USA > New Jersey > Historical and genealogical miscellany : data relating to the settlement and settlers of New York and New Jersey > Part 35
USA > New York > Historical and genealogical miscellany : data relating to the settlement and settlers of New York and New Jersey > Part 35
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
The second uprising, in 1643, occurred some months later, and again was the result of Kieft's maladministration. Notwithstanding the fearful experience he had just passed through, his cupidity and dishonesty were such that he embezzled the gifts that were to ratify the late treaty with the River Indians, which occasioned such dissatisfaction and discontent that the outraged Indians seized several boats laden with peltries in retaliation and as an offset. In doing this, ten white men were killed. Then followed war in its most terrible shape. The set- tlements of Anne Hutchinson, John Throckmorton and the Rev. Francis Doughty were all destroyed, some of their settlers killed or taken into captivity, while the balance, amounting to over an hundred families, quickly made their way to the Fort at New Amsterdam. Lady Moody's settlement, at Gravesend, alone was able to withstand their assault. Here, the towns- men, many of whom had served during the two months in the Indian outbreak in the Spring, under Lieut. Nicholas Stillwell, Ensign George Baxter and Sergeant James Hubbard, well organized into a trained band, gave them so brisk and severe a reception that they were soon in full retreat. So great was the need of protection at the Fort that Kieft again found it necessary to take "into the public service all the able bodied English inhabitants of the neighboring vil- lages, the Commonalty of New Amsterdam having agreed to provide for one-third of their pay; and a company of fifty was immediately enrolled from their number, armed and drilled."
About March, 1644, the Indians were vanquished, and on Apr. 6, and Apr. 16, 1644, Sachems from various tribes concluded a new peace at Fort Amsterdam. It was in one of these two enlistments that Richard Stout served with Robert Pennoyer and other fellow soldiers, and I am inclined to think it was in the first one.
At that time, Lady Moody and her party had not arrived and he was naturally free, but during the second enlistment, Gravesend having been settled and he, doubtless, one of its inhabitants, it was naturally incumbent upon him to remain with its defensive company.
The supposition that Richard Stout was employed at the Fort in the Spring uprising of 1643, rather than in the Fall and Winter of 1643 and 1644, and that he left New Amsterdam, with Lady Moody, in the Summer of 1643, to found Gravesend, is confirmed by the following
301
STOUT OF MONMOUTH COUNTY
record from the Calendar of New York Historical Manuscripts, which establishes a date for his residence at Gravesend:
"Octoberr 13th, 1643, Richard Aestin, Ambrose Love [?] and Richard Stout made declaration that the crew of the Seven Stars and of the privateer landed at the farm of Anthony Jansen, of Salee, in the Bay, and took off 200 pumpkins, and would have carried away a lot of hogs from Coney Island had they not learned that they belonged to Lady Moody."
Thus far we have ascertained that Richard Stout was a resident of New Amsterdam in the Spring of 1643, when he was employed by Governor Kieft as a soldier in the February uprising of that year; that he accompanied Lady Moody, with other settlers, to found Gravesend, be- tween her arrival in June, and October of this same year.
How much earlier than February, 1643, Richard Stout may have been in New Amsterdam, it is idle to speculate upon.
In the first allotments of house lots and farms in Gravesend, Feb. 20, 1646, he received Plantation lot No. 16, upon which he evidently grew tobacco, for Oct. 26, 1649, John Thomas bought, for two hundred and ten guilders, Richard Stout's crop of tobacco.
Gravesend Town Records.
In 1657, of his twenty acre farm he had seventeen acres under cultivation.
1661, Apr. 5. He bought an adjoining farm of Edward Griffin.
1663, Oct. 8. Richard Stout was plaintiff in a slander suit in Gravesend, and won his case.
Even with his double farm of forty acres, Richard Stout realized its insufficiency to maintain and settle a rapidly growing family, so that he, with other neighbors, similarly situated, turned to the adjacent and easily reached country, whose wooded hills could be seen towards the South, which was the spot where his wife had had her bitter experience among the Indians, and of whose attractions she had doubtless spoken, prompting him to scout its woods in search of game, and finally in search of land for a new home for himself and family. That this settlement oc- curred before 1664, I doubt, though the Stout manuscript, and Mrs. Seabrook, probably from the same source, say explicitly, that it was in the year 1648, and that Stout was associated with five additional settlers, among whom Mrs. Seabrook named Bowne, Lawrence, Grover and Whitlock. To this earlier settlement, Edwards makes no allusion, nor can it be said that Smith does, but to the contrary, he fixes the date of Stout's settlement practically about the time of 1665, or a little later, for he mentions the event, as does Edwards, of an uprising when Penelope's oldtime Indian friend saved her by a timely warning, which Smith says occurred, when there "were supposed to be about fifty families of white people, and five hundred Indians inhabiting these parts." Surely this must relate to a later date than 1648, for so many white families could only have been assembled in this district after the Monmouth Patent had been issued by Gov- ernor Nicolls; further, a study of the movements of the Stouts, Bownes, Lawrences, Grovers and Whitlocks does not encourage the belief that they were permanently settled on the Monmouth Tract much before 1665. At times members of these families may have been temporarily camped out in this district for hunting or prospecting, and it may have been on one of these occasions that Penelope Stout received the warning from her Indian friend of the threatened uprising, and the need of her immediate removal, and, indeed, this event, given by Smith, Edwards and the Stout manuscript, could only have occurred during such a temporary occupa- tion, for, in 1665, or later, Penelope's Indian saviour would have been more than twenty-two years older than he was in 1643, the date of Penelope's supposed arrival, when he was already an old man. Add these years to this old man's age and he would have been pretty patriarchal. Again, Smith's account says Penelope took her children with her, which would probably refer to a late, rather than to an early event, as in 1665, her family was largely grown, yet some were young, being born after 1654.
302
HISTORICAL MISCELLANY
Another statement in Smith's account contradicts the idea of a 1648 settlement, for he states that, "A while after marrying to one Stout, they lived together at Middletown among other Dutch inhabitants." As a matter of fact, the accredited associates of Stout, in his 1648 settlement, were English from Gravesend, and there is no knowledge of any Dutch in this locality till long after the Monmouth Patent was granted.
When the conclusion was reached that it was vital to abandon the crowded settlement of Gravesend, a number of the settlers from that village, and a few from adjacent towns, to the number of twenty, sailed in a sloop, in the early part of December, 1663, up the Raritan River, and began negotiations with the Sachems for the purchase of lands. These proceedings were interrupted by a company of Dutchmen, who, cruising about in one of the company's sloops, heard of the presence of the English, and suspecting their purpose, notified the Sachems, of the Raritans and the Navesinks, not to bargain with them, whereupon the English went to the shores at the mouth of the Navesink, where, again, for a second time, a sharp passage at words occurred between them. The Dutch, for some time, had realized the desire of the English to throw over their allegiance, and were alert to impress them with the need of fealty, so that no progress was apparently made by the English settlers in their negotiations for lands, at this time. It was, probably, however, in anticipation of the expected overthrow of the Dutch, that this expedition was undertaken, and the consummation of this event, in the year following, 1664, with the pro- clamation of Governor Stuyvesant's successor, Richard Nicolls, of certain concessions, promptly brought about organized effort to locate in the territory which they had so recently prospected. Among those who moved to avail themselves of this golden opportunity, was Richard Stout, who, with others, patentees and associates, bought the Sachems' rights to the land embraced in the future Monmouth Patent, Apr. 8, 1665, which was confirmed to twelve of them, of whom he was one.
When ready to remove to this new tract, Richard Stout disposed of his Gravesend property to Mr. Thomas Delaval, a prosperous merchant of New York, who seems to have meditated making his residence at Gravesend, and perhaps actually did so, as he is named as a Patentee in at least one of the patents of the town.
After the death of Thomas Delaval, this property became vested in his son, John Delaval, whose widow, Hannah, sold it to John Lake, and thence on it became part of the Lake estate.
The date of Richard Stout's arrival, and permanent settlement on the Monmouth Tract, was 1664, as established by his claims for lands under the Grants and Concessions. These set forth the rights of the settlers:
GRANTS AND CONCESSIONS.
Before January, 1665, i. e., between 1664 and 1665, To every freeman (he or she) and for his able bodied man servants, if equipped, going from the port with the Governor, properly equipped, each 150 acres; and for weaker servants or slaves, exceeding fourteen years, each 75 acres, and the Christian servant, at the ex- piration of his service, 75 acres.
To any master or mistress going before January, 1665, 120 acres, and to every able bodied servant taken with them, 120 acres; and for weaker servants, i. e. over fourteen years, each 60 acres; and to Christian servants, upon the expiration of their time, each 60 acres.
Between January, 1665, and January, 1666, To every free man or woman, 90 acres; and for every able bodied servant, 90 acres, and 45 acres for the weaker servants; and 45 acres to every Christian servant, upon the expiration of his time.
From January, 1666, to January, 1667, To every free man or woman, 60 acres, and to able bodied servants, 60 acres; to weaker servants, 30 acres, and to Christian servants, upon the expiration of their time, 30 acres. Leaming and Spicer.
1675. Here begins the Rights of Lands due, according to Concessions.
Richard Stout brings for his rights, for the year 1665, for his wife, two sons, John and Richard, 120 acres each; total 480 acres.
303
STOUT OF MONMOUTH COUNTY
Items for his sons and daughters yt are come voyge [of age?] since the year 1667, namely, James, Peter, Mary, Alice and Sarah, each 60 acres; total 300 acres.
John Stout, of Middletown, for himself and wife, . .... , 240 acres.
Richard Stout, Jr., of Shrewsbury, for himself and wife, 120 acres.
James Stout for his owne right 60 acres.
Peter Stout for his owne right 60 acres.
Sarah Stout for her owne right 60 acres.
James Bowne, in right of his wife, Mary Stout, 240 acres.
John Throckmorton, in right of his wife, Alice Stout, 240 acres.
Lib. 3, East Jersey Deeds, A. side, p. I.
As already stated a careful study of Richard Stout's claim proves that he and his wife, with their two sons, John and Richard, came to the new country in 1664, while the remainder of their children probably dwelt in Gravesend till about 1667, when they too came to the Monmouth Tract to join their parents in their newly made home. This is a reasonable deduction, as some roof had to be erected to receive this large family, whose presence, in the absence of such an one, would be a hindrance rather than a help to their parents, especially as some of the children were still young. It is easy to conceive that the Gravesend house was presided over by one of the daughters and one of the sons, aided by frequent visits from the parents, till their removal took place in 1667.
Richard Stout's application for land was recorded in 1675, in which he lays claim, in right of himself, wife and children for 780 acres, i. e., 120 acres, each, for himself, wife, son John and son Richard, who were master, mistress and able-bodied servants, [not necessarily twenty-one years of age however], settling on the land before January, 1665, and 60 acres, each, for his children, James, Peter, Mary, Alice and Sarah, who voyged thither, about 1667, and who were classified as free men and women, arriving between January, 1666 and 1667. If they had settled on the Monmouth Tract with their father, prior to 1665, they too would have received this same amount of land, 60 acres, each, as weaker servants being over fourteen years of age, but the record expressly states from 1667, and the matter of their birth is not involved if the word voyge is read as travel, rather than age, as has been done heretofore. The younger, known but unmentioned, children were evidently under the age of fourteen in 1675, as they had not reached the period of being classified as "weaker servants," which had they been, would have entitled their father, Richard Stout, to additional lands at thirty acres per head, and for proof of which he put in no claim.
The influx of settlers was rapid and large, for in the astonishingly short time of about five years, from 1664 to July, 1669, further settlement was restricted especially of transients, "con- sidering the towne to be now wholly compleated beeing full acording to their number."
Upon the settlement of the Monmouth Tract, the settlers grouped themselves in three bodies, one settling at Portland Point, now the Navesink Highlands, one at Shrewsbury, on Narumsunk Neck, and one at Middletown, on Newasink Neck, so named because of lying be- tween the first two settlements. Before and after town organization was complete the Patentees met, with Deputies elected from their associates, in an Assembly, at various times in these towns, and made laws for the government of the towns, by the erection of a Constable's Court, the distribution of town lands, the election of officers, laying out of roads, etc .; and in this Assembly Richard Stout frequently sat, as one of the Patentees, during 1669, 1670 and 1671.
Shortly after this, the local Assembly was abolished and the direction of the town's affairs were left largely to themselves, while matters of large import were directed by General As- semblies and the Proprietary Governor which had been the order of things for some years.
The settlers, as we have seen, had assigned to them, by the village commonalty, under the direction of the Local Assembly, town lots and farms adjacent to the village, and it was only after some years, when the whole tract became better peopled, that they applied for and received
304
HISTORICAL MISCELLANY
large grants from the Proprietors, in conformity with their rights under the Grants and Conces- sions.
At the first division of the town lots, Dec. 30, 1667, Richard Stout drew lot No. 6, which would correspond closely to the present site of Squire Henry Taylor's house, on the South side of the Middletown highway, and beyond him, at the Eastern end of the town, probably on the North side, his son, John Stout, drew lot No. 19. The next day, Dec. 31, 1667, he was chosen, with James Ashton, to assist James Grover in laying out, in lots, the Poplar and the Mountainy fields, No. 12 falling to bim, and No. 5 falling to his son, John Stout.
1668, Jan. 4. He recorded his cattle-mark, which passed, Aug. 25, 1710, to his son, Ben- jamin Stout, and, in 1721, to John Burrows, as Benjamin Stout and his family had moved away.
Richard Stout enjoyed the confidence and respect of his fellow townsmen and was frequently elected to fill responsible positions in the conduct of the town's public business. He was one of the six who were to give answer to the Governor's men in the town's behalf, in their resistance to Proprietary aggression; he was commonly Overseer, and thus a member of the Constables Court.
In 1669, "the equality of the division of the meadows is putt to the Judgement of Richard Stoutte" and two others.
In 1678, he was chosen one of the Overseers of the Highways, and this is seemingly his last public office, for age had overtaken him, and his children had come to the fore, especially his son, John Stout.
Richard Stout received various grants of lands from the Proprietors, upon which he was compelled to pay taxes. These Middletown lands are variously alluded to in warrants, surveys and tax lists, and while, perhaps, they are in some instances here duplicated, were apparently as follows:
1675, Nov. 2. Richard Stout had seven hundred and eighty acres, at Middletown.
1676, Feb. 24. Richard Stout had four hundred acres, he having purchased the same from ye Indians in the Lord Proprietor's name.
1676, May 31. Richard Stout had five hundred acres, and meadow, as being one of the first purchasers.
1676, June 23. Richard Stout had four hundred and sixty acres.
1676, June 28. Richard Stout had four hundred and sixty acres.
1676, June 30. Richard Stout had one hundred and eighty-four acres, in Middletown, which he sold later to William Leeds, Sr., of Burlington.
1677, May 7. Richard Stout had two hundred and eighty-five acres.
1686, July 20. Richard Stout had four hundred and sixty acres.
1686, Oct. 15. Quit Rents of Middletown.
Richard Stout 460 acres at 19 s. 2 d. pr. An. 9:11:8
Cr. By Pardons order payd to. 1:15:0
By 20 bushells of wheat at 4 s. pr. bushel 4:00:0
By 26 bushells of Indian Corn at 2 s. By abatement the man is very old 1:04:00 12:08 }9:11
In the Quit Rent Roll, for the year 1686, he received an abatement of his tax, as "the man is very old." This brings us to a discussion of the probable year of Richard Stout's birth and death. The Rev. Mr. Hart, of Hopewell, drawing his information from the descendants of Jonathan Stout, and supplying it to Morgan Edwards, gave a series of dates which are wrong
305
STOUT OF MONMOUTH COUNTY
upon their face and extremely confusing. He stated that Penelope, the wife of Richard Stout, was born in 1602, and sailed for New York about 1620, and was wrecked. That she met and married, in New York, Richard Stout, when she was in her twenty-second year, and he in his fortieth, and that she lived to the age of one hundred and ten years, and saw her offspring multi- plied into five hundred and two in about eighty-eight years. Allowing one year for her widow- hood, Penelope Stout would have married Richard Stout, according to these dates, in 1621, in her twenty-second year, which would make her born about 1600; and he, at this date, in his fortieth year, would have been born about 1582; she, living to one hundred and ten years of age, would have died about 1710.
If Penelope Stout was born in 1602, she was sixty-three years old when the settlement of Middletown occurred, and as only two of her children, John and Richard, had arrived at age, and were presumbly about twenty and eighteen years, respectively, she must have been aged forty-three years when she bore her first child, and as we know that she had ten children that grew to adult life, and perhaps others who died young, it would have prolonged her child-bearing period till she was near, if not over, the age of sixty, when, as a matter of fact, it should have encompassed thirty years, between the ages of sixteen years and forty-six years, or thereabouts. Evidently there is a mistake in Mr. Hart's dates, and I think it lies in the fact that he erro- neously gave the date of birth, 1602, to Penelope Stout instead of to Richard Stout, her husband. If we accept this as likely, and fit her marriage to the date of 1644, which we have proved was the probable date of her arrival, then we can intelligently apply the other figures, given by Mr. Hart, and the results would be:
Richard Stout was born 1602; married 1644; died 1705.
Penelope Stout was born 1622-23; married 1644; died 1732-3.
The correctness of the dates assigned Richard Stout is sustained by the fact that he was very old in 1686, and that he became inactive, in town affairs, about 1670.
We have little knowledge of him in his later days.
1679-80, Feb. 26. Richard and Penelope Stout sold to Thomas Snowsell, Sr., sixteen acres of land, with dwelling house, barn and orchard, and nine acres of upland, in the Poplar Field, and other small parcels, for £66-5-3. This land later passed to John Crafford and then to Peter Tilton.
In 1690, he conveyed to his son, Peter Stout, land on Hop River, and six and two-thirds acres of meadow, at Conesconck, joining David Stout.
In 1690, he conveyed to his son, James Stout, land on Hop River, on whose boundaries was Jonathan Stout, and another piece of land, at Conescunk, adjoining David Stout.
1703, June 9th. Will of Richard Stout, of Middletowne, County of Monmouth; proved, by attestation of Richard Hartshorne, one of the witnesses, and also to the signatures of witness- es, John Weekham, [Meekham?], and Peter Vandevandetere, before Edward, Vifcount Corn- bury, Governor, Perth Amboy, ye 23th, 8ber, 1705, mentioned:
"unto my louing wife deuring her naturall life All my orchard and that part or rome of the houfe fhee now lives in with the cellar and all the land I now Improue. .... unto my louing wife all my horfe kind except- ing one mare and coult my Sonn Beniamin is to haue for wintering my cattell laft yeare."
"to my Sonns, John, Richard, James, Johnathan, Dauid, Beniamin, one fhilling each of them." "to my Daughters, Mary, Alce and Sarah, each of them, one fhilling."
"to my daughter in law, Marey Stoute, and to her fonn, John, one fhilling each of them."
"unto my kinswoman, Mary Stoute, the daughter formerly of peter ftouts, one Cow to be paid within fix days After my wifes death."
Residue "of personall eftate . . . unto my louing wife, and . .. I mak my fonn John and my fonn Johnathan my Exseceters to fee this my will performed."
306
HISTORICAL MISCELLANY
Witnesses: Richard Hartshorne, John Weekham [Meekham?]* and Peter Vandevandeter. He signed with his mark.
1705, 8ber, 23th. Oath of executors, John and Jonathan Stout, before Edward, Vifcount Cornbury, Perth Amboy.
Richard Stout, as has been deduced, probably married in 1643 or 1644, and had by his wife, Penelope, issue, most, if not all of whom, were born in Gravesend, Long Island. If no account is taken of any deceased children, or the exact order of succession, the dates of birth of the known children would be about as follows:
Issue
2 John Stout, born about 1644-5.
3 Richard Stout, born about 1646.
4 Mary Stout, born about 1648.
5 James Stout, born about 1650.
6 Alice Stout, born about 1652.
7 Peter Stout, born about 1654; died between 1702 and 1703.
8 Sarah Stout, born about 1656.
9 Jonathan Stout, born about 16 -; 1646, says James Hervey Stout.
IO Benjamin Stout, born about 1669?
II David Stout, born about 1667 or 1669.
That these children are given with some semblance of proper succession is likely, as their arrangement here conforms to their order in the Grants and Concessions, as well as in Richard Stout's will.
LINE OF JOHN STOUT
2 JOHN STOUT, son of Richard Stout, I, was born, by deduction, at Gravesend, Long Island, about 1644-45. He was married, at Middletown, N. J., by John Bowne, Justice of the Peace, Jan. 12, 1671-72, to Elizabeth .... . , whose surname is omitted in the record.
He was probably the first born, and his birth can be fixed by the deduced date of marriage of his parents, by the fact he is first enumerated in his father's claim for lands under the Grants and Concessions, and that he was an able-bodied man, though not necessarily of age, at the date of the settlement of Middletown in 1664-65.
In the first division of lands, in Middletown, Dec. 30, 1667, he drew lot No. 19, on the main street, and the following day, in the distribution of the outlying Poplar and Mountainy fields, he drew lot No. 5. He erected a house upon his town-lot, stocked his farm with cattle, some of which were allowed to herd, in common with others, and to designate which, he recorded his cattle-mark Sept. 4, 1672.
John Stout remained at Middletown, and died some time prior to 1740, as at this date, his cattle-mark was assumed by his grandson, John Stout, the newly-elected Town Clerk; and, July 23, 1742, Richard Stout, son and heir-at-law to John Stout, late of Middletown, is alluded to in a deed, with Zephaniah White, as a witness. Freehold Deeds, Lib. H., p. 317.
If it were he who died prior to 1740, he must have attained a very advanced age and sus- tained the family's reputation for longevity.
John Stout acquired a considerable estate.
*In the will the name "John Weekham " appears like " John uouhan," [Vaughn]. In the proof of the will it is spelled "Week- ham," or "Meekham."
307
LINE OF JOHN STOUT
From the Proprietors, as alluded to in Warrants, Surveys and tax bills, he received:
1675, Nov. 2, one hundred and twenty acres, at Middletown.
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.