USA > New Jersey > The New Jersey coast in three centuries; history of the New Jersey coast with genealogical and historic-biographical appendix, Vol. I > Part 8
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
William Reape was a Long Island settler and a Quaker, who had been arrested and imprisoned by the Dutch Governor, Peter Stuyvesant, who was a mild persecutor of Quakers for the reason that his instructions from the States-General required him to discountenance all form of religion but that prescribed by the Synod of Dordrecht. Soon after his liberation Reape went to Newport, Rhode Island, where he engaged in mercantile business, and he was living there when he became interested in the Mon- mouth patent. He was one of the settlers who came to the Navesink In- dian purchase in 1665.
Nicholas Davies (or Davis) was living in the Massachusetts Bay colony when the Quakers began preaching there, and he became a mein- ber of their society, for which offense he was indicted in April, 1659, and in July of the same year he was sentenced to death. Mary Dyer, whose son Henry was an early Monmouth county settler, William Robinson and Marmaduke Stevenson were sentenced at the same time, and were hung in Boston. Davies' sentence was commuted to banishment, and he removed
69
HISTORY OF THE NEW JERSEY COAST.
to Newport, Rhode Island, where he was living when he became interested in the Monmouth patent. He was drowned about 1672.
The Rev. Obadiah Holmes, of whom more elsewhere in this volume, was living in 1639 at Salem, Massachusetts, where he was engaged with Lawrence Southwick and Ananias Conklin, descendants of both of whom became settlers on the Monmouth purchase.
Although he never settled on his Monmouth lands, he made occa- sional visits there, one of which was upon the organization of the Baptist Church at Middletown, which was the first of that denomination in New Jersey and the third or fourth in America. Two of his sons, Obadiah and Jonathan, became settlers in Monmouth.
Acting under the authority conferred upon them, the patentees and their associates began the establishment of settlements at Middletown and Shrewsbury. Later the same year ( 1665) many settlers came from Long Island and Rhode Island, and during the following four years the num- ber of families in the present territory of the county of Monmouth had increased to more than one hundred, reaching the limit which had been set by the settlers at their general assembly in 1668. The landowners con !- prised in the settlements, who were for the greater number actual resi- dents and heads of families, were named as follows :
From Massachusetts Bay .- George Allen, William Gifford, John Jenkines, Richard Sadler, Edward Wharton.
From Rhode Island .- John Allen, Christopher Allmy, Job Allmy, Stephen Arnold, James Ashton, Benjamin Borden, Richard Borden, Fran- cis Brindley, Nicholas Brown, Abraham Brown, Henry Bull, Robert Carr, George Chutte, Walter Clarke, Thomas Clifton, William Coddington, Joshua Coggeshall, John Coggeshall, Edward Cole, Jacob Cole, Joseph Coleman, John Cook, Nicholas Davis, Richard Davis, William Deuell, Benjamin Deuell, Thomas Dungan, Roger Ellis and son, Peter Easton, Gideon Freeborn, Annias Gauntt. Zachary Gauntt, Daniel Gould, John Havens, Robert Hazard, Samuel Holliman, Obadiah Holmes, Jon- athan Holmes, George Hulett, Richard James, William James, William Layton, James Leonard, Henry Lippett, Mark Lucar (or Luker), Lewis Mattux, Edward Pattison, Thomas Potter, William Reape, Richard Rich- ardson, William Shaberly, Samuel Shaddock, Thomas Shaddock, Will- iam Shaddock, William Shearman, John Slocum, Edward Smith, John Smith, Edward Tartt, Robert Taylor, John Throckmorton, Job Throck- morton, Edward Thurston, Eliakim Wardell, George Webb, Bartholo- mew. West, Robert West, Robert West, Jr., Thomas Winterton, Emanuel Woolley.
From Long Island .- John Bowne, Gerrard Bowne, James Bowne, William Bowne, William Compton, John Conklin (earlier from Salem, Mass. ). Thomas Cox, John Cox, Richard Gibbons, William Goulding,
70
HISTORY OF THE NEW JERSEY COAST.
James Grover, James Grover, Jr., William Lawrence, Bartholomew Lip- pencott, Richard Lippencott, Richard Moor, Thomas Moor, John Ruck- man, Nathaniel Silvester, Benjamin Spicer, Samuel Spicer, John Stout, Richard Stout, John Tilton, Peter Tilton, Nathaniel Tompkins, John Townsend, John Wall, Walter Wall, Thomas Wansick, Thomas Whitlock.
Previous residence unknown except where mentioned .- John Bird, Joseph Boyer, William Cheeseman, Edward Crome, Daniel Estell, Ralph Gouldsmith, John Hall, John Hance (Westchester, N. Y.), John Haun- dell, Thomas Hart, John Hawes, James Heard, Richard Hartshorn (Eng- land ), Tobias Haudson, John Horabin, Joseph Huet, Randall Huet, Ran- dall Huet, Jr., John Jobs, Robert Jones (New York), Gabriel Kirk, Ed- mund Lafetra, Francis Masters, George Mount, William Newman, An- thony Page, Joseph Parker, Peter Parker, Henry Percy, Bartholomew Shamgungue, Richard Sissell, Robert Story, John Tomson, Marmaduke Ward, John Wilson, John Wood, Thomas Wright.
July 8, 1670, at an assembly held at Portland Point, the restriction as to the number of landowners was so set aside as to admit William Bowne, Thomas Whitlock, John Wilson, John Ruckman, Walter Wall, John Smith, Richard Richardson, John Horabin, James Bowne, Jonathan Holmes, Christopher Allmy, Eliakim Wardell, Bartholomew West, John Haunce, James Ashton, Edward Pattison, William Shaddock, Thomas Winterton, Edward Tartt, Benjamin Burden (Borden), and two years later (in May, 1672), Richard Lippincott and Nicholas Browne were also admitted.
Of those mentioned in the foregoing list, the following named, own- ers of shares in the Indian purchase (some being also original grantees under the Monmouth patent ), did not become settlers, viz. : Henry Bull, Robert Carr, Walter Clarke (patentee), William Coddington. Joshua Coggeshall, John Coggeshall, Nicholas Davis (patentee), Zachary Gauntt. Daniel Gould, Edward Thurston and Obadiah Holmes (patentee), all of Rhode Island; Nathaniel Sylvester (patentee), of Long Island; and John Jenkins and Edward Wharton, of Massachusetts Bay. Robert Carr sold his share to Giles Slocum, of Newport, Rhode Island, and to his son, John Slocum, who became a settler. Zachariah Gauntt sold his share to his brother, Annias, who also became a permanent settler.
Mention is to be made of some of the early purchasers under the Monmouth patent who were intimately associated with the patentees in the formative days of the settlements.
Edward Smith, whose name appears as a purchaser of lands within the Monmouth patent, was one of those who were indicted at Plymbutli with Rev. Obadiah Holmes and John Hazell, in October, 1650, as before mentioned.
71 .
HISTORY OF THE NEW JERSEY COAST.
John Haunce, one of the original settlers of Shrewsbury, was a deputy and overseer at a court held at Portland Point, December 28, 1669. He held various positions in the county, among which was Justice. He was a deputy to the Assembly in 1668, but refused to take the oath of allegiance and would not yield the claims of his people under the Monmouth patent, and submit to the laws and government of the proprietors when directed against those claims, in consequence of which he was rejected as a mem- ber, as was also Jonathan Holmes, Edward Tartt and Thomas Winterton, at the same session, for the same reasons. Haunce was re-elected a deputy in 1680 and at other times.
William Shattock, a native of Boston, about 1656, joined the Quak- ers in the Massachusetts Bay colony, and for this offense was whipped and banished. He removed to Rhode Island and thence to New Jersey in or about 1665, settling on lands of the Monmouth patent. A few years afterward he moved to Burlington. His daughter Hannah married Re- store Lippincott, son of Richard Lippincott.
Samuel Shattock (or Shaddock), a settler on the Navesink purchase, was a Massachusetts Quaker, who removed thence to Rhode Island before his settlement in New Jersey.
John and Job Throckmorton, ancestors of the numerous Throckmor- tons of the present time in Monmouth county, were settlers between 1665 and 1667. They were sons of John Throckmorton, who, with Thomas James, William Arnold, Edward Cole and Ezekiel Holliman (or more properly, Holman), came from England in the same ship with Roger Williams, and all of whom are mentioned by Williams as his friends and associates in an account written by him in 1638. John Throckmorton was among the first settlers at Providence, Rhode Island, and was afterward in Westchester, New York, with Ann Hutchinson. After she was killed by the Indians he still held his lands in Westchester and on Long Island, but returned to Providence, where he spent most of his time and held his citizenship.
John Smith came to the Monmouth great tract with the early settlers, and was the first "schoolmaster" of Middletown. He was the same person who, with three others, accompanied Roger Williams on his first explor- ing journey to Rhode Island. Edward Smith, who was also a settler in Monmouth, left Massachusetts Bay with John Smith, the teacher, be- cause of the persecution against them as Baptists.
Richard Hartshorne came to New Jersey in September, 1669, and located in Middletown. Sandy Hook was first held under a grant to him in 1667. He was a Quaker, and an account of his country written by him and circulated in England induced considerable emigration. A letter from
72
HISTORY OF THE NEW JERSEY COAST.
him, dated November 12, 1675, is one of a collection printed in 1676, a fac simile of which is in the New Jersey Historical Society Library. In 1684 he was appointed one of Deputy-Governor Laurie's Council. In the succeeding year he was elected to the General Assembly from Middletown; was chosen Speaker in 1686, and held that position at other times. March, 1698, he became one of Governor Basse's Council. He still continued to hold his seat as a member of the Assembly, and filled both positions until the surrender of the government to the crown.
Eliakim Wardell, one of the associate patentees of Monmouth, had lived near Hampton, New Hampshire, where he and his wife were in- prisoned, whipped and banished because of their Quaker principles. They removed to Rhode Island, and thence to New Jersey, where he became one of the early settlers on the Monmouth Patent, and was the first Sheriff of the county in 1683.
Christopher Allmy, who was at one time Deputy Governor of Rhode Island, came from that colony to settle on the Monmouth lands, in 1665 or 1666. He became one of the associate patentees, and remained an in- habitant of Monmouth County for several years, during which time he ran a sloop between Wakake Landing and the Rhode Island ports. He finally left New Jersey and returned to Rhode Island.
No colonies ever founded had more auspicious beginning. Their members were no mere adventurers, but men of character and enterprise, who sought civil and religious liberty as earnestly as they did oppor- tunity for the advancement of their personal fortunes. They were am- bitious of no greater freedom than was assured them under authority of the Duke of York, and their local enactments were made in the same lib- eral spirit which was expressed in the grant under which they began the establishment of local government. But these salutary conditions were not long to endure, and soon was to begin a long period of disquietude which finally led to revolt.
June 24, 1664, the Duke of York had disposed of his interest in the territory lying between the Hudson and Delaware rivers to Lord Berkeley and Sir George Carteret. This was before the issuance of the proclamation of Governor Nicolls, who was unaware of the transaction until the arrival of Philip Carteret, a brother off Sir George Carteret, late in the summer of the same year. Philip Carteret at once gave proclamation of his com- mission as Governor, under the new Lords Proprietors, and of the "Con- cession and Agreement of the Lords Proprietors of the Province of New Jersey, to and with all and every, the Adventurers, and all such as shall Settle and Plant there." By the terms of the latter document, the title de- rived by the settlers under the grant of Governor Nicolls was absolutely
73
HISTORY OF THE NEW JERSEY COAST.
ignored, and they were required to take out new patents under the pro- prietors, whom they were to acknowledge as landlords, and to whom they were to pay stipulated quit-rents. It is to be remarked that Governor Carteret himself became a land purchaser at Elizabeth Town, under the associates who derived their rights from Governor Nicolls, and in the controversies which arose he repeatedly acknowledged the validity of their title, but finally allied himself with the proprietors, and caused his former fellow associates great inconvenience.
The controvery is of succinct statement. The associates regarded their titles as good and secure, predicated upon the grant made by Governor Nicolls, acting under authority of his commission from the Duke of York, of date April 2, 1664, and phrased as follows :
"I do hereby constitute and appoint him, the said Richard Nicolls, Esq .. to be my Deputy Governor within the Lands, Islands and Places aforesaid, to perform and execute all and every the Powers which are by the said Letters Patent granted unto Me, to be executed by my Deputy, Agent or Assign." -
The contention of the associates was that the authority committed to Governor Nicolls had not been revoked and that his acts under it were binding and of full force.
The Lords Proprietors, on the contrary, held that the Duke of York had alienated the lands "several months" (June 24) prior to the issuance of the "pretended" grants made by Governor Nicolls, and that when Nic- olls executed that instrument the lands in the province of Jersey belonged to them ( Berkeley and Carteret) and not to the Duke of York, and that all grants made by Nicolls were void and of no effect.
In Monmouth County the controversy was from the beginning ag- gressive on either side, and its history is of commanding interest. Gov- ernor Carteret had made strenuous effort to make the lands of the province profitable to his masters, the Lords Proprietors, and to this end he had sent his agents to Massachusetts Bay and other colonies to induce immigra- tion, with the result of bringing in many new settlers. Those who came to Monmouth County, where the anti -- proprietary sentiment was strongly pronounced, in greater number fell into sympathy with the people into whose midst they came, and considered the claims of the Lords Proprie- tors of little importance except in a purely governmental way. In that they acquiesced, but they regarded the Nicolls grant and conveyances made under it as all sufficient foundation for their own land titles.
In their effort to ensure avoidance of quit-rent payment to the Lords Proprietors, the Monmouth patentees and those holding under them ap-
74
HISTORY OF THE NEW JERSEY COAST.
pealed to Governor Nicolls, hoping that he would afford them assurance of the validity of the grant which he had made to them in his capacity as deputy and representative of the Duke of York. In reply to their letters written in July and August, 1667, Governor Nicolls replied (August 10) in terms which, while smoothly phrased, indicated that they need expect no support from him-that they were to be regarded in nowise differently from other settlers, and would be required to make submission to the pro- prietary government and to make payment of quit-rent as demanded by Berkeley and Carteret.
The disputes as to land titles now come to be interwoven with the State history of the province. In May, 1668, the first assembly under the proprietors convened in Elizabeth Town. James Grover, from Middle- town, and John Bowne, from Shrewsbury, appeared as delegates and took the oath of office. They do not appear of record as having been chosen by their towns (which subsequently repudiated them), but they sat in the assembly sessions, and voted for the tax levies made, and this fact militated against the patentees and inhabitants at a later day, when the land disputes came before the authorities.
At the Middletown town meeting, October 28, 1668, it was voted that "taking into consideration the liberties and privileges granted by patent
that this following proviso shall be presented to the Governor
and Council that noe law or act or command which is or may be made, acted or commanded, may any way be forceable against the lib- erties and privileges of your patent. * That if the Governor and Council please not to admit of the proviso in the oath, engagement or submission, that then the deputies shall refuse either to engage, promise or subscribe."
This determined action was tantamount to rebellion, and it was ac- companied by action yet more insubordinate and significant. The assem- bly had at its initial meeting laid a tax of five pounds upon each town, which payment was refused by Middletown and Shrewsbury for the reason as given that they were tax exempt for seven years under the pro- visions of the Nicolls patent.
This act of defiance moved the assembly, in the session of November of the same year, to appoint Luke Watson and Samuel Moore to collect the tax, by distraint if necessary, and to "demand the positive resolution of the inhabitants, or the major part of them, of the said towns whether or no they will submit to the government of this province, under the Right Honorable John Lord Berkeley and Sir George Carteret, Knight and Baronet, the absolute Lords Proprietors of the same, according to
-=
75
HISTORY OF THE NEW JERSEY COAST.
His Royal Highness, the Duke of York's grant, upon which answer the. General Assembly will proceed accordingly."
So far from being intimidated by this positive procedure, the inhab- itants became even more recalcitrant. Their antagonism was not at all covert, but they held a town meeting and inscribed upon the records un- mistakable provisions for their conduct in evading service by the tax col- lectors, and made rule that "if any one being an inhabitant shall come or fall into any trouble about anything concerning the premises above speci- fied, or shall be called by virtue of any writ or warrant to appear before any governor or court upon the same account of such appearance or such assistance, that every such inhabitant shall have his time and expenses dis- charged by the town, and his domestic business go forward all the time of his absence."
On the same day, and by action of the same town meeting, James Ashton, Jonathan Holmes, Richard Gibbons, Richard Stout, Willian Lawrence and Edmund Tartt are ordered to make answer to the Governor's representatives, in behalf of the town; the clerk is instructed to receive the laws from the governor's representatives (servants), Watson and Moore before named, and upon receiving the same to declare that the town receives them for its own security only ; and it is ordered "that no inhabi- tant shall be seized upon or carried by violence out of the town, until the town sees further." And at the same time the following spirited declara- tion was entered upon the town book by the town cleik :
"For as much as Luke Watson and Samuel Moore, the Governour's messingers, doe command us to aid and assist you in taking distraint of goods from the inhabitants of Middleton, to discharge levies levied upon them, This wee declare: That wee own Captain Phillip Carteret to be our Governour, whose lawfull, good and just commands wee shall and will obey in all things not for wrath, but for Conscience' sake towards God, the liberties and privileges of our pattent only maintained in full and ample manner ; but for as much as the Governour has sent yee to take a distraint of goods from a people that as yet are not submitted to him (if the act of the General Assembly did not hold forth soe much, we woukl not say so), though the same people will be ready to yield true submission to him, their Governour, in all things good and lawfull, the liberties and privileges of their pattent only maintained; wee say, for as much as he hath sent yee to take distraint of their goods, as in our con- science wee judge not to bee just, for how can anything be due from any man or people who are not submitted? Wee shall be passive here in re- fusing either aide or assistance to yee in the distraynt."
These defiant acts and utterances were met with warrants by the Gov- ernor commanding the publication of tax-collection laws in the towns of
76
HISTORY OF THE NEW JERSEY COAST.
Shrewsbury and Middletown, and a prohibition by the president of the Council, providing that "no person in these towns shall have authority to bear any civil or military office until he has taken the oath of allegiance to the King and of fidelity to the Lords Proprietors, under penalty of being proceeded against as a mutineer against the authority of the government, and as disturbers of the public peace."
May 1;, of the same year ( 1668), at a town meeting held in Middle- town, a voluminous and circumstantial answer was made to the demands of the Lords Proprietors. This historic document, which has become fa- mous as "the Monmouth Declaration of Independence." is as follows :
"In a legall towne-meeting, the major part being present, it was this day putt to the vote concerning answering the Demand of Luke Wat- son and Samuel Moore, who were authorized by the General Assembly to demand our positive resolution of submission to the government, of the absolute Lords Proprietors, as sayeth the Act bearing date the seventh of November, it was unanimously resolved that this following act shall be our positive solution, and shall be presented to the General As- sembly, viz :
"That of the oath of allegiance to our Sovereign Lord, the King, and fidelity to the Lords Proprietors' interest, bee the submission intended in the act, this is our result : that as true loyal subjects to the King, we are ready at all demands either to engage, swear or subscribe all true alleagance to his Royal Majesty of England, as in duty bound, either before the Governour, or any other minister of justice authorized by him to administer the same, without any equivocation or mentall reservation, as true loiall subjects ought to doe; and this wee will performe absolutely.
"As to the Lords Proprietors' interest, it being a new, unheard thing to us. and soe obscure to us that at present we are ignorant what it is; yet as men not void of judgment, knowing right well that all oaths, en- gagements or subscriptions ought to be administered in truth, in right- ecusness and in judgment, upon which consideration wee are not willing to swear to (wee know not what), yet by what hath been presented and come to our hands from the Governour at several times, viz: an order or law in the year 1666, prohibiting any from selling wine to the Indians, under great penalty, though it seems now that above the quantity of two gallons may be tolerated by law. 2d. Warrants coming to our hands, not in His Majesties name, but in the Lords Proprietors' name, being such a name as wee simple creatures never heard of before. 3d. An account that our Deputies gave us, being returned from the General As- sembly held in November last, who informed us that the honnoured Gov- ernour told them (speaking concerning their patent) that notwithstanding your pattent, said hee, yett new Lords must now have new lawes, and further they declared to us that the Governour tould them that Governour Nicolls could not give away his master's land, and further said that when your pattent was in granting, that Captain James Bullen, my Secretary,
----
77
HISTORY OF THE NEW JERSEY COAST.
putt in his caveat, and soe put a stop to it, Captain Bullen then affirming the same. 4th. An order coming from the Governour and Counsell, bear- ing date the first of March, '68, prohibiting the townes of Middleton and Shrewsbury from electing any officer, or any officer from executing any office, upon penalty of being proceeded against as mutineers. 5th. An act of the General Assembly, stiling ( the Right Honorable John Lord Berkley and Sir George Carteret) the absolute Lords proprietors.
"By all wch, wee conceive: that the Lord's Proprietors interest is: not only : the absolute sovereignty: from wch all laws must be given : but allsoe the absolute propriety; from wch all lands must bee holden : (wee say) if this bee the interest soe specified in the Gouvernour's late order: and intended in the oath : and in parte the submission demanded by the Act.
"This is our result : wee have received a pattent from his Roiall high- ness the Duke of York's Deputy: owning us: nott only to have pur- chased our lands from the Chief Proprietors of the countrey : but allsoe impowering us to give prudentiall lawes to ourselves: both for our own safety : and our well being :: and should wee submit to interest soe farre : as by either engaging : swearing or subscribing, to the lawes of the govern- ment under the Lords proprietors how contrary and prejudiciall to our present safety, as witness a law made the last General Assembly: giving liberty to sell wine to the Indians : wch Liberty tends merely to our dis- truction, many sad former experiences have we had among us witnessing the same : it being a Liberty soe contrary to the lawes of New Yorke from whence our pattent had its originall: and besides, our pattent giving us such liberty as giving lawes to ourselves, how are wee bound to take lawes from the government of the Lords Proprietors ( criminalls and apeals excepted) by wch it is manifest : that neither the Lords proprietors nor the Generall Assembly can in the leaste breake our libertties and privileges : but we ourselves will be found to bee self-violaters of them in submitting by swearing to such an interest : as wee are not bound to : besides at pres- ent noe provission being made by the Lords proprietors' government for the conservation of the liberties and privileges of our pattent, they are liable to bee infringed upon by such acts wch are resolved by the major vote of the Generall Assembly: then how should we submit by swearing to the laws of the government: and nott bee guilty of self-violation of our pattent ourselves.
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.