USA > New York > Westchester County > History of Westchester County, New York, from its earliest settlement to the year 1900 > Part 15
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
Governor Nicolls, after proclaiming the Duke of York as lord pro- prietor of the province, and exacting recognition of him as such, which was readily forthcoming (Stuyvesant, and the leading Dutch citizens generally, subscribing to the oath of allegiance), permitted the former order of things to continue with as little interference as possible. With the transfer of sovereignty, however, it became nec- essary to issue new land patents to existing owners, extinguishing the condition in the old deeds that lands were held under allegiance to the Dutch West India Company, and instituting instead the au- thority of the new regime. This formality was provided for in the celebrated code known as " The Duke's Laws," adopted by an as- sembly of delegates from the towns of the province held at Hemp- stead in the summer of 1665. It was prescribed that " all persons whatsoever who may have any grants or patents of townships, lands, or houses, within this government, shall bring in the said grants or patents to the said governor and shall have them renewed by au- thority from his Royal Highness, the Duke of York, before the next Court of Assizes. That every purchaser, etc., shall pay for every hundred acres as an acknowledgment two shillings and six pence." The Dutch submitted cheerfully to the regulation, but some oppo- sition to it was offered by the inhabitants of the English towns of Long Island, who, conceiving that they belonged to the jurisdiction of Connectient, were disinclined to be thus smomarily incorporated under the new-fledged government.
The boundary question which so vexed Stuyvesant was immedi- ately brought to the serious attention of Nicolls by the Connecticut officials. He was no sooner well established in possession of the Dutch province than delegates were sent to him from Connecticut to congratulate him and arrange a settlement of the boundary line.
137
AFTER THE ENGLISH CONQUEST
He appointed commissioners to meet these delegates, and on the 28th of October, 1664, it was agreed that the line should start on the Sound at a point twenty miles east of the Hudson River and pursne a north-northwest course until it intersected the line of Massachusetts, which at that time was supposed to run across the continent to the Pacific Ocean. In locating the twenty-mile start- ing point, Nicolls accepted representations made by the Connecticut people, and it was fixed at the mouth of the Mamaroneck River, which in point of fact, however, is only ten miles from the Hudson. Accordingly, the boundary between New York and Connecticut was declared to be " a line drawn from the east point or side where the fresh water falls into the salt,1 at high-water mark, north-northwest to the line of Massachusetts." This produced a line striking the east bank of the Hudson just above Croton Point, and the west bank at West Point-an arrangement which, when the New York author- ities discovered the fact, was greatly to their dissatisfaction, and which later was rectified on a basis as nearly as convenient adjust- able to the original twenty-mile understanding. But for the time being, notwithstanding the serious miscalenlation of distance, the division of territory on the Sound appeared equitable enough. It was unquestionable that everything east of Greenwich belonged to Connecticut, by virtue of long settlement and also of the articles of 1650. West of Greenwich there were only three settlements on the Sound-those at Rye and Westchester, and an infant colony at East- chester,-and all of these had been established exclusively by Con- nectient people. Westchester village, and with it all the territory on the Sound as far as the Mamaroneck River, was surrendered by Connecticut to New York, only the Rye purchase being retained. As for the interior, that was wholly unsettled as yet, and there was no occasion to make any issue concerning it. Meantime the New York goverment was able to contend that it was the original intent of both parties to have the Connecticut line drawn at a distance of iwenty miles from the Hudson; and anything inconsistent with this in the precise terms of the arrangement actually effected was natur- ally subject to revision in due time.
Although the village of Westchester had attained to the impor- tance of a separate organized community, the settlers there had held
1 . The place where the fresh water falls into the salt " Is, says de Lancey, In his History of the Manors, the literal translation of the Indian name Mamaroneck. He adds: " A short distance above the present bridge between the Towns of Mamaroneck and Rye, where the river bends suddenly lo the east and then takes
a northerly course, a rocky reef originally crossed It nearly at right angles, causing the formation of rapids. It was high enough to prevent the tide rising over it at high water, so that the fresh water of the river always fell into the salt water of the harbor, and at low water with a strong rush and sound."
138
HISTORY OF WESTCHESTER COUNTY
their lands from the beginning under an arrangement with Thomas Pell, the original white owner of the territory, whereby they were to pay him " a certain summe of money." Circumstances prevented the fulfillment of this obligation, and on the 16th of June, 1664, three months before the surrender of the province to the English, they signed a document restoring to him all rights, titles, and claims to the traet. One of the signers was " John Acer," probably the John Archer who a few years subsequently became lord of the Manor of Fordham. The restoration thus made was only temporary, for in 1667 Westchester received a town patent.
The proprietary pretensions of Thomas Pell were quite unlimited. Besides undertaking to hold the Westchester settlers to the letter of their agreement with him, he asserted and attempted to legally enforce a claim to Cornell's Neck, which in 1646 had been patented by the Dutch director, Kieft, to Thomas Cornell, and from him had descended to his eldest daughter, Sarah, the wife of Thomas Willett and later of Charles Bridges. Shortly after the English govern- ment of New York had become established, Pell sought to oust Mrs. Bridges from the possession of Cornell's Neck, and in consequence of his arbitrary proceedings she, with her husband, brought suit to restrain him from interfering with her in the enjoyment of her inheritance. The action was tried before a jury on the 29th of September, 1665. It proved to be a test case as to the validity of Dutch grants in the whole territory which had been in dispute be- tween New Netherland and Connecticut. Pell set up the plea that the so-called Cornell's Neck was comprehended within the tract that he had bought from the Indians in 1654; that the governor and council of Connecticut had taken " notice of this land to be under their government," and had licensed him to purchase it; and that any prior Dutch grant ought to be voided, since " where there is no right there can be no dominion, so no patent could be granted by the Dutch, they having no right." On the other hand, the plaintiff's alleged " ye articles of surrender, and the King's instructions, where- in any grant or conveyance from the Dutch is confirmed." The jury promptly returned a verdiet for the plaintiff's, with sixpence damages; and it was ordered " that the high sheriff or the under- sheriff of ye North Riding of Yorkshire upon Long Island do put the plaintiff's in possession of the said land and premises; and all persons are required to forbear the giving the said plaintiffs or their assigns any molestation in their peaceable and quiet enjoy- ment thereof." Under this decision the absolute ownership of Cor- nell's Neck by the descendants of Thomas Cornell was never sub- sequently questioned. Mrs. Bridges deeded the Neck to her eldest
139
PROGRESS OF PURCHASE AND SETTLEMENT
son, William Willett, who on the 15th of April, 1667, procured from Governor Nieolls a new and more carefully worded patent to it. The Neck continued in the Willett family for more than a century afterward, and, although never invested with manorial dignity, was recognized throughout the colonial period as one of the most im- portant landed estates in Westchester County, the heads of the Wil- lett family vying in social and public prominence with the Mor- rises, Philipses, de Lanceys, and Van Cortlandts.
rr
OLD SAINT PAUL'S CHURCH, EASTCHESTER.
But though defeated in his attempt to acquire Cornell's Neck, Pell was recognized as the "one only master" of the territory reaching from the eastern confines of that locality to the Mamaroneck pur- chase of Thomas Richbell. We have seen that the title to the West- chester plantation was reconveyed to him by the settlers on the 16th of June, 1664; and in the same month another circumstance occurred indicating that Pell's authority over the whole domain was undis- puted. On the 24th of June, 1664, he granted to "James Evarts
140
HISTORY OF WESTCHESTER COUNTY
and Philip Pinckney, for themselves and their associates, to the number of ton families," the privilege " to settle down at Hutch- inson's, that is, where the house stood at the meadows and uplands, to Hutchinson's River." This new English colony, located just above Westchester, on the strip between Throgg's and Pelham Neeks, was called Eastchester, or the " Ten Farms." All the grantees came from Fairfield, Pell's home. The original ten families were soon joined by others, making twenty-six families in all. A curious covenant, comprising twenty-seven paragraphs, was adopted for the govern- ment of the place, in which plain rules for the observance of all were laid down.1 To better secure themselves in the posession of
1 Imprimis, that we by the grace of God, sitt down on the track of land lieng betwext Inthesson's brook, whear the house was, un- tell it com unto the river, that runeth in at the head of the meados.
2. That we indeavor to keepe and maintayn christian love and sivell honisty.
3. That we faithfully ronssall what may be of infirmyti in any one of us,
4. l'ainlie to dealle one with another in christian love.
5. If any trespas be don, the trespaed and thr frespaser shall chuse tow of this company, and they a thirde man if need be required, to end the mater, without any further trubel).
6. That all and every one of us, or that shall be of us, do paye unto the minester, according to his meade.
7. That none exceed the quantity of fifteen aeres, until all have that quantity.
S. That every man hath that meadow that is most convenient for him.
9. That every man build and inhabit on his home lot before the next winter.
10. That no man make sale of his lot before he hath built and inhabited one year, and then lo render it to the company, or to a man whom they approve.
11. That any man may sell part of his alot- ment to his neighbor.
12. That no man shall engrosse to himself by buying his neighbor's lot for his particular in- terest, but with respect to sell it if an ap- proved man come, and that without much ad- vantage, to be judged by the company.
13. That all public affairs, all bridges, high- ways, or mill, be carried on jointly, according to meadow and estates.
11. That provision be endeavoured for educa- tion of children, and then encouragement he given unto any that shall take pains accord- ing to our former way of rating.
15. That no man shall give entertainment to a foreigner who shall carry himself obnoxions to the company except amendment be after warning given.
16. That all shall join in guarding of cattle when the company sce it convenient.
17. That every man make and maintain a gond fence about all his arable land, and in Our time a man chosen to view if the com- pany's be good.
18, That every man sow his land when most of the company sow or plant in their fields.
10, That we give new encouragement to Mr. Brewster each other work, to give us word of exhortation, and that when we are settled we meet together every other weeke. one hour, to talk of the best things.
20. That one man, either of himself, or by consent, may give entertainment to strangers for money.
21. That one day, every spring, be improved for the destroying of rattie snakes.
22. That some. every Lurd's day, stay at hume, for safety of our wives and children.
23. That every man get and keep a good luck to his door as Soon as he can,
21. That a convenient place be appointed for oxen if nord regnire.
25. If any man's meadow or upland be worse in quality, that be considered in quantity.
26. That every man that bath taken up lottes shall pay to all publiek charges equal with those that got none. That all that hath or shall take up lots within this track of land mentioned in the premises shall subscribe to these articles.
Thomas Shufe
The mark of 0
Nathaniel Tompkins,
Philip Pinkney.
The mark of X Joseph Joans,
John Hoitt,
James Everts,
The mark of X Daniel Godwiu,
The mark of X William Squire,
David Osburn,
John Goding,
Samuel Drake,
Jobn Jackson.
The mark of John Drake, I D
The mark of
Nathaniel White,
111
PROGRESS OF PURCHASE AND SETTLEMENT
their lands, they obtained a further grant from the Indians in 1666; and on the 9th day of March of that year a patent was issued to them by Nicolls, through their representatives-Philip Pinckney, James Evarts, and William Hayden. They were to have the privi- lege of electing a deputy constable, but in all other matters were to " have relation to ye town and court of Westchester." Certain bor- der lands between them and the Westchester people were " to lye in common between them and ye inhabitants of Westchester," a pro- vision which later gave rise to a good deal of local controversy. Although the Eastchester settlement was made by men fresh from Connectient, its citizens do not appear to have sought at any time to remain under that colony.
Having parted with all that section of his lands below Hutchin- son's River, Thomas Pell next turned his attention to the erection of the remainder into one imposing estate. This was accomplished by letters patent procured from Governor Nicolls the 8th of October, 1666, a document under which the first manor in Westchester County was organized. The boundaries given it were Hutchinson's River on the west and Cedar Tree Brook or Gravelly Brook on the east; and it was to include "all the islands in the Sound, not already granted or otherwise disposed of, lying before that tract," and to " run into the woods about eight English miles in breadth." The whole was declared to be " an enfranchised township, manor, and place by itself," and to be entirely free from " the rules, orders, or directions of any riding, township or townships, place, or jurisdic- tion, either upon the main or upon Long Island." The proprietor was to pay ammally to the Duke of York " one lamb upon the first day of May, if the same shall be demanded." The subsequent history of Pelham Manor will be traced in dne chronological order.
The inhabitants of Westchester village accepted the government of New York without deum. Applying to Governor Nicolls for a town patent, they were informed by him (December 28, 1665) that he would defer issuing it until the whole could be equally divided into lots according to each man's assessed valuation. Early in 16GT (February 13) the desired instrument was granted to them, being the first of its kind in our county. The persons mentioned in the docu- ment are "Jobn Quimby, John Ferris, Nicholas Bayley, William
William Haidon's mark, H The mark of John Gay, 1 G Jolin A. Pinkney. The mark of John Tompkins, 0 Richard Shute. The mark of Jobu Hollind. IH Moses Holtte. Richard Hoadley,
The mark of Henry X Ffowlir,
John Emory,
Moses Jackson.
John Clarke.
This is a true copy according unto the orig- inall. transcribed by me. Richard Shute, this 20d day of Nov. os.
142
HISTORY OF WESTCHESTER COUNTY
Betts, and Edmund Waters, as patentees for and on behalf of them- selves and their associates, ve freeholders and inhabitants of ve said town." The boundaries fixed were: At the west, " the western part of the lands commonly called Bronks Land "; at the south, the Sound, or East River; and at the east, Ann's Hook, or Pelham Neck. At the north they extended "into the woods without limitation for range of cattle." " All ye rights and privileges belonging to a town within this government " were bestowed.
" Bronks' land," whose " western part " was indicated as the limit of Westchester town in the direction of the Hudson River, was a territory of quite uncertain dimensions. Together with the lands beyond along the Harlem and the Spuyten Duyvil Creek, it was dotted with the farms of Dutch settlers who had been gradually coming over from the Manhattan Island side.
On Manhattan Island, from the mouth of the Harlem River to Spusten Duyvil, the land was well occupied; and at the northeast- ern extremity of the island a village called Harlem had been built up. The interests of the settlers on both sides began to demand that ferry communication be established. As early as 1658 this need had received attention from the Dutch authorities, an ordinance having been passed in that year with a view to the inauguration of a ferry from Harlem to the mainland, and the construction of a sub- stantial wagon road from Fort Amsterdam to Harlem. Nothing practical was done by the Dutch in connection with these projected improvements. But in 1666 Governor Nicolls granted to the people of Harlem a charter providing for " a ferry to and from the main," and authorizing them "at their charge to build one or more boats for that purpose fit for the transportation of men. horses, and cattle, for which there will be such a certain allowance given as shall be adjudged reasonable." A ferry was soon afterward put in opera- tion, conducted by Johannes Verveelen, in whom the privilege was vested for six years. He was required to maintain a tavern for the accommodation of the public. Special favors were extended to him in consideration of the expense that he was under and to encourage him in his enterprise. He was given a small piece of land on the Bronx side to build a house on. The sole right to remove cattle from one shore to the other belonged to him, and persons swimming cattle over were obliged to pay him half the ferriage rate per head. The " fording place " on Spuyten Duyvil Creek was fenced about so as to prevent its surreptitious use for cattle. Finally, he was ex- empted from all excise duties on wine or beer retailed by him for the space of one year. The ferriage charges, as fixed by law, were: For every passenger, two pence silver or six pence wampum; for
143
PROGRESS OF PURCHASE AND SETTLEMENT
every ox or cow brought into the ferryboat, eight pence or twenty- four stivers wampum; cattle under a year ofl, six pence or eighteen stivers wampum. Government messages between New York and · Connectient were free. Each passenger whom he entertained was to pay " for his meal, eight pence; every man for his lodging, two pence a man; every man for his horse shall pay four pence for his night's hay or grass, or twelve stivers wampum, provided the grass be in the fence.
The site of the ferry landing on the Manhattan side is located by Riker, in his " History of Harlem," at the north of One Hun- dred and Twenty-third Street, three hundred feet west of First Ave- nue. But the Harlem and Westchester ferry proved unprofitable, and in 1669 was abandoned. This step was partly occasioned, how- ever, by the growing promise of more favorable conditions over toward Spuyten Duyvil, where, on the Westchester side, the foun- dations of the Town of Fordham were being laid and an era of active settlement had set in; and there Verveelen obtained a new ferry franchise, running from the Ist of November, 1669.
The reader will recall that the whole great traet known vari- ously as Nepperhaem, Colen Donck, and the JJonkheer's Land, or Yonkers Land, embraced between the Hudson and Bronx Rivers, and extending to above the limits of the present City of Yonkers, granted by the Dutch West India Company as a patroonship to Adrian Van der Donek, was inherited after his death, in 1665, by his wife, Mary, daughter of the Rev. Francis Doughty, of Maspeth, Long Island. She presently took another husband, Hugh O'Neale, and removed with him to his home in Patuxent, Md. After the English conquest and the issuance of notification to existing land proprietors to renew their patents, she and her husband journeyed to New York, and ap- peared before Governor Nicolls with satisfactory evidence of legal ownership of this traet. The governor therefore (October 8, 1666) granted a royal patent to " Hugh O'Neale and Mary his wife," con- firming them in its possession, its limits being thus described : " Bounded to the northwards by a rivulet called by the Indians Macakassin, so running southward to Neperhaem [Yonkers], from thenre to the Kill Shorakkapoch [Spurten Duyvil] and then to Paprinimen [Kingsbridge], which is the southernmost bounds, then to go across the country to the castward by that which is com- monly known by the name of Bronck's his river and land." As these limits were the original ones of the patroonship, it follows that no part of the Yonkers tract had been disposed of since Van der Donck's death, and that any persons living upon it previously to October, 1666, were either tenants or mere squatters.
144
IHISTORY OF WESTCHESTER COUNTY
The O'Neales lost no time in divesting themselves completely of the ownership of the property, which they doubtless considered troublesome because of its remoteness from their Maryland home. On October 30, 1666, twenty-two days after the procurement of the Nicolls patent, it was conveyed to Elias Doughty, of Finshing, Mrs. O'Neale's brother-a conveyance which was further and finally per- fected May 16, 1667.
The new proprietor very soon began to receive and accept offers for portions of the estate. In March and September, 1667, he sold to JJohn Archer, of Westchester, " fourscore acres of land and thirty aeres of meadow," in the vicinity of the present Kingsbridge, "lying and being betwixt Brothers River and the watering place at the end of the Island of Manhatans." This was the beginning of a new manorial estate-the second of our country in point of amiquity. Doughty also sold, July 6, 1668. to William Betts and George Tippett, his son-in-law (for whom Tibbet's Brook is named), about two thou- sand aeres, reaching from the Hudson to the Bronx, with its south- ern boundary starting just below Kingsbridge and above Archer's lands, and its northern passing through Van Cortlandi Lake along the north side of " Van der Donck's planting field." About the same time (June 7, 1668), for the value of a horse and £5, Doughty con- veved to Joseph Hadden some three hundred and twenty acres di- reetly north of Van der Donck's planting field, lying in unequal parts on both sides of Tibbet's Brook. In 1670 he sold a tract one mile square (still called " the Mile Square "), bordering on the Bronx River, to Francis French, Ebenezer Jones, and John Westcott. And finally, on the 29th of November, 1672, all that remained of the Yonkers Land was disposed of in equal thirds to Thomas Delaval, Thomas Lewis, and Frederick Philipse.
Of these various sales, the first, to Archer, and the last, to Philipse and others, are of special historie interest, each of the two being fol- lowed by consecutive developments which will demand particular attention.
John Archer, the earliest sub-purchaser in the original Van der Donck tract, was, as already stated, an inhabitant of the Town of Westchester. There is some uncertainty whether he was of English or Dutch origin. According to Bolton he was a descendant of Hum- phrey Archer of Warwickshire ( 1527-62), whose ancestor was Fulbert L'Archer, one of the companions of William the Conqueror; and fron! Humphrey the same authority carefully traces John's descent. Bol- ton is of the opinion that he came with the early Westchester settlers from Fairfield, Conn., about 1654-5. But the whole English pedigree for John Archer which Bolton has so painstakingly constructed is of
145
FORDHAM MANOR
at least doubtful authenticity. Riker, the historian of Harlem, states that in the original records of that village his name occasionally ap- pears in connection with Fordham and similar matters, and that it is invariably written " Jan Areer." It is supposed by Riker and others that he came from Amsterdam, Holland, and that marrying in this country an Englishwoman, and living in an English-speaking settlement, he ultimately anglicized his original Dutch name into John Archer.
His purchase in 1667 from Doughty of lands below Kingsbridge was but one step toward the final acquirement of a handsome estate, comprising (Bolton says) 1,253 acres. All this property, with the exception of the hundred odd acres sold to him by Doughty, was bought from the Indians. There still survives the record of an Indian deed to him of territory running from Papirinemen down to a point on the Harlem, and extending to the Bronx. This pur-
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.