The following material is a continuation of my previous information and is verbatim from Historical and Genealogical Miscellany, Early Settlers of New Jersey and their Descendants by John E. Stillwell, M.D., Vol. IV< New York, 1916, p. 300 et seq. Patty Myers About March, 1644, the Indians were vanquished, and on Apr. 6, and Apr. 16, 1644, Sachems from various tribes concluded a new peace at Fort Amsterdam. It was in one of these two enlistments that Richard Stout served with Robert Pennoyer and other fellow soldiers, and I am inclined to think it was in the first one. At that time, Lady Moody and her party had not arrived and he [Richard Stout] was naturally free, but during the second enlistment, Gravesend having been settled and he, doubtless, one of its inhabitants, it was naturally incumbent upon him to remain with its defensive company. The supposition that Richard Stout was employed at the Fort in the Spring uprising of 1643, rather than in the Fall and Winter of 1643 and 1644, and that he left New Amsterdam, with Lady Moody, in the Summer of 1643, to found Gravesend, is confirmed by the following record from the Calendar of New York Historical Manuscripts, which establishes a date for his residence at Gravesend: "Octoberr 13th, 1643, Richard Aestin, Ambrose Love[?] and Richard Stout made declarations that the crew of the Seven Stars and of the privateer landed at the farm of Anthony Jansen, of Salee, in the Bay, and took off 200 pumpkins, and would have carried away a lot of hogs from Coney Island had they not learned that they belonged to Lady Moody." Thus far we have ascertained that Richard Stout was a resident of New Amsterdam in the Spring of 1643, when he was employed by Governor Kieft as a soldier in the February uprising of that year; that he accompanied Lady Moody, with other settlers, to found Gravesend, between her arrival in June, and October of this same year. How much earlier than February, 1643, Richard Stout may have been in New Amsterdam, it is idle to speculate upon. In the first allotments of house lots and farms in Gravesend, Feb. 20, 1646, he received Plantation lot No. 16, upon which he evidently grew tobacco, for Oct. 26, 1649, John Thomas bought, for two hundred and ten guilders, Richard Stout's crop of Tobacco. Gravesend Town Records In 1657, of his twenty acre farm he had seventeen acres under cultivation. 1661, Apr. 5. He bought an adjoining farm of Edward Griffin. 1663, Oct. 8. Richard Stout was plaintiff in a slander suit in Gravesend, and won his case. Even with his double farm of forty acres, Richard Stout realized its insufficiency to maintain and settle a rapidly growing family, so that he, with other neighbors, similarly situated, turned to the adjacent and easily reached country, whose wooded hills could be seen towards the South, which was the spot where his wife had had her bitter experience among the Indians, and of whose attractions she had doubtless spoken, prompting him to scout its woods in search of game, and finally in search of land for a new home for himself and family. That this settlement occurred before 1664, I doubt, though the Stout manuscript, and Mrs. Seabrook, probably from the same source, say explicitly, that it was in the year 1648, and that Stout was associated with five additional settlers, among whom Mrs. Seabrook named Bowne, Lawrence, Grover and Whitlock. To this earlier settlement, Edwards makes no allusion, nor can it be said that Smith does, but to the contrary, he fixes the date of Stout! 's settlement practically about the time of 1665, or a little later, for he mentions the event, as does Edwards, of an uprising when Penelope's old time Indian friend saved her by a timely warning, which Smith says occurred, when there "were supposed to be about fifty families of white people, and five hundred Indians inhabiting these parts." Surely this must relate to a later date than 1648, for so many white families could only have been assembled in this district after the Monmouth Patent had been issued by Governor Nicolls; further, a study of the movements of the Stouts, Bownes, Lawrences, Grovers and Whitlocks does not encourage the belief that they were permanently settled on the Monmouth Tract much before 1665. At times members of these families may have been temporarily camped out in this district for hunting or prospecting, and it may have been on one of these occasions that Penelope Stout received the warning from her Indian friend of the threatened uprising, and ! the need of her immediate removal, and, indeed, this event, given by Smith, Edwards and the Stout manuscript, could only have occurred during such a temporary occupation, for, in 1665, or later, Penelope's Indian saviour would have been more than twenty-two years older than he was in 1643, the date of Penelope's supposed arrival, when he was already an old man. Add these years to this old man's age and he would have been pretty patriarchal. Again, Smith's account says Penelope took her children with her, which would probably refer to a late, rather than to an early event, as in 1665, her family was largely grown, yet some were young, being born after 1654. Another statement in Smith's account contradicts the idea of a 1648 settlement, for he states that, "A while after marrying to one Stout, they lived together at Middletown among other Dutch inhabitants." As a matter of fact, the accredited associates of Stout, in his 1648 settlement, were English from Gravesend, and there is no knowledge of any Dutch in this locality till long after the Monmouth Patent was granted. When the conclusion was reached that it was vital to abandon the crowded settlement of Gravesend, a number of the settlers from that village, and a few from adjacent towns, to the number of twenty, sailed in a sloop, in the early part of December, 1663, up the Raritan River, and began negotiations with the Sachems for the purchase of lands. These proceedings were interrupted by a company of Dutchmen, who, cruising about in one of the company's sloops, heard of the presence of the English, and suspecting their purpose, notified the Sachems, of the Raritans and the Navesinks, not to bargain with them, whereupon the English went to the shores at the mouth of the Navesink, where, again, for a second time, a sharp passage at words occurred between them. The Dutch, for some time, had realized the desire of the English to throw over their allegiance, and were alert to impress them with the need of fealty, so that no progress was apparently made by the English settlers in their nego! tiations for lands, at this time. It was, probably, however, in anticipation of the expected overthrow of the Dutch, that this expedition was undertaken, and the consummation of this event, in the year following, 1664, with the proclamation of Governor Stuyvesant's successor, Richard Nicolls, of certain concessions, promptly brought about organized effort to locate in the territory which they had so recently prospected. Among those who moved to avail themselves of this golden opportunity, was Richard Stout, who, with others, patentees and associates, bought the Sachem's rights to the land embraced in the future Monmouth Patent, Apr. 8, 1665, which was confirmed to twelve of them, of whom he was one. When ready to remove to this new tract, Richard Stout disposed of his Gravesend property to Mr. Thomas Delaval, a prosperous merchant of New York, who seems to have meditated making his residence at Gravesend, and perhaps actually did so, as he is named as a Patentee in at least one of the patents of the town. . . . The date of Richard Stout's arrival, and permanent settlement on the Monmouth Tract, was 1664, as established by his claims for lands under the Grants and Concessions. . . . . 1675. Here begins the Rights of Lands due, according to Concessions. Richard Stout brings for his rights, for the year 1665, for his wife, two sons, John and Richard, 120 acres each; total 480 acres. Items for his sons and daughters yt are come voyge [of age?] since the year 1667, namely, James, Peter, Mary, Alice and Sarah, each 60 acres; total 300 acres. John Stout, of Middletown, for himself and wife..... 240 acres James Stout for his owne right 60 acres. Peter Stout for his owne right 60 acres. Sarah Stout for her owne right 60 acres. James Bowne, in right of his wife, Mary Stout, 240 acres. John Throckmorton, in right of his wife, Alice Stout, 240 acres Lib. 3, East Jersey Deeds, A. side, p. 1. ___________________________________ I guess this is enough on Stouts. I would like to add that there is some misinformation on the net about the Bollen family that married into Stout. Unfortunately people copy from other people and nobody seems to check out the material to see if it's correct. And misinformation gets passed around very quickly. Over and over again I have found on the net the erroneous statement that Jonathan-2 Stout (Richard-1) married Ann Throckmorton Bollen. Her name was Ann or Anna Bollen. She did not have a middle name of Throckmorton. I believe this error comes about because Alice-2 Stout (Richard-1) married John Throckmorton. Unthinking researchers, who believe that finding their ancestors is a matter of clicking a mouse and nothing more, make a lot of mistakes! Peter Stout m. a sister of Ann(a) Bollen. Her name has been given as Mary, but I have not found anything to substantiate this. Stillwell says Peter Stout m. a Miss Bullen. The second wife of Peter Stout was Mary Bowne. Perhaps people put Miss Bullen and Mary Bowne together and came up with Mary Bollen. Capt. James-1 Bollen, Secretary of the Province of East Jersey under Gov. Philip Carteret, married Ann(e) ____. Her name has been given as Vauquellin, daughter of Robert Vauquellin, Surveyor General of East Jersey. This marriage started with Orra Eugene Monette in his First Settlers of Piscataway and Woodbridge. He said: "There is evidence that the wife, Anne of James Bollen, was a daughter of Robert Vanquellen [sic] of Woodbridge; to whose will in 1673, James Bollen appeared as a witness." He produced no evidence. This statement shows that James Bollen was a witness to Vauquellin's will, nothing more. Being a witness to somebody's will does not necessarily imply that the witness was related to the testator. Probably because this was in print, it was repeated by others, and thus began the spreading of Monette's so-called evidence. This marriage has been in the literature since the 1930s. It's difficult to correct a statement that's been around so long. Robert Vauquellin made! his will in 1673 and he made it in a hurry because he knew he was going to be arrested. He was a member of Gov. Philip Carteret's despised contingent -- despised by the people he governed. When Vauquellin appeared before the court because he took Carteret's papers for safekeeping (when the Dutch retook New York) and refused to give them up, he was not the least bit humble. To the contrary he was arrogant and haughty and he was so overbearing and insolent that he practically thumbed his nose at the court when he boasted that the English would be back. Vauquellin was found guilty not only of proud and contemptuous disdain for authority, but of insurrection against the lawful government and was condemned "to be banished as an example to others." Vauquellin, a Frenchman, did not find the puritanic townsmen with whom he was compelled to associate, congenial company, and probably had no friends outside of the Carteret Council. His will was witnessed by James Bollen and Samuel Mo! ore, both members of Carteret's Council. They were neighbors and easy to find in a hurry, and probably were just about the only people who would be willing to witness his will. I mention this because Capt. James Bollen and wife Ann(e) were grandparents of some of the Stouts. Monette's work is so terribly flawed that genealogists past and present rue the day he ever published. His work should not be taken with just a grain of salt, but with the whole shaker. There's a list on the net of fraudulent genealogists -- Gustav Anjou is one of the worst. Monette is on this list too.