The daily morning journal and courier., 1899-11-17
 THE F. ". TOMBS1ONES
In the Rear of the Center Church.

| HI tRt kteaf tht tehNeE
 Since 1794, when President Stiles pub
 lis1ed his theory that the two ancient tombstones now standing in the rear of
 the Center church, which are in-
 scribed with the letters F. w, are or
 may be monuments to the regicide Ed | ward Whalley, much discussion has been had concerning the correctness of l his suggestion. Those who oppose the theory point out that Whalley died In Hadley, Mass, and there is neither proof nor probability that his remains were brought to New Haven for burial.
 Moreover, he died in 1874 or 1875, while
 the date on the stones is 1657-S, to which last objection the supporters of the
 Whalley view reply that the date may
 have been purposely made erroneous for
 purposes of concealment. The view which has been taken by others, and
 which of late years has been generally adopted, is that the stones were placed | for Edward Wigglesworth, who died in | 1853; but the difference of five years in | the date on the tombstones is not ex- plained and appears to be an insur- mountabe objection
 MT, Robert Wakeman, of Southport,
 who is preparing a book on the Wake
 man family in New England, brings forward new solution of the mystery,
 to wit, that the tombstones are set over the grave of Elizabeth Wakeman, the wife of John Wakeman a prominent man among the first settlers of New Haven, a deacon of the church and a
 magistrate of the colony. MT. Wake
 man offers the following grounds for
 his belief, which we are permitted to
 publish.
 'The following evidence Is presented
 to support the theory that the two bur
 ial stones now standing in the rear of
 the Center church in New Haven,
 marked E. w., 1858 and 'E. w., 1657-s'
 are those of Elizabeth Wakeman the
 wife of Mir. John Wakeman of New Ha- ven.
 First, Mrs. Wakeman was the daugh- ter of Mr. William Hopkins of Bewd-
 ley, England, a gentleman of rank and
 fortune,' and there is no record of any one else whose name has the same ini- tials having died within five years of 165S the date on the stones, Some have presumed them to be erected to Edward
 Wigglesworth, but this is hardly proba ble, as it is very unlikely that a mistake of five years would have been made Tn the time of his death. Moreover, his es- tate was only four hundred pounds, and he left wife ahd children who would not be likely to reduce their small pa trimony by purchasing two burial stones in time when these were unusual; while MT. Wigglesworth had not occu- pied such position in the community as to warrant the surmise that his fellow citizens would expend their hard earned shekels on burial stones for his memo ".
 Secondly, Mrs Wakeman was given a seat in the church in 1856 but was not mentioned in the next allotment of seats. MT. Wakeman's will was execu- ted April 4, 166O, and in 1t he makes no mention of his wife. It is hardly pre- sumable that he would have failed to mention his wife had she been living, and from these circumstances we infer that she had died between 1856 and 66O-probably between January 1 and March 25, 1857 (6Id style), in which case the above date on her tombstone would be inscribed as 1657-S.
 Thrd. The supposition that Mrs Wakeman had died prior to 1861 is con- fined by the following entry in the town records under date of April 1, 1861: At a general court then held Mr. Wakeman was nominated for a magis- trate; whereupon, as the record reads MT. Wakeman declared that he thought the unsettled condition which he stood in would have sufficiently spoken to have prevented any such ac- tion concerning him The question be- ing put to him whether he did not in- tend to stay amongst us, he answered that he was not resolved whether to go or stay; rather than accept of the place he would remove; they had therefore done nothing in what they had done and it was safe to nominate some oth- CT. It was propounded that another might be nominated, which by lot was so determined MT. Wakeman had in fact sold out his house and real estate ill New Haven in 1859 or 50.
 Fourth, MT. Wakeman's children were l all well married before 1860, when his | will was executed. His son married a daughter of Deputy Governor Good 1 year; one daughter married Lieutenant | Colonel John Talcott, of Hartford, and | the other married MT. Samuel Kitchel, | of Newark. With all his children we'll | provided for it was natural that man of MT. Wakeman's position and means | should mark the grave of his wife, who | was of the Hopkins family in England, a family of position and fortune. The | theory has been suggested that these l stones being marked with initials only | were not erected to the memory of ] person of much prominence. Then why | were two stones erected, headstone and a footstone, both elegantly let tered, with dates on both, and this in | times when money was scarce and few ] grave-stones were set up?"
 It must be admitted that MT. Wake man has made out very plausible ease, and that he has shed new and important light upon an obscure and much disputed subject. H. T. B.