Janet and Robert Wolfe Genealogy --- Go to Genealogy Page for Thomas Lucas

Notes for Thomas Lucas

["Mary Lucas, Probable Wife of Nathaniel Atwood" by Mrs. John E. Barclay in "The American Genealogist" v 41 p 200]
Thomas Lucas, a blacksmith, was the first of the name in Plymouth Colony, date of his arrival unknown, but his name first appears in the Town Records 27 (6m) 1650 in a long list of townsmen. His name was not found in the first two volumes of Plymouth Colony Court Orders (1633-51), but beginning with volume 3: 110 (3 Feb 1656) until his death in 1679, in the twenty-five times he is mentioned, sixteen records are for drunkenness. He even 'presented himself in Court distempered with drinke' and reviled the magistrates. The records show they were at first very lenient with him but he tried their patience and he was publicly whipped, put in the stocks, finally sentenced to prison for 24 hours. He was also presented 'for abusing his children and wife to her danger' and placed under bonds for good behavior. All to no avail. The 1 June 1675 records show the Court had tried every means: 'Thomas Lucas for being distempered with drinke, it being soe oftens, and that hee hath borne severall pticular punishments gradually, and can not be reclaimed, it was ordered concerning him, that all that sell drinke be stricktly ordered and prohibited to lett him have none' (Pymouth Col. Court Orders 5: 169). Finally, at Court held 8 Mar 1678/9: 'The sixt day of January, 1678, being warned upon a jury to view the body of Thomas Lucase, of Plymouth, deceased, and to make inquiry how hee came by his end, wee, whose names are under written, find it as followeth: hee being very ancient & decriped in his limbes and it being very cold, and haveing drunk some drinke, gott a violent fall into a ditch, in a very dangerous place, could not recover himselfe, but bruised his body, and lying all night in the cold, soe hee came by his end' (ibid. 6: 7-8). The Shurtleff Genealogy is in error when it states on page 37 that 'Thomas Lucas was killed in King Philip's War.'
We have no record of his age nor his marriage; neither do we know the name of his wife. It seems probable from the birth records of his children (those that were recorded) that he was married in this country about 1655, but his wife is never mentioned by name in any record. Even in the settlement of his estate, she is simply 'the widow.' There is no evidence of her age but their first recorded child was born July 1656 and the last two, unrecorded, probably 1665 and 1667. She was living when his estate was settled in 1679 but no further record of her is found. "From the settlement of the estate, (Plym. Col. Ct. Orders 6:5), dated 8 Mar 1678/9, 'the widow shall have free use of the housing and lands until her sones come of age, and then her thirds of the benefits during her natural life and the sume of L38 of movables ... and use of the whole until the children come to their respective ages or marriages; Benonie, the eldest son, the house and half the garden plott, halfe the barn, three acrees meaddow and grant of four acrees excepting his mother's thirds and the sum of L11.6 in personal estate; Mary Lucas and Bethya Lucas each L12 and Mehitable Lucas L10.'
The widow Lucas must have been a woman of good character and reputation, for all her children married well and were held in good repute. It is signigicant that none of them named a son Thomas for their father. Both Benoni and Samuel were made freemen June 1689, and in 1690 Samuel was made Ensign and was on the Jury many times.