History of Westchester county : New York, including Morrisania, Kings Bridge, and West Farms, which have been annexed to New York City, Vol. I, Part 39

Author: Scharf, J. Thomas (John Thomas), 1843-1898, ed
Publication date: 1886
Publisher: Philadelphia : L.E. Preston & Co.
Number of Pages: 1354

USA > New York > Westchester County > History of Westchester county : New York, including Morrisania, Kings Bridge, and West Farms, which have been annexed to New York City, Vol. I > Part 39

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).

In the latter part of November, after an intimation from the Governor, that, unless there was an abatement of her claims, he would proceed to extremities, a del- egation from Connecticut was sent to New York to settle the boundary line between the two provinces. In the previous determination, in 1664, the under- standing drawn up in formal manner was, that the dividing line should run about twenty miles from any point on the Hudson River, and, as Mamaroneck Creek was, on the assurance of the Connecticut com- missioners, discovered to be at that distance from the nearest locality on that river, an amendment was made that the western bounds of Connecticut should

find there theirstarting-point, and proceed in a straight direction north-northwest to the Massachusetts line. Little did the New York commissioners imagine into what a blunder, in their confidence, they were being led. The mistake or deception was found ont, and hence the necessity now for a new conference and de- cision. The commissioners present were the two Governors, Dongan and Treat, with Messrs. Brock- holst, Philipse, Van Cortlandt and Younge for New York, and Messrs. Gold, Allyn and Pitkin for Connectient. The month of the Byram River was settled as the boundary point, and, as not less than five towns (always regarded in Connecticut) would be thrown out of it by following this line, an equivalent tract, quantity for quantity (ever since called the "Oblong "), was, in consideration, assigned in licu of the towns, to New York.3 These lines, partitions, limits and bounds, it was resolved, should be run during the next October and the whole matter transferred to the King and Duke of York for their approval.

The disposal of them thus made was exceedingly distasteful to the people of Rye and Bedford, and, notwithstanding a letter to them from the Connectiont goverinnent urging the propriety of submission, was positively resisted. A summons of Gov- ernor Dongan to appear in New York and show title to their lands was disobeyed, and, event- ually, an open request to the General Court of Connectient for recognition as belonging to the latter colony was made, the approval of the home govern- ment to the agreement being for years delayed. The result of this dissatisfaction was an open rupture on the occasion of the election of a member of the Gen- eral Assembly, in 1697, in which the sheriff's anthor- ity was disputed and an armed force from Connectient interposed to prevent the accomplishment of the election. The course of these towns and the govern- ment of Connecticut received a practical rebuke when, in 1700, King William confirmed the agreement of 1683 and the action of the surveying party of the next year. The Assembly of Connecticut therenpon ordered that information of the fact be sent to the inhabitants of Rye and Bedford, and that they are freed from duty to that government, but are henceforth under the government of New York.'

In the management of the affairs of the Province Dongan seems to have displayed the greatest energy and ability amid difficulties and disadvantages which sorely taxed his powers. . One of his troubles, because it gives us a chance to look into Westchester, we re- call : The Duke of York's Collector (Santen) seems to have been so lax with his deputies that several of them were defaulters. Among these was one Collins, receiver of the revenue in Westchester County, from

1 Vide Brodhead, Hist. of N. Y., vol. ii. p. 382.

2 Vide Dunlap, Ilist. of N. Y., vol. ii. Ap. N. xliii.

3 " Boundaries of the State of New York." Report of the Regent- of the University, pp. 24-58.

+ Baird's Rye, p. 118. Public Records of Connecticut, vol. iv p 333

162

HISTORY OF WESTCHESTER COUNTY.

whom no returns having been made, Santeu was com- pelled to be satisfied with two bonds, payable in the succeeding March. These Goveruor Dongan looked upon to be of no value and all the revenue of that county lost, "the man having hardly bread to put into his mouth."

The Acts of the New York Assembly of 1783 were duly transmitted for approbation to the Duke of York; but although they were, with some awieud- ments, approved by him and his Commissioners, and although the documents were signed and sealed which were to declare this, the death of Charles II., in the succeeding February, changed the whole cur- rent of action. The Duke ascended the throne as James II. The approving papers were never returned, and the King, after issuing new instructions to Don- gan nullifying much that had been done, soon detcr- mined to merge the different provinces north of the Delaware into one government. Dougan was recalled, and Sir Edmund Andros made Governor of what His Majesty was pleased to call "our Territory and Do- miuion of New England iu America." A council of forty-two of the principal inhabitants was named by the King, to whom was assigned the making of laws and imposing of taxes. In the list of these counsel- ors we agaiu find the names of Philipse and Van Cortlandt, who were far from being pleased with the change. In a letter of theirs to the Board of Trade they join with Lieutenant-Governor Nicholson and Mr. W. Bayard in saying " how fatall it hath been to this city and the Province of New York for to be annexed to that of Boston, which, if it had continued, would have occasioned the totall ruin of the Inhabitants of said Province."1 It must easily appear that these changes, with the consequent thwarting of their politi- cal hopes, produced much dissatisfaction among the people of this county. Ruled by a King who differed with them in religion, with no voice in the legislation by which to protect themselves, and now even their colonial existeuce destroyed, they were loud in their denunciations and threats. But the effect of this act of union the people had but a short time, in mur- muring mood, to consider, as the great Revolution at the close of the year 1688 compelled James to abdi- cate his power, and placed upon the throne his daugh- ter Mary and her husband, the Prince of Orange. This event brought out the glad sympathies of the English as well as the Dutch-descended inhabitants of the whole colony of New York. But, strange to say, instead of a united congratulation, the anxiety on the part of the populace for the change, and dread lest it should miscarry, combining with the untoward situation of things, the absence of any accredited repre- sentative of the higher power and of any official infor- mation of the accession of William (which would have been followed by a public proclamation of it), caused in New York one of the saddest and most absurd

illustratious of that state of affairs when "the people furiously rage together and imagine a vain thing."

The news of the insurrection in Boston, iu which Governor Andros was seized and imprisoned, reached New York on the very day that word also came that Frauce, whither James had fled, had commenced war with England and Holland. The fears of the people were aroused. It was immediately determined by the city authorities that as the Royal garrison of the town was very weak, the militia should be summoned to share in the defense of the Fort. Colonel Bayard ac- cordingly assigned the six companies of the city, which he commanded, to mount guard in turn. So deep was the suspicion of Mr. Bayard and of the other citizens who, as members of the Council, had been associated with Dongan and Andros in the adminstration of af- fairs, and who now, with Nicholson, having indeed no orders, were delaying the proclamation of William and Mary, that the captains of the train-bands, in- duced by Jacob Leisler, one of their number, took possession of the Fort, and declared their determina- tion to protect the province until the coming of the accredited Governor to be sent by William.

Besides the six captains and four hundred men of New York, a company of seventy men from East Chester seems to have been present on this 3d of Junc and subscribed to the following declaration :

" Whereas, our intention tended only but to the preservation of the protestant religion and the fort of this city, to the end that we may avoid and prevent the rash judgment of the world in so just a design, we have thought fit to let every body know by these public proclamations that till the safe arryval of the ships that we expect every day from his royal highness, the prince of Orange, with orders for the government of this country in the behalf of such person as the said royal highness had chosen and honored with the charge of a Governor, that as soon as the bearer of the said orders shall have let us see his power, then and with- out any delay execute the said orders punctnally, declaring that we do intend to submit and obey not only the said orders but also the bearer thereof committed for the execution of the same.º In witness hereof we have signed these presents the third of June, 1689.

It appears also that there was a company of soldiers from New Rochelle, commanded by Captain, Cottomcar. When it is remembered that it was at this very time that the French settlers of New Rochelle obtained through Leisler their lands in that town from John Pell, and when also the rumors industriously cir- culated are presented, which pictured the French as having, among other designs in taking New York, one to seize their countrymen, the Huguenots, aud torture them or ship them back to France,3 it will be ob- vious how easy it was for Leisler to involve them in his designs, as subserving thereby their own safety. The interest of Westchester in these proceedings also appears in the fact that when, after the destruction of Schnectady, Lcisler sent an expedition against the French and the Indians, there is no doubt that there was, for its size, a large representation of the County in these troops.4

2 Vide Smith's New York, 2d Ed., 1792, p. 74.

3 Instructions to Count de Frontenac. N. Y. Doc. Hist. vol. i., p. 295. + N. Y. Doc. Hist. vol. ii. pp. 12-15. Baird's Rye, p. 48 and 198. N. Y. Col. Mans.

IN. Y. Col. Mans., vol. iii. p. 576.

163

THE COLONIAL PERIOD.

When Leisler took possession of the fort at New York, Lieutenant-Governor Nicholson without delay set sail for England, leaving the government in charge of the Council, the members of which were, Philipse, Van Cortland and Bayard. Of course, the public confidence was still more diminished. Leisler, taking advantage of this state of things, invited from each of the counties a delegation of two to meet in conven- tion, and also two men from each to guard the fort.

This convention, which met June 26, 1683, and in which Westchester was represented, authorized ten of their number to be a committee of safety, who, in their turn, commissioned Leisler to exercise the powers of commander-in-chief of the Province. In this com- mittee were Richard Panton and Thomas Williams, of this Connty, who seem to have been most active supporters of Leisler.

Some months afterwards a letter from King Wil- liam to Nicholson was intercepted by Leisler, who ap- propriating its directions to himself, set up the claim that " he had received a commission to be their Majes- ties Lieutenant-Governor," and then proceeded to ap- point his Council, among whom was Thomas Wil- liams, of Westchester.

The new Governor, Slonghter, did not appear until March 9th, but meanwhile acts of lawlessness and tyranny, rashness and demagogism abounded in the city and other parts of the colony, in which Leisler and members of his Council and their followers were the most active.

In a suit tried at Westchester in 1693, Williams, thien sixty-two years of age, deposed that "the first reason of this difficulty was a big look violently from me. Captain Panton commanded him (Leggett, the plaintiff) to hold his peace, but he still continued abusing the defendant, and said, 'here comes the father of rogues' and many scurrilons words, upon which I got a warrant against him." Williams lived in West Farms, and Gabriel Leggett was, as appears by a deed of March 3, 1695, his near neighbor.1

Upon the arrival of Sloughter, Leisler and his as- sociates, who, with mad infatuation, held on to their usnrped authority after three different demands from the Governor, were immediately upon their surrender arrested and confined on the charge of treason. Upon indictment they were soon tried, and upon conviction sentenced to death.

In the order of the King to Sloughiter, appointing luis Council, we find again thic names of Philipse and Van Cortlandt, who, with their associates, werc now sworn into office.

Slonghter, reports to England that many of Leisler's followers " were well enough affected to their Majesties Government, but through ignorance were put upon to do what they did," and advises as an example, the execution only of the ringleaders.

The first Assembly of the province, which the new Governor summoned, met on the 9th of April, 1691, and the member from Westchester County was John Pell. The position taken by this Assembly was that the acts passed in 1683, not having received the ap- probation of Charles the Second nor the Duke of York were null and void, and it proceeded to enact some of the laws supposed by the people to be in force. An act making a division of the province into twelve counties, as intended in 1683, was passed. In addi- tion, the following laws for Westchester County were enacted: "An act for settling a ministry and raising a maintenance for them in Westchester County. An act for settling the militia. An act offering twenty shillings for a grown wolf killed by a Christian in Westchester County, and ten shillings for such a wolf killed by an Indian; one-half that sum respectively for a whelp. An act for the further laying ont and regu- lating and better elearing public highways through- ont this Colony," in which Adolph Philipse, Esq., Caleb Heathcote, Esq., Mr. Joseph Drake, Mr. John Stevenson and Mr. John Haitt are made commis- sioners to take a review of the roads. These and the other acts of this Assembly were sent to England for approval.

After much delay and hesitation, and under cir- cumstances not too strongly to be reprehended, thie execution of Leisler and his son-in-law and confeder- ate, Jacob Milborne, was ordered and took place on the 16th of May, 1691. The punishment of Williams and his associates was deferred. But little more than two monthis passed when Sloughter himself, after an illness of only two days, died under circumstances at first deemed suspicious, but afterwards differently re- garded. His death occurred on the 26th of July, 1691, and after a disadvantageous interregnum of thirteen months, his successor, Colonel Benjamin Fletcher, landed in New York. The day after his arrival his commission and the names of members of his Council were proclaimed. Some changes of this body, which was substantially that nuder Sloughter, werc afterwards deemed necessary, which introduced Colonel Caleb Heathcote, of the Manor of Scarsdale, and thus gave Westchester additional weight in the Province.

In the succeeding March, 1693, the Assembly met the County being represented by John Pell and by Joseph Theale, of the town of Rye. From the report of Governor Fletcher to the home government, in April of this year, we extract the following from his list of those employed in civil office in the province of New York :

The justices in Westchester County were Col. Caleb Heathcote, Judge of Common Pleas, Joseph Thealc, Win. Barnes, Daniel Strange, James Mott, John Hunt, Wm. Chadderton, Thomas Pinkney, Esqrs .; Benjamin Collier, Esq., Sheriff; Joseph Lee, Clerk of the county.2

1 Court of Sessions Journal. Bollou's " Hist. of Westchester County," vol. ii. p. 183.

2X. Y. Col. Mans, London Doc. IX. vol. iv, p. 27.

164

HISTORY OF WESTCHESTER COUNTY.

Theale, Strange and Collier were of the town of Rye; Barnes and Hunt, of Westchester ; Chadderton and Pinkney, of East Chester; Mott, of Mamaroneck, and Lee in all likelihood, from Yorktown. In the same report the militia of the county is represented to con- sist of six companies of foot, commauded by Colonel Caleb Heathcote, and to number two hundred and eighty-three men.

In the following September a new Assembly was convened by Fletcher, and Pell is again a member of the Honse, and has as his colleague, in place of Theale, Humphrey Underhill, also of Rye. At this session of the Colouial Legislature the act was passed, which, after approval, was carried out, in reference to the maintenance of religion in the province. The bill provided for good, sufficient Protestant ministers to officiate and have the care of souls. It required that there should be two ministers in the county of West- chester, one of whom should have care of Westchester, East Chester, Yonkers and the Manor of Pelham, and the other of Rye, Mamaroneck and Bedford, and that fifty pounds should be raised for each of the incum- bents ; and also whatever sum might be necessary for the maintenance of the poor, which amounts were to be levied by the wardens and vestrymen, for whose election the act also provided.1 It appears that the Governor took the deepest interest in the spiritual welfare of the colony. He was a man of great earnest- ness and promptness, and made himself felt to the general advantage. The Indians, in their appre- ciation of himu, styled him Cayenguirago, or the " great swift arrow." What he counseled and did reached directly the difficulty. The necessity for his anxiety as to religion will appear from the strictures upon our county, contained in a letter of Colonel Heathcote, written in 1704,-

"I first came among them .

. . abont twelve years ago. I found it the most rude and heathienishi country I ever saw in my whole life, which called themselves Christians, there being not so much as the least inarks or footsteps of religion of any sort. Sundays were only times set apart by them for all manner of vain sports and lewd diversion, and they were grown to such a degree of rudeness that it was intolerable. I having then command of the militia, sent an order to all the captains . . . that in case they would not in every town agree among them- selves to appoint readers and to pass the Sabbath in the best manner they could . . . that the captains should every Sunday call their com- panies under arms and spend the day in exercise." 2

It was a matter of great satisfaction to the many of all parties in the province when the news was re- ceived about this time that the King had wisely granted a full pardon to Williams and the others with Leisler, who all this while, thongh released on bail, yet remained under sentence of death. Their course had awakened no little enthusiasm in their determincd refusal "to own their liberty a favor," or depart " from the justification of their crimes." "What they did was for King William and Queen Mary."3 It was

determined in England very properly, for the sake of harmony, to waive the point of humility and grant a fnll release to all concerned.

In 1695 the Assemblymen from Westchester County were Joseph Purdy, of Rye, and Humphrey Under- hill; but in April, 1697, Underhill, for non-attend- ance, was expelled, and Joseph Theale returned in his stead. In 1698 the Earl of Bellamont succeeded Fletcher in the Governorship, and in the new Assem- bly Joseph Purdy, and John Drake of East Chester, appear for Westchester County. A complaint of un- due election was made to the House by Henry Fowler, of East Chester, and Josiah Hunt, of Westchester ; but after thorough consideration Purdy and Drake were unanimously declared to have been duly elected. Mr. Drake was chosen again in 1699, with John Hunt, of Westchester, as his associate. From a table of the different regiments in the province of New York, it would seem that that of Westchester County had greatly diminished in strength by 1700. It is reported as cousisting of only the three com- panies in Eastchester, New Rochelle and Mama- roneck, and of not more than one huudred and fifty- five men.4 In 1701, at the election in midsummer, while Mr. Drake was again chosen, the other seat for the county was in dispute between Joseph Purdy and Henry Fowler, of East Chester. The matter having been referred to a committee on the petition of Fow- ler, David Provoost, from this committee, reported that it had sent for several persons and papers aud had fouud that Henry Fowler was elected a member of the House. The report was approved, and the clerk of the crown was ordered before the House to amend the returns by putting out the name of Joseph Purdy and putting in that of Henry Fowler, who, by direc- tion, went then before the Governor and took the oath of office.5

But a more serious matter at this same session was the expulsion of Mr. John Drake, who, with others, violently withdrew, refusing to act with the Speaker (Governeur) on the ground of his being an alien and disqualified for public office. A new electiou was ordered, and William Willett, of Westchester, chosen, who, after ten days' occupation of his seat, was ex- pelled for representing the organization of the House illegal, Mr. Willett assuming the same position on the question as Mr. Drake. Another election was ordered, and Colonel Heathcote was now chosen, who, after taking the oath, would not sit. Another election was ordered for the next spring, but the Assembly was itself dissolved on the 3d of May.

On the 30th of September, 1701, as siguers of a pe- tition to King William from the Protestants of New York, evidently anti-Leislerians, appear the names of Caleb Heathcote, John Horton, Joseph Purdee, John Drake, William Willett and William Barues, who

1 Baird's Rye.

2 Dunlap's " History of New York," vol. i. p. 217.

3 New York Col. Mans., vol. iv. pp. 55, 83.

4 New York Col. Mss., vol. iv. pp. 807, 810.

5 Journal of New York Assembly.

165

THE COLONIAL PERIOD.

speak, they say, for themselves and two-thirds of the freeholders and inhabitants of Westchester County. In this paper they complain of unjust proscription and imputations and profess most thorough submis- sion and loyalty.1 The same names are found sub- scribed to an address of welcome to Lord Cornbury, the newly-appointed Governor. This paper is dated October 2, 1702, and in it they again state that they represent two-thirds of the inhabitants and freeholders of the county of Westchester." We safely gather from these papers, legislative proceedings and elections the high state of political feeling throughout the colony, iu which the people of Westchester thoroughly shared. The course of Lord Bellamont and of his temporary successor, Lieutenant-Governor Nanfan, had been in the interest of the friends of Leisler. Abraham Gov- erueur, who had married Leisler's widowed daughter, Mrs. Milborne, was the head of the faction, and they had succeeded iu placing him in the Speaker's chair. Drake, Purdy, Willett and Heathcote were pronounced opponeuts of these radicals, whose representative in this county evidently was Henry Fowler, of East Ches- ter. Is it not probable that John Drake,-Lieutenant of the militia company in East Chester, which went down to aid Leisler, took the gauge of this ambitious and arrogant man from dealings with him at the Fort, and hence easily fell into line with those who made common cause with the friends of law and order, rather to resist the aspirations of the new man, when his claims for consideration above others heretofore leaders were only his own presumption and self-importance ?

At the election of 1702, upon Lord Cornbury as- suming the reins of government, Joseph Purdy and William Willett were chosen to the Assembly from Westchester County. The resolution of this body is recalled to miud, which declared that any bills passed when an alien is Speaker are not binding on the sub- ject. This action, of course, vindicates the conduct of Drake aud Willett, who would not countenance Governeur as Speaker. Mr. Willett, with the ex- ception of two years, held a seat in the Assembly con- secutively for the next thirty odd years. Mr. Edmund Ward, of East Chester, was his colleague from 1705 to 1712, MIr. John Hoit held the place for a year, and Mr. Joseph Budd, of Rye, from 1716 to 1722, when Mr. Adolph Philipse was elected and also became Speaker of the Assembly. In 1709, Joseph Purdy and John Drake, and in 1715, Josiah Hunt and Jonathan Odell were returned. In 1726, Frederick Philipse accepted the position, which he held until his death, in 1751, and which his son, of the same name, held after him until the Revolution. From 1739 to 1743, Daniel Purdy, of Rye, and from 1743 to the Revolution, Judge John Thomas, of the same town, was the other member from the county. The courtesy of Mr. Wil-

lett and the election of Lewis Morris in 1733 will be spoken of hereafter.

During the first fifty years of its existence West- chester County steadily increased in population and material prosperity. Large areas of land were placed under cultivation. The public advantages of churches, schools, highways, mills, tanneries, etc., were greatly multiplied, and the harsh life of the pioneer was mod- crating into the regulated one of the sturdy yeoman. In the numerous measures necessary for the develop- ment of its resources and the increase of its facilities, privileges and comforts, its inhabitauts exhibit quick- ness to devise, and zeal and perseverance to prosecute to the needed accomplishment. By petitions, represen- tations and rem onstrances to the Assembly, to the Coun- cil, to the Governor, the various towns made their wants and wishes, even if not always answered, pressingly known. And so in all questions of rights, no communi- ties in the province appear more sensitive aud deter- mined. "Our representatives," says Smith, "agree- able to the general sense of their constituents, are tenacious iu their opinions that the inhabit- ants of this colony are eutitled to all the priv- ileges of Englishwien; that they have a right to participate in the legislative power, and that the session of Assemblies here is wisely substituted, instead of a representation in Parliament."3 And yet this same historian is inconsistent enongb to charge " that the views of these representatives seldom extend further than to the regulation of highways, the destruction of wolves, wild-cats and foxes, and the advancement of the other little interests of the par- ticular counties which they were chosen to represent."+ How much more correct the first statement is, if not seen from what has already been offered, will be abun- dantly manifest, as we now turu to record the ex- citements and troubles which commenced with the second third of the eighteenth century.

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.

History of Westchester county : New York, including Morrisania, Kings Bridge, and West Farms, which have been annexed to New York City, Vol. I, Part 39

Author: Scharf, J. Thomas (John Thomas), 1843-1898, ed Publication date: 1886 Publisher: Philadelphia : L.E. Preston & Co. Number of Pages: 1354

Author: Scharf, J. Thomas (John Thomas), 1843-1898, ed
Publication date: 1886
Publisher: Philadelphia : L.E. Preston & Co.
Number of Pages: 1354