The Press., 1893-01-19
(Contributed.) THE TOPLIFF FAMILY.
BY e. FRANCIS ToPLIFF.

| BY G. FRANCIS TOPLIFF.
 Two years ago commenced the com- pilation of the records of the Topliff fam l fly. A few months later correspondent in the western part of the state sent me two clippings from "The Press" that were published ill 1886, with the avowed intention of helping me in my work. The mythical and traditional character of the statements made were a great surprise to
 me. What astonished me more than anything else was the complete ignorance of the writer in particular, and the Conn. branch of the family in general, of the connection of the Conn. branch with the parent trunk in Dorchester, Mass. How ever, the Dorchester and Boston branches are almost as guilty of the knowledge of the Conn. branch, and would have been completely so were it not for a re- mark in published genealogy of the Dorchester branch in 1919, which quote l: Samuel (3) at the birth of his second child is called Captain Samuel Topliff. He is supposed to have moved with his family into the state of Conn.," This latter clause is what inspired me to search out the history of the family, and it was all the data had to commence with. Pre- vious to 1890 had heard of but three of the name outside of the Boston and Dor chester branches, and did not imagine that there were so many others scattered l nd ha Tbo Boston and Dorchester branches number | all told about a dozen, so that the great mass of individuals of the name belong to the nm. branch. It certainly ought to be of great interest to this branch to know something of the history of the family prior to the emigration of Samuel (3) to l Conn.
 The present student of history is noth- | ing, if not critical. Statements of fact, 1 or repetitions of tradition cannot pass in- to print unchallenged. They must be authenticated by historical evidence that is unquestioned. My work so far has been entirely on these lines, and conse- | quently many of the Conn. traditions must be discarded.
 Leaving the early history of the family for the present, l will take up in order some of the statements made in the arti- cles referred to.
 The first mis-statement is as follows:
 "Tradtion, handed down from genera tion, says that during colonial days eight men came over from England in compa- ny, and obtained the right to settle a township in Holland County, and after due deliheration they selected tract ad- joining the county seat, and gave it the name of Wilmington. The name indicates that each man was willing his neighbor should have a big farm. As I have no record, can give the names of only five. These were Fenton, Merrick, Holt, Fay Tor, and Topliff. Each man took a strip reaching from Holland to Ashford and about one mile in width"
 To show how traditionary the above statement is, I will quote from Conn. His. Coll, by J. W. Barber, New Haven, 1885:
 "The township of Wilmington was sold and granted by Governor and Company for 510 pounds to the following gentle men: Roger Wolcott, Esq, of Windsor; John Burr, of Fairfield; John Riggs, of Derby Samuel Gum and George Clark, | of Milford; John Stone and Peter Pratt, of Hartford, and Etrurger Fitch. The | sale took place in 1720. The settlers were from various parts of New England, and they moved onto the land one after another in very scattering manner"
 Colonial Records of Conn.,, Vol. s, page 79S, May, TAO, mentions "One certain deed executed by one James Futile, of said Lebanon, to one Nathaniel Topliff, of Dorchester, in the Province of the Mass. Bay, and his heirs is recorded for some considerable time, and the said Sam1 Topliff being minded to sell the said land," etc.
 Nathaniel (3) was the older brother of Samuel (3), and resident of Dorchester. There is no evidence that Nathaniel ever resided in Conn. Samuel had eight chill dren; the last one (Luther) was born in Milton - which adjoins Dorchester - in Nov, 1734. From Thomas Newcomb's account book, kept by him at Lebanon, Conn.,, it appears that Samuel (3) opened an account with Newcomb, June 16, 1737. Here is very good evidence that he emil grated from Milton to Lebanon between Nov, 1734, and June, 1736. The Colonial Record, quoted above, shows he was in Lebanon in 1740 and the other record shows that he was not one of the original settlers of Wilmington. So I think you will agree with me that the statements of your correspondent, though traditionary, are certainly mythical and misleading. There is another statement which, to a Boston Topliff, is as surprising as it is amusing:
 "Uncle Glenn was the father of all the tribe that bear the name of Topliff now living in the United States"
 "Uncle Clem" was the fourth child the three elder were daughters-of Sam uel (3), and he, Samuel (3), belonged to the fourth generation of Topliffs in the United States, consequently he could not have been the American progenitor. In another communication-if agreea- ble to you-I shall be pleased to say something of the history of the family pre- vious to the exodus to Conn.
 Boston, Mass.
 Poverty and Ignorance were engaged tS,