Notes:

According to web.tampabay.rr.com/weishaupt/weisanc/d218.htm
Was a member of the Governor's Council, Chief Justice of the New Hampshire Supreme Court, and one of the most distinguished men connected with the early colony to lay grievances of the people before the King of England.

According to freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~dickmarston
Nathaniel and Elizabeth lived a few years in Newbury, Essex, Mass., then moved to Hampton in 1662. He was one of the most influencial men in the town and throughout the province. He served as councillor more than 20 years and he was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court 1694-95.

Nathaniel married Elizabeth SWAINE (SWAYNE) on 20 Dec 1681 in Hampton, Rockingham Co, NH, U.S.A.. Elizabeth (daughter of Richard SWAINE (SWAYNE, SWAN?) and Elizabeth Ann BASILLE (BASSELLE?)) was born on 9 Oct 1638 in Newberry, MA, U.S.A.; died on 10 Feb 1711 in Hampton Falls, Rockingham Co, NH, U.S.A.. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

1. Elizabeth WEARE was born on 5 Jan 1658 in Newberry, MA, U.S.A.; died about 1722 in Hampton Falls, NH, U.S.A..
2. Mehitable WEARE
3. Nathaniel III WEARE
4. Peter WEARE
5. Mary WEARE
6. Sarah WEARE
7. Hannah WEARE was born on 7 Jan 1672 in Hampton, Rockingham, NH; died on 8 Mar 1742 in Dearfield, Franklin, NH.
8. Abigail WEARE

Notes:

The inhabitants of Hampton and of the other towns in the province had,with few exceptions, refrained from joining Edward Gove in his quixoticattempt to reform the government; but they could not be insensible to thetyranny of Governor Cranfield. They ever had been, and still were, readyto assist in suppressing acts of rebellion; but they were not prepared toyield to oppression without a struggle. They regarded it as their rightto pour their complaints into the ears of the king, and to ask forredress. But under Cranfield's administration, it was dangerous tocomplain. Still, this appeared the only proper course to be pursued, andafter some consultation, it was adopted. So careful and so cautious hadbeen the movements of the leading men, that their agent had beenselected, funds had been raised to meet his expenses, and he had left theprovince, and was already at Boston, about to embark for England, beforethe governor was aware of their design.

The agent, selected and sent on this important mission, was NathanielWeare, Esq., a leading citizen of Hampton. The confidence thus reposed inhim indicates that he had the reputation of being a man of ability,prudence and integrity; and the result showed that their confidence hadnot been misplaced.

Fear of being detained by the governor constrained Nathaniel to hasten toBoston, without waiting to obtain the evidence he needed to substantiatethe charges being brought against Governor Cranfield. He was accoumpainedto Boston by Maj. William Vaughan of Portsmouth, and to him was intrustedthe important service of procuring depositions to be forwarded toEngland; but on his return from Boston, he was immediately arrested bythe governor's order, and committed to prison, where he was confined ninemonths much to the detriment not only of his own private interests, butto those of the oppressed people, as this prevented him from obtainingthe evidence necessary for the the King. Other individuals undertook thework that had been assigned to Mr. Vaughan, but they were denied accessto the public records, and when they applied to the governor to summonand swear witnesses for them, their request was not granted. Hence it wasnecessary to go out of the province to have the depositions properlyauthenticated.

When Mr. Weare arrived in England, he was not prepared to bring hiscomplaints to the king at once; but after waiting a considerable time fordepositions from home, and waiting in vain, he ventured to profer somegeneral charges against Governor Cranfield. By this means a way wasopened for procuring, in a few months, the needful evidence for, thecomplaint having been referred to the Board of Trade, they transmitted acopy to the accused, that he might prepare a defense; and at the sametime ordered him to allow the complainants access to the records, and toafford them every facility for obtaining and authenticating evidence.

However humiliating this order might be, it was from such a source, thathe dared not disobey. As he was charged with not following theinstructions of his commission, concerning Mason's claims, but allowingthose claims to be tried in courts not properly constituted, heimmediately, upon the receipt of this communication from the Board ofTrade, suspended the suits that had been brought, until a decision as tothe legality of the courts could be made by the proper authorities.

Nathaniel meanwhile received the evidence needed and presented hischarges in a new and more specific form. A hearing was at length hadbefore the Lords of Trade (March 10, 1685), who reported to the king"that Cranfield had not pursured his instructions with regard to Mason'scontroversy; but instead thereof, had caused courts to be held and titlesto be decided, with exorbitant costs; and that he had exceeded his powerin regulating the value of coins'" Nathaniel had brought other chargesagainst the governor but in relation to them the Lords of Trade expressedno opinion. The report, as made, was accepted by the king in council(SOURCE: History of Hampton, New Hampshire by Joseph Dow).

Nathaniel married Sarah UNKNOWN (GOOCH?) in 1629 in Rockingham, New Hampshire. Sarah was born about 1606 in England; died in 1682 in Nantucket, Massachusetts. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

Peter married UNKNOWN. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]