USA > Delaware > History of Delaware : 1609-1888 > Part 28
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76 | Part 77 | Part 78 | Part 79 | Part 80 | Part 81 | Part 82 | Part 83 | Part 84 | Part 85 | Part 86 | Part 87
In 1640 Pean's pecition came up before the Lords of Trade and Plaaration. praying for a grant to certain lands in America The petition was sub- mitted at once to Lord Baltimore's agents to learn to what extent, if any, his lordship's property was ce-extensive with the territory asked for by Penn. Messrs. Barnsby Dunch and Richard Burk, the agents referred to, replied that " it is desired, that if the grant pass unto Mr. Penn, of the lands pe- titoned for by him, in America, that it may be expressed to be land that shall be north of Sus- quehana fort, also north of all lands in a direct line between the said fort, for said fort is the boun- dary of Maryland northward. It is further desired that there may be contained general words of re- striction as to any interest granted to the Lord Baltimore and saving to him all rights granted." A letter was also received from Sir John Werden, secretary of the Duke of York. in response to an inquiry sent by the Lords of Plantations, in which he stated that the boundaries of the territory peti- tioned for by Mr. Penn agreed with " that colony or plantation which has been hitherto held as an appendix and part of the government of New York, by the name of Delaware Colony, or more particularly New Castle Colony, that being the name of a principal place in it." The Duke of York had willingly assented to the grant, and efforts were now made to so arrange matters that a per- manent cheek should be given to disputes over the extent of territory occupied by the various pro- prietors in America. We shall see subsequently with what little success this was done. After con- siderable parleying the charter was issued to Penn, on March 4, 1681, and granted to Penn, in consid- eration of the services of his father,
"All that tract or part of land in America, with the islands therein contained, as the same is bounded on the east by the Delaware River, from twelve miles distance northward of New Castle town, nuto the three and fortieth degree of northern latitude, if the and river doth extend so far northward ; but if the sail river shall not extent so far north. ward, then by the said river su far as it doth extend ; and from the head of the sand river, the eastern bounds are to be determined a meridian line to be drawn from the head of the wild river unto the suid forty-third degren. The -and land to extend westwind five degrees in longitude, to be comprited from the sand eastern bounds, and the said lin Is to be boand- ed on the north by the beginning of the three and fortieth degree of northern latitude and on the south by a circle drawn at twelve miles distance from New Castle, northward and westward, unto the begin- ning of the fortieth degree of u rthern latitude, and then by a straight line westward to the limits of longitu le above mentioned."
This singular definition of the southern boun- dary left it an open question whether this boundary circle was to be a eirele of twelve miles in eireum- ference, or to be drawn around a diameter of twelve miles passing through New Castle, or with a radius of twelve miles beginning in New Castle, and was therefore the principal source of the future con- tention between Baltimore and Penn.
Penn's deputy, Captain William Markham, ar- rived in America towards the end of August to take
114
HISTORY OF DELAWARE.
charge of the newly-acquired territory." He nt onee visited Lord Baltimore, bearing letters from both Penn and the King requesting an early settle- ment of the boundaries. Baltimore expressed his desire to accomplish this, and fixed upon October 16th as the date in which he would hold a confer- ence; but this engagement was subsequently can- celed owing to Markham's indisposition. Baltimore gave him firmly to understand. however, in the first interview that he possessed an undisputed title to all land up to the fortieth degree of north latitude, and at this same time it was learned, to the surprise of all, that Upland was situated several miles be- low that limit.
In the mean time Penn indueed the Duke of York to deed New Castle to him, and two deeds were issued by His Highness in 1682, one conveying Pennsylvania and the other " the town of New Castle and all that tract of land lying within the compass or circle of' twelve miles about the same," and all that traet of land extending southward from it, along the Delaware, to Cape Henlopen. This lat- ter deed, however, it was clear, would be eertain to provoke great opposition from the Marylanders, since the Duke's patents did not include the terri- tory granted away.2 Armed with the two doeu- ments, Penn set sail and reached New Castle on October 27, 1682 In December he held his first interview with Lord Baltimore at the house of Colonel Thomas Tailler, in Anne Arundel County. Baltimore insisted on 40° as being Penn's southern boundary, but the latter endeavored to satisfy him with 87º 51', which offer was politely rejected. It was not the northern boundary, however, so much as Penn's purchase of the lower counties from the Duke of York, which irritated Baltimore, and fixed him in his determination to secure them if possible.3 For we find him remarking, in the course of the conference, " Mr. Penn, you did, I remen- ber, once propose to me in England that you had offers made you of that part of Delaware from his Royal Highness ( the Duke of York) which I lay claim to ; but you would not, as you then said ae- cept thereof because you knew it was mine. The same, I hear, you have now possessed yourself of. I only desire to know what you elaim." Penn evaded the point, and the conference elosed without any approach to an arrangement, and the next meeting between them, held at New Castle in May, 1683, ended similarly. In June Baltimore wrote to England in the following terms :
"That which I now presume to beg at your hands Is that you'll favor me so far that, should Mr. Wat. Peno move his majesty for any further order and commands in relation to the bounds of Maryland and Penn- sylvania, that nothing be granted until I am hivard at the council board, and that nothing be obtained by Mr. Penn to the prejudice of my interest on Delaware River, where Mr. l'ent pretende to hold a great part of my province by a title (as he saith) from his highness the
1 Pennsyl ania Magazine, vol. vi. p. 414.
2 Chalmers' " Annals," p. 643.
3 Pennsylvania Magazine, vol. 1x., p. 256.
the Duke of York. In May or June neat I will make my personal ap- p-armer and make my defence." +
Penn in his turn forwarded a long letter to the Lords of Trade and Planting setting forth his ver- sion of the controversy, and asking for an inter- pretation of the question at issue favorable to him- self. Lord Baltimore had now begun to be some- what aggressive, and issued a proclamation invit- ing colonists to settle in the lower counties and take patents from him, offering exceedingly low prices as inducements. In addition to this, he ap- pointed his cousin, George Talbot, in September, 1683, as a commissioner to demand of Penn all land on the Delaware south of the fortieth degree of north latitude.3 Talbot delivered his demands in writing and Penn replied in a document of great length reviewing the whole situation, and denying all rights to the intruders, and here the matter was allowed to drop once more. But it was with this visit to Talbot that we may associate the be- ginning of Lord Baltimore's attempts to stir up re- bellion in the lower counties, which we have seen in a subsequent chapter (on Colonial History, 1704- 75) entered as an important element among the causes which led to the separation in 1704.
About this time some correspondenee was ex- changed with the Jersey authorities relative to lands, but the disputes were never of great import- ance, the bay and river forming a very distinct line of division. As early as 1678 complaints were lodged against Major Fenwick and others who had interfered with the people on the Jersey shore in the rightful possession of their lands, and the authorities at New Castle were ordered to check any further abuses of a similar character. In 1683, however, the relation between the two gov- ernments had assumed a new phase. In that year Penn appointed a commission, consisting of Chris- topher Taylor, James Harrison, Thomas Holmes and Thos. Winne, to confer with the Governor and Conneil of West Jersey, respeeting " certain great wrongs and injustice done to me and this province by some of the inhabitants of their colony." The commissioners were instrueted to demand satisfac- tion for the misdemeanors of certain individuals. Penn then adds that " after all this is ended, insist upon my title to the river, soil and islands thereof according to grant, and if they will deliver up peaceably the islands of Matinieum and Sepassing, return one-half of the island of Matinicum before the town, according to my former clemency." The documents relating to these controversies be- tween Pennsylvania and New Jersey are unfortu- nately incomplete, and it only appears as a definite fact that the Inhabitants of the lower counties and their opposite neighbors on the Jersey shore, had been at various times encroaching on each other's
4 Report of Virginia Commissioners on Maryland and Virginia Boun daries, 1873, p. 243.
5 Proud's "History of Pennsylvania," vol. i. p. 274.
115
BOUNDARY DISPUTES AND SETTLEMENT.
property.1 But no serious dispute ever resulted from these early misunderstandings, as both par- ties seemed desirous of reaching a just settlement.
The dispute between Penn and the authorities of Maryland assumed an alarming aspect at the begin- ning of 1684, from a hostile invasion of the lower counties. Colonel Talbot was again at the head of this expedition with a force armed with guns and axes. They terrified the people throughout New Cas- tl- County with threats, but their main object was plainly to disaffect the inhabitants from any sym- pathy with Penn's government. This was fully appreciated by the Penn-ylvanians, for when Penu issued a commission to William Welsh, John Sim- cock and James Harrison to defend the lower counties, they were instructed to put down all " rebellions practices," as well as to put down the riots of the Marylanders. An instance of Talbot's proceedings was furnished to the Council at Phila . delphia in a letter from Samuel Land, of New Castle, dated May 30th. He acquainted them that the colonel had visited the houses of Jonas Erskine, Andrew Tille and a widow named Ogle, all residing near New Castle ; and, accompanied by three musketeers, to add force to his demands, had informed them that unless they would acknowledge Lord Baltimore as their proprie- tor within three weeks, and pay their rents to him in the future, they would be dispossessed of their land and turned out of their homes. The testi- mony of Joseph Bowle before the Council, recount- ing his experience with Talbot, gives a vivid idea of the extent to which the abuses were carried. Bowle, who lived at Iron Hill, about eight miles distant from New Castle, attested that "Colonel Talbot ridd up to his house and was ready to ride over him, and said, 'Dam you, you Dogg, whom do you seat under here, you dogg ! You seat under noe body ; you have noe Warrt from Penn no my Lord ; therefore gett you gon or Else I'le sent you to St. Murry's ;' and I being frighted, says he, you Brazen-faced, Impudent, Confident. Dogg, I'l Sharten Penn's Territories by and by.'"
This latest outrage elicited a declaration against Lord Baltimore from Penn, reciting the whole history of the trouble between the two proprietors.
This was forwarded to the Lords Commissioners of in the hands of Penn, but many causes conspired
Trade and Plantations. Penn and Baltimore both went to England and the matter was taken in hand by the King s officers. The arguments on both sides were submitted with great force Lord Baltimore was content with the positive terms of his charter. Penn, in his turn, arrayed a long series of objections, with greater vigor than ever before, against the val- Mity of his opponent's claim. His own grant of Pennsylvania was the first weapon used for the attack ; he followed this up with the grant of the Duke of York, but neither of these arguments 1 Pennsylvania Archives, vol i p. 59.
availed. He was forced to find more powerful means of assailing his enemy, and his search was in the end highly successful. He now asserted that the Delaware lands had been purchased and settled by the Dutch before Lord Baltimore's char- ter was granted. It will be remembered that Lord Baltimore's charter of 1632 had in express terms declared that he had prayed for lands which were uncultivated and uninhabited. except by savages. If it were now proved that this disputed territory was not only cultivated, but inhabited by a civil- ized people at the time of the granting of the charter, the Marylander's case would certainly re- ceive a severe blow, and this was shown to be the case by Penn to the satisfaction of the Lords of Trade and Plantations. Not even at this point did the inexorable Penn rest his ense, but further insisted that Baltimore being entitled to an extent of territory covering but two degrees of latitude, his northern boundary should be determined by measuring two degrees of sixty miles each from Watkins Point, the acknowledged southernmost limit. It was the third point, however, which in- fluenced the arbiters in their decision, for we find their opinion to be that " Lord Baltimore's grant ineluded only lands uncultivated and inhabited by savages, and that the territory along the Delaware had been settled by Christians antecedently to his grant, and was therefore not included in it." Their ultimate verdict was not however, a com- plete acknowledgment of the justice of Penn's claim, but partook rather of the nature of a com. promise, and in November, 1685, a decree of King James' Council was issued ordering "that for avoiding further differences, the tract of land lying between the bay of Delaware and the eastern sca on the one side, and the Chesapeake Bay on the other, be divided into equal parts by a line from the latitude of Cape Henlopen to the fortieth degree of north latitude the southern boundary of Pennsylvania by charter, and that the one half thereof, lying towards the bay of Delaware and the eastern sea, be adjudged to belong to his ma- jesty, and the other half to Lord Baltimore, as comprised in his charter." "
This decision placed the coveted lower counties to delay the exceution of this mandate. Promi- nent among these was the revolution then in pro- gress in England. The Duke of York, to whom Penn owed his grant, was now on the throne as James Il., and Baltimore dared not raise his voice against the decree, lest by the arbitrary fiat of the monarch he shoulddose all that was left. But the deposition of James II. meant the fall of Penn's ally, and the decision of 1685 remained inoperative ; but as we shall see presently, it was afterwards ta- ken as an important element in future negotiations.
" McMahon's "History of Maryland," pp 30-33.
---
116
HISTORY OF DELAWARE.
We may at least, however, look upon the decree of Maryland, although living within the twelve-mit James Il as being important in first approximating the boundaries of Delaware to their present limits.1
cirde around New Castle ; a little later complaint was made be William Clark, of Sussex County. The events which followed upon the revolution entirely changed the situation. It was now no longer a controversy between the two proprietors, each endeavoring to rob the other of his territory, as from another point of view, each seeking to se- cure undisputed sway over what he believed to be his own property, but both Penn and Baltimore were busily engaged in defending their lands against new rivals. Penn, in fact, was retired from: his government by the crown, but was reinstated in 1694.2 He was forced to act during this period of unsettlement with the greatest shrewdness and diplomacy ; for the mere fact that he had been mn favor with James II. woukl have been sufficient that his mother was being sued on account of tia uncertainty of the boundary lines between that county and Maryland. With regard to the fire: of these questions, the Council forwarded a protest to the Coverpor of Maryland, while the second was settled by an order to the justices of Sussex Coun- ty, instructing them not to entertain any action which might involve the boundary question. The Marylanders did not lesist, however, for in August the sheriff of Cecil County forcibly dispossessed a number of the Welsh settlers in New Castle Coun- ty by virtue of Maryland writs. The sheriff of New Castle would not quietly submit to this, and with the assistance of a few friends seized the sheriff cause for his removal, on the slightest proveention, . of Cecil. with one of his aids, and bound him by the new monarch. Lord Baltimore had greater over to appear in court ; but such instances were inre at this time and do not seem to have been at the instigation of the higher officials. troubles to contend with. The Protestant association, which was formed in Maryland immediately after the revolution under John Coode, succeeded in In 1708 Lord Baltimore made another effort to seeure possession of the whole territory of the peninsula between the two bays, by petitioning Queen Anne. This attempt proved equally as abortive as those previously made, and only re- sulted in a confirmation of Penn's title according to the deerce of 1685, with new instructions to draw the line as ordered in that decision. But again this was delayed, only to leave matters worse than ever before. The petty squabbles that were continually indulged in by the authorities and the inhabitants of the two provinces in const - quence of the boundary disputes very soon became a source of so much annoyance to Penn that at length in 1712, he contracted for the sale of ins interest in the colonies. At the last moment an attack of apoplexy prevented him from affix- ing his signature, and his mental troubles which followed never made it possible to transfer the land 3 throwing off the Catholic proprietary, and con- trolled the colony from 1689 to 1691. It was then taken up as a royal government and remained 20 until 1716. But an absolute quietus was neverthe. less not put upon the controversy between the two disputants. That the dispute was a positive detri- ment to the value of land in the lower counties we have definite knowledge. At the close of 1704, Penn's secretary, James Logan, wrote to him that one of the most valuable tracts of land in New Castle County was the Welsh settlement, but he mournfully deplores that the " business between Maryland and us" renders it almost worthless. Of three thousand pounds due on the property re- ferred to, Logan fears that not five hundred pounds will be realized until the boundary is settled. He says further in his letter to Penn, " if that whole business be not issued in thy lifetime, I doubt thy heirs will reap no great benefit from a large part of these counties: they grow more bold now than ever, and extend their claims upon old surveys up to and some beyond our old settlement. I must always press this, and in every letter, as of the greatest necessity." Referring to the same subject in September, 1705, Penn informs Logan that when last in Maryland he proposed to Colonel Darnet, Baltimore's chief agent, to fix the line, but he re- fused, as having no instructions from his lordship.
In 1707 the Marylanders reopened their en- croachments upon the property of the people in the lower counties, which was brought to the atten- tion of the Council through a petition from the justices of New Castle; some of the inhabitants had been served with writs of ejeetment issued in
The border disputes continued at frequent in- tervals, but not often with sufficient virulence to demand special action with reference to their sup- pression. Occasionally this was necessary, as in 1717, when Colonel French was appointed " ranger and keeper " of the marshes in the province and lower counties, with powers to repel invasions from the Marylanders. The direct cause of this appointment was the arrival of a number of Maryland surveyors, who had abruptly taken a survey of many lots in the lower counties, with the apparent purpose of claiming the ownership of the land. A year later the dispute was reopened by a more serious question. The complainants on this occasion were the Marylanders and not the Pen- sylvanians The town of Nottingham was the corpus delicti. Governor Hart, of Maryland, pro- 3 MeMahoit's " History of Maryland," p. 35.
1 Proud's " History of Pennsylvania, " vol. 1., p. 294.
2 "Memoirs of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, " vol. ix . p. 366. Penn and Logan Correspondence.
117
BOUNDARY DISPUTES AND SETTLEMENT.
duced several complaints, showing that magistrates accommodation, both by a personal interview with had been appointed by the Governor of Pennsyl- the Governor of Maryland and by application to vania for Nottingham, while according to hisopin- the authorities in England.' No record is to be ion the town was unquestionably in Ceeil County. found of any meeting between the two Governors Governor Keith admitted having appointed the in accordance with this resolution. In fact, it was only a few days after the Pennsylvania Council had adopted this conciliatory tone that they turned savagely on the Cecil County Courts for their ae- tion in reprehending Taylor and Gatchel, declar- ing that " they ought not by any means submit to their (Maryland) courts or orders, or acknowledge their jurisdiction over them, and that this govern- ment ought to support them in the defence of their just rights." magistrates, but was under the impression that the town was in Chester County. Colonel French, who had resided for a long time in that neighbor - hood, substantiated this view, but stated that since the boundary disputes had begun it had occasion- ally been a mooted question as to the county in which Nottingham was actually situated. Gover- nor Keith firmly refused to revoke the commissions of the magistrates of Nottingham, although pressed to do so by Colonel Hart. It was at length agreed that they should remain, but both parties promised to make no further aggression until the whole matter was settled.
In the spring of 1722 the controversy was again revived, through a series of canses. Philip Syng was prosecuted for surveying and taking out his patents for a piece of land under the Governor of Maryland, after he had been informed that it was situated within the boundaries of Pennsylvania. A greater souree of trouble was the rumor of an attempt, on the part of the Marylanders, to sur- vey a strip of the disputed territory, then occupied by the Indians on the Susquehanna. The Indians themselves were much alarmed, and notified Gov- ernor Keith, who niet them at Conestogoe The Governor anticipated the Marylanders, however, by having the land surveyed himself, and called out the militia at New Castle to meet the invading hosts if they crossed the line. He wrote to the Couneil informing it of his plans and also his in- tention to run a line westward as far as the Poto- mae. They assented to all his propositions, ex- cept the last, which they feared would make the breach with Maryland very much wider, unless the line would be drawn with the consent of all con- eerned. Later in the year the matter become even more complicated by the arrest of Isaae Taylor and Elisha Gatchel, two Chester County magis- trates, by the authorities of Cecil County, on ar- count of the old Nottingham dispute. Governor Keith wrote to Colonel Calvert of the affair, re- questing him to release the prisoners, but they were nevertheless bound over to keep the peace On November 5th the Governor placed the whole matter before the Council asking " what measures may be most proper for him to take tor preventing the fatal consequences of a general misunderstand- ing with such near neighbors." The response of the Council was moderate to a marked degree. They admitted that the boundary controversy in- volved questions of absolute doubt. and acknowl- werd the possibility of error on the part of Penn- sylvania as well as Maryland. The Governor was advised to make every effort to secure some form of
It can easily be appreciated that it was only with extreme difficulty that the relations between the parties to this prolonged dispute were main- tained in a peaceable way, when supported by such hollow and artificial manifestations of mutual re- gard. Every movement was eagerly watched on both sides, and suspicion was equally shared by both parties. These faets were brought out eon- tinually, and more forcibly in matters of little im- port than in affairs of graver bearing. in which the dealings were usually open and above board. The most singular feature of the entire controversy is the entire absence of any evidence to show that either the Pennsylvanians or Marylanders took any pains to hasten a settlement of the boundaries. This is the more easily explained in the case of Lord Baltimore, whose claims had twice been de- cided upon prejudicially to his interests ; but what deterred Penn's heirs from hurrying a settlement is not so easy to conjecture. Both parties seemed to imagine the problem would be solved through forees within itself and preferred not to be annoyed with it. The one arrangement which was made, however, in 1723, is worthy of recording, showing that a settlement was expected, and a desire for such expressed, although the parties to the dis- pute still remained inactive. The termis of the agreement are as follows :
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.