Notes for William Hudson: viii. WILLIAM HUDSON, b. June 12, 1665; d. 1729, Bridgewater, Massachusetts; m. EXPERIENCE WILLIS.
Notes for WILLIAM HUDSON: Was in Lancaster, Massachusetts in 1687 were he had 6 acres of land granted to him by the Town as a "bounty for killing wolves". He probably moved to Bridgewater, Massachusetts with his brother Daniel.
Subject: HUDSON FAMILIES OF LANCASTER, MA Source: The Early Records of Lancaster, Massachusetts by Henry S. Nourse, A. M. p.302 The Lands of William Hudson from the Book of Lands - Lancaster 30 acres Granted by the town 6 acres for killing wolves. William Hudson had his thirty acre Lott Granted by the Town Laid out on the north side a Range of Lotts in the south end of the town next to the stated Common twenty acres be it more or less bounded southerly by a Lott whear George Newbey Lives and northerly by the Stated Common and it buts easterly upon a highway that Leades to the Lotts in the north entervail and to Walnutt Swamp and westerly upon the stated Common. And also Sixteen acres be it more or Less ten acres whearof is part of his thirty acre Lott and six acres due to him by a town agreament for killing of wolves the whol sixteen acres laid out in a plain that lyeth west or South west from Walnutt Swamp. [Recorded 1687
William Hudson, son of Daniel Hudson was born June 12, 1664, in Lancaster. In 1690 he was prosecuted for bastardy, made a brilliant but unavailing written defence, and fled, so far as the records show, never to return. His neighbor, George Newby, about the same date was convicted of being a libertine, probably a thief, and certainly, what was perhaps esteemed more unpardonable in those days, a slanderer of the minister, and a despiser of the catechism. He too disappeared. They lived on George Hill, perhaps not far from the Divoll place. Newby lived upon land belonging to Joseph Rowlandson.
Thank you for your genealogical work on the Hudson family which I found on Ancestry.com. I have had difficulty establishing the parentage of our mutual ancestor William Hudson, b. 1685, Oxford, Worcester, Massachusetts, the husband of Mary Farrington. The choices seemed to be between Daniel Hudson (b. 1651) and William Hudson (b. 1665). There seemed to be too many impediments as to the first choice (Daniel (1651) via Mary Orcutt) which was favored by Sanford Hudson. (See Sanford A. Hudson, The Genealogy of thee Descendants of Daniel Hudson of Watertown, Mass.). However, I considered as to that choice various possibilities which did not seem probable.
As to the second choice which you appear to accept (i.e., William Hudson (1665) via Experience Willis), I wrote the following in a 1994 memorandum to myself:
An alternative theory would still make the Oxford William [b. 1685] the "son or grandson" of Daniel Hudson, the immigrant [b. 1620]. However, under this hypothesis the line would run via his son William [b. 1665], the brother of Daniel II [b. 1651]. According to Lancaster vital records, "William sonne of Daniel Hudsun, & Johannah his wife [was] borne June 12, 1664." (Lancaster v.r., p. 12.).
Twenty-two years later, on August 12, 1686, one William Hudson married Ann Ways in Philadelphia. (Clemens, American Marriage Records Before 1699, 1979, p. 123.)
In 1688, Daniel (the immigrant) [b. 1620] and his wife "deeded to their son William land near Gibson's Hill in Lancaster." (Cutter, Historic Homes and Places and Genealogical and Personal Memoirs, relating to the families of Middlesex County, 1908, p. 1843.)
In 1690, in Lancaster, one William Hudson "was prosecuted for bastardy; he made a brilliant but unavailing defense, and fled, so far as the records show, never to return." (Annals of Lancaster, p. 302, as quoted by Linda Turcotte.)
In 1673 (1693?) William's father, Daniel [b. 1620] provided in a Cambridge deed, "the grantee to make provision for Wm. and his w. Ann, during their lives. (Mid. Deeds.)" Barry, History of Framington, p. 299, apparently citing Middlesex Deeds.)
In 1697 occurred the "indian" attack in Lancaster which resulted in the death of Daniel, the immigrant [b. 1620], his wife Joanna, two daughters, and two children of his son Nathaniel. (Sanford Hudson, op. cit., p. 5.) Had William remained in Lancaster instead of fleeing prosecution for bastardy, he too might have perished.
In 1698 (F.H.C., I.G.I. index, Mass., p. 42,784), a "William Hudson (from Lancaster or what is now probably Leominster) settled in W.B. and m. Experience, D. of John Willis," apparently settling in West Bridgewater. (Mitchell, History of the Early Settlement of Bridgewater, supra, p. 207.) No record of this marriage appears in the Bridgewater vital records. However, West Bridgewater appears to be a separate town to the north.
Of Experience, Mitchell states, "his wife and Dr. Joseph Byram Ex's." (Op. cit.) As for William, "he was a mason, and built Rev. Mr. Keith's tomb." (Op. cit.) Latham states that the "William Hudson, who built this tomb, lived at Simeon Taylor's, and died about 1728." (Latham, op. cit., p. 238.)
William Hudson's "will dated 1728; no children." (Mitchell, op. cit.) Wm. Hudson died "without issue" approximately 1729 (Sanford Hudson, op. cit., p. 6), but apparently not in Bridgewater (see Bridgewater v.r., p. 498). Another source indicates that the place of his death was Watertown. (F.H.C., I.G.I. index, p. 42,784.)
Assuming of course, that the will does not definitively state otherwise, the mere fact that William apparently had no children by his second wife, Experience, does not negate the possibility that he had children by his first wife Ann. Perhaps the records of Philadelphia (where William and Ann apparently were married) would shed light on this subject.
The thought now occurs to me that if William Hudson [b. 1665] was (1) the one who married Ann Ways in 1686 and also (2) the one who was prosecuted for "bastardy" in 1690, perhaps there was an "illegitimate" child born to someone other than Ann Ways, perhaps even to Experience Willis, herself.
From a de jure viewpoint, if the child was "illegitimate" would it be legally considered "issue" even if the father later married the mother? In temporal de facto terms, perhaps there was (1) no actual "issue" of William  after 1698 when he married the hypothesized mother of the "illegitimate" child, but rather (2) only such "issue" before William's 1698 second marriage.
Perhaps the mother of the child which was the reason for the "bastardy" prosecution in 1690 was none other than Experience Willis who eight years later in 1698 married William [b. 1665].
In any event, if William  was truly guilty of "bastardy," in what sense could he have died "without issue"?
I am writing you this e-mail hoping that you can shed light on this subject and can provide the evidence as to this genealogical connection that I could not find.
Thank you for your work on this subject as to our mutual ancestor William Hudson [b. 1685] the husband of Mary Farrington, and also for whatever additional evidence that you can provide, or point to, that he was the offspring of William Hudson [b. 1665] and Experience Willis.
Yours very truly,
Dirk L. Hudson (email@example.com)
P.S. The completion of the connection requires not only (1) an appropriate descendant of the immigrant Daniel Hudson [b. 1620], via his son William Hudson [b. 1665], but also (2) the identification of that descendant as being none other than our mutual ancestor William Hudson [b. 1685] the husband of Mary Farrington. Therefore, anything that you can provide, or point to, to establish that identification would be welcome.
More About William Hudson: Record Change: 27 May 2005
Children of William Hudson and Experience Willis are: