, a principle then abjured, but now acknowledged by the entire Protestant word as resting upon that immutable foundation — Truth.

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3