History of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, Part 246

Author: Bean, Theodore Weber, 1833-1891, [from old catalog] ed; Buck, William J. (William Joseph), 1825-1901
Publication date: 1884
Publisher: Philadelphia, Everts & Peck
Number of Pages: 1534

USA > Pennsylvania > Montgomery County > History of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania > Part 246

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).

Silas Cleaver-

WHITEMARSH TOWNSHIP.

1157

stead, in Montgomery township. Here his youth, until the age of nineteen, was spent, his education having been received at a private school on his father's prop- erty, and later at the boarding-school under the direc- tion of Joseph Foulke. He decided upon acquiring a trade, and chose that of a miller, entering as appren- tice a mill on the Pennypack stream, near Bustleton. Two and a half years after, having completed his ap- prenticeship, he repaired to Byberry, in Philadelphia County, and spent a year as journeyman, at the ex- piration of which period he formed a copartnership with William Buckman, and continued this business relation for two years. In the spring of 1848 an ad-

ried, on the 11th of November, 1852, to Miss Sarah Jane, daughter of Chalkley and Ann Jarrett Kender- dine, of Horsham township, Montgomery Co. Their children are William J .; Anna K., wife of George Rex ; Ella (deceased); Chalkley K., married to A. Laura White; Mary R .; Emma ; Sallie ; Tacey K .; and Silas, Jr. (deceased). Mr. Cleaver has for twenty- five years been a member of the Commercial Ex- change of Philadelphia. He was formerly, in poli- ties, an Old-Line Whig, and readily adopted the plat- form of the Republican party on its organization. Aside from the exercise of his privilege as a voter, lie, however, finds little leisure for participation in mat-

D.W. Leakıl

vantageous opportunity was offered in connection with ' ters of political import. He was in religion reared a his brother Silas, who owned a mill in Whitemarsh Hicksite Friend, and with his family worships at Plymouth Meeting. township. This copartnership of social and busi- ness relations of the most agreeable character con- tinued until the death of the senior partner, in the DAVID W. YEAKEL. spring of 1884, William J. and Chalkley Cleaver Mr. Yeakel is the great-grandson of Christopher Yeakel, who emigrated to America in 1734, and mar- ried Susanna Schultz. Among their sons was Abra- ham, who was united in marriage to Sarah, daughter of Christopher Wagner, whose children were Isane, born in 1777; Samuel, in 1779; Jacob, in 1780; Su- sannab, in 1782; Maria, in 1784 ; and Christopher, in 1787. Isaae, of this number, whose birth occurred having been admitted to the firm in 1883, under the name of S. & J. Cleaver & Sons. The mill has been greatly improved, much new machinery and many modern appliances having been introduced, and its capacity largely increased. In the fall of 1876, Mr. Cleaver purchased the farm adjoining the mill prop- erty, known as the Peter Phipps farm. He was mar-

1158

HISTORY OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY.

November 9, 1777, married Regina, daughter of An- drew Schultz, on the 4th of November, 1800. Their children were Jacob S., born in 1802; Sarah, in 1805; Samuel, in 1807; John, in 1809; Charlotte, in 1811; Emeline, in 1814; Daniel, in 1816 ; Mary, in 1818; and David W., the subject of this sketeh. Isaac Yeakel died on the 23d of October, 1847, and his wife, Regina, ou the 16th of January, 1860. The birth of their youngest son, David W., occurred on the 30th of December, 1821, in Springfield township, where the early years of his life were spent. After a period of youth devoted to the acquirement of a plain English

marsh township, settled near Lafayette Hill, where he at present resides, having some years since retired from active business. He was, in his early political asso- ciations, a Whig, and joined the ranks of the Repub- lican party on its formation. He has neither desired nor accepted othice, nor been actively allied with the working phalanx of the party. He was a loyal sup- porter of the Union during the late war and actively interested in filling the quota for his township. Mr. Yeakel is not identified by membership with any religious denomination, though his belief is that of the New Church (Swedenborgian).

Makes Meloralston

education, he began the routine of farm labor, and JAMES M. COULSTON. - continued thus occupied until thirty years of age, The Conlston family is of Welsh descent, the grand- father of James M. having been William Coulston, who resided in Whitemarsh township, where he was an enterprising farmer. His children were Charles, William, John, Thomas, Mary (Mrs. William Kettler) and Sarah (Mrs. Jacob Rohrer). William Coulston was born August 9, 1797, in Whitemarsh, where he devoted his active life to farming employments. He married Ann, daughter of Joseph and Hannah Mere- when, being ambitious for a larger sphere of industry than was opened in his native county, he removed to Lehigh County, Pa., and engaged in the foundry and machine business at Allentown. Here he remained nine years, having meanwhile, in September, 1852, married Sarah Lentz, of Whitemarsh township. Their children are John L., married to Bertha Hellings, who had four children; George K., of Whitemarsh ; and M. Lula. Mr. Yeakle, on his return to White- I dith, whose birth occurred October 29, 1802. Their

1159

WHITEMARSH TOWNSHIP.

children are James M., Elizabeth and Hannah. Wil- liam Coulston died April 17, 1863, in his sixty-sixth year, and his wife, Ann, March 25, 1833, in her thirty-first year. Their son, James M., was born on the 27th of January, 1831, in Whitemarsh. His youth was similar to that of other lads whose parents were farmers. At the age of eight years he removed with the family to his present home, attended school for a period and lent a willing hand at the labor of the farm. He was married, April 7, 1857, to T. Am- anda, daughter of Joseph and Ann Freas, of the same township, and granddaughter of George and Barbara Freas. Their children are Ann Freas (Mrs. Daniel Maguire), Alice Ilinckley (Mrs. Harvey Lentz), Wil- liam Carpenter, Lizzie, Sarah Roser, Francis Coudie, Joseph Percival and Walter. William Coulston, hav- ing died in 1863, his son, James M., inherited his por- tion of the estate and purchased the remainder of the paternal home. Here he has since continned the healthful pursuits of a farmer. He has always affili- ated with the Republican party in politics, and served as a school director of his distriet. He is also a di- rector of the Montgomery Mutual Fire Insurance Company, and active in the promotion of the best in- terests of the township of which he is a representative citizen. He is identified as a member with Marble Hall Lodge, No 351, of Independent Order of Odd- Fellows. He adheres to the faith of the Society of Friends, and worships with the Plymouth Meeting.

CHARLES WILLIAMS.1

Charles Williams, born Fourth Month 11, 1814, married Fourth Month 27, 1837.

He very decidedly prefers having a biographieal sketch of his wife's father, Charles Stokes.

Charles Stokes, farmer, of Rancocas, son of David and Ann Stokes, born in Willingborough (now Beverly), in the county of Burlington, N. J., Eighth Month 12, 1791, traces his genealogy from Thomas Stokes, of London, England, who was born in 1640, married Mary Barnard, daughter of John Barnard, Tenth Month 30, 1668, and settled in Burlington County, N. J., soon after the making of "The Con- eessions and agreements of the proprietors, freehold- ers and inhabitants of the province of West Jersey, in America." To this instrument he was a party. This constitution or form of government for the province was thus characterized, in a letter to Richard Hartshorne, by William Penn, Gawen Lawrie, Nicholas Lucas and others, dated Sixth Month 25, 1676: "There we lay a foundation for after ages to understand their liberty as men and Christians, that they may not be brought into bondage bnt by their own consent, for we put the power in the people, ete., etc. In it was established a representative form of government, trial by jury

and liberty of conscience, all conseisely, but fully set forth, especially the last, which commenees with the memorable declaration that no 'men nor number of men upon earth hath power or anthority to rule other men's conscienees in religious matters,' etc."

Although it formed " the common law or funda- mental rights and privileges of West New Jersey," it has been but little improved in this or any other county since its promulgation, though two centuries have elapsed.

Thomas Stokes became the proprietor of a farm on the north side of the North Branch of the Rancocas River, about three miles west of Mount Holly, and had three sons,-John, Thomas and Joseph,-all of whom were farmers. The latter two were heads of large families of children, by whom the name has been widely extended. John, who married Elizabeth Green, daughter of Thomas Green, and grand- daughter of Arthur Green, of Bugbroke, county of Northton, England, became proprietor of a farm on the north side of the Rancocas River, less than two miles westwardly of his father's location. He had but one son, John, who married Hannah, daughter of Jervis Stockdale, and succeeded his father on his farm on the Raneoeas. He left three sons,-John, David and Jervis. David married Ann, the daughter of John and Elizabeth Lancaster, of Bueks County, Pa., and succeeded his father on the farm on the Ranco- eas; he had four sons, named Israel, John L., Charles and David Stokes, but no daughters. Charles Stokes married Taey, daughter of William and Ann Jarrett, Montgomery County, Pa., Tenth Month 18, 1816. Heerected buildings and commeneed business on part of the homestead farm on the Rancoeas River. They had three sons-David (who died when an in- fant), Jarrett and William-and three daughters -- Hannah, Alice and Annie-married as follows : Jarrett, married Martha, daughter of William and Hannah Hilyard ; William, married Annie, daughter of James and Rebecca Mellvaine; Hannah, married Charles, son of Joseph and Ann Williams; Alice, married William, son of J. R. and Letitia P. Parry ; and Annie, married Chalkley, son of John and Ann Albertson .- all forming an unbroken succession of farmers, including a space of nearly two centuries, and continuing to the present time. Charles Stokes, the subject of this sketch, received the greater portion of his school education at Friends' School, at Ran- cocas.

At a time when but few aspired to anything further than such branches as were thought necessary to qualify for the ordinary business of life, he, havinga taste for study and the acquisition of knowledge, with a few others of about the same tinte of life, availed them- selves of an opportunity which presented, and took a deep interest in advanced studies, particularly of a mathematical character. These tended to enlarge his views and stimulate in his mind a desire to obtain useful knowledge from every available source. Books

1 Written by the family.

1160

HISTORY OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY.

of a character to gratify this desire were but few and hard to be obtained in the vicinity of his residence. No library existed nearer than Burlington, five miles distant, where was an ancient and good collection of books for that day. In addition to this, he was prof- fered by Joshua Wallan, a venerable citizen of Burlington, the free use of his extensive private library. He now commenced a study of history, seek- ing to make himself acquainted with the rise and fall of nations and the acts of distinguished characters who had signalized themselves in the different de- partments of life. Love of liberty and aversion to tyrauny of every description appeared to be inwrought in his nature, and he felt it to be his mission to cher- ish and support the one and discountenance the other on every proper occasion, and by all suitable means.

He endeavored to make himself acquainted with the history, constitution and laws of his State and country, to judge of the acts of such as were in power to administer them calmly and without excitement, and in his own judgment mete out impartial justice to all.

In his early life he became impressed with the con- viction that Infinite Wisdom was not unmindful of man after his introduction into this life, but, by His omniscience and omnipresence, was always with him as a sure and unfailing rule, to rightly instruct him in all things in matters of duty, furnishing ability to perform it, providing the terms were accepted.

This conviction, deeply engraven, had much in- fluence in moulding his character and pursuits. He endeavored in all things so to conduct himself' that his mind would be at ease and avoid remorse, being satisfied that this rule of life gave all the liberty neces- sary for its enjoyments and would qualify for its duties.

Agriculture was the pursuit chosen by him. He labored on his father's farm during the summer months, teaching the balance of the year. This was continued for several years, keeping him in sympathy with the manual laborer, and also brightening what he had acquired of school learning, and furnishing opportunities for extended improvement. His time was occasionally employed in surveying land, writing, and taking acknowledgments of deeds, etc., being a master in the Court of Chancery, settling estates and performing the duties of township offices, as town- ship committee, clerk, chosen freeholder, etc. . He was one of the originators and stockholders of the Mount Holly Insurance Company, an institution or- ganized in 1831, with which he was identified from its commencement, and served until his decease as a member of its finance committee. In the fall of 1830, without his wish or desire, he was elected a member of the House of Assembly for the county of Burlington. After taking his seat the first duty pre- sented to his mind was to have repealed an enact-

ment to pay a chaplain for services at the State Prison, and this was effected on the ground that the consti- tution as it then stood prohibited the payment of money for the support of a ministry, etc. In those days New Jersey did not have any clergyman to open the session of the Legislature with prayer. The old sentiments embodied in the "concessions and agree- ments" had not become entirely obliterated in the minds of the people, and legislative bodies left the important matter of approaching Infinite Mercy in supplication to the individual members. It was believed by Charles Stokes to have been quite as well done and with more safety to our religious liber- ties.

In 1831 the constitution required the Legislature to be elected and meet in the fall of the year, the cus- tom being to meet, organize, perform a few official acts and adjourn to an early day in the ensuing year. At this adjourned session in 1831, Dr. W. B. Ewin, an old and influential member from Cumberland, moved that J. Hancock (a worthy member from Morris) should open the session with prayer. Charles Stokes objected to the right of the House, by resolutions or otherwise, to direct a member to perform an act of this kind, stating that if any member should find it to be a duty to engage in the solemn act of public in- vocation he would be among the last to object. Han- cock arose and stated that such was his case, but he did not wish to impose upon the House without con- sent.

Charles Stokes then withdrew his objections, whereupon Hancock knelt, and the House arose, as by common consent, without vote. The prayer was impressive and accompanied by due solemnity. When the House was about to close, sine die, and the members separate to their several homes, Hancock made a short address, suited to the occasion, and said if there was no objection he would address the Throne of Grace in supplication. The House (without vote) manifested their approval by rising, and a fervent prayer was uttered by Hancock; immediately the Speaker pronounced an adjournment without delay, and the members separated to their respective homes with much friendly feeling. At the preceding session of the Legislature two companies were incorporated, one to unite by canal the waters of the Delaware and Raritan Rivers, the other to construct a railroad from Camden to Amboy, under the names of Camden and Amboy Railroad Company, and Delaware and Raritan Canal Company.

Stock was taken; both companies organized and commenced operations, In the session of 1830- 31 the Canal Company asked for additional powers to enable them to build a railroad on the bank of their canal. This was vigorously opposed by the Rail- road Company, and upon this point the House of Assembly was nearly equally divided. The result was the introduction of a bill to unite the two com- panies under the name of the Delaware and Raritan

Charles Williams

1161

WHITEMARSH TOWNSHIP.

Canal and Camden and Amboy Railroad and Trans- portation Company.

This was opposed by Charles Stokes, on the ground that the location of the works and the union of two such companies would concentrate a power not to be mananged or controlled by the State.

The union was sanctioned by the Legislature, and at the ensuing session an act was passed prohibiting any other railroad being built to compete in business with the works of the joint companies, thus giving them the exclusive right of transportation and travel between New York and Philadelphia, which for many years greatly retarded the improvement of the State. During all this time Charles Stokes, always a friend of the companies, but steadily and unyieldingly op- posed to their monopoly privileges, with a few others, by availing themselves of every suitable opportunity, at length had the gratification of seeing the State enfranchised and freed from the incubus which had paralyzed every effort in the way of railroad im- provement.

At the close of the session he retired to an active private life, positively refusing to be again a candi- date, until the public became much divided in re- gard to the policy of Andrew Jackson, President, concerning the Bank of the United States. His re- fusal to allow the bank further to receive the revenues of the government on deposit created much excite- ment and dissatisfaction with a large portion of the community; so much so that but comparatively few would speak in advocacy of his measures. That there might be no doubt as to his opinion Charles Stokes permitted his name to be used as a candidate for Council in the State Legislature, in connection with others who approved of the policy of the Presi- dent. They were defeated then, as was expected, but very soon the public sentiment subsequently became so much changed upon the subject that in the fall of 1836 he was returned a member of the Legislative Council.

Having discharged this trust in such a way as to meet his own approval, he declined a further candi- dacy and again resumed his former avocation. The Legislature of New Jersey passed an act providing for an election of delegates to meet in convention to frame a constitution for the government of the State, Second Month 23, 1844. Charles Stokes was elected a member of this body, and Fifth Month I4th of the same year took his seat at the organization of the convention, which was composed of men distinguished for talent and high moral character, selected with the intention that party preferences should be bal- anced.

Early in the session R. S. Field offered a resolution " that the sittings of the convention be opened every morning with prayer, and that the clergymen of the city of Trenton and its vicinity be invited toofficiate on such occasions." Charles Stokes said that he appre- ciated the importance of the service for which they

were assembled and the necessity for Divine assist- ance to enable them to wisely perform their duties. They were in their seats representing different sec- tions of the State, the whole people and the interests of all. Different views, no doubt, were entertained with regard to the proper mode of offering prayer, and each one was entitled to his opinion ; and no man, nor number of men, had a right to impose religious services upon another, contrary to what he believed to be right. The provisions of the eighteenth and nineteenth sections of the Constitution of 1776, which they had bound themselves, by solemn asseveration, to maintain, guaranteed this protection, and up to this time had been sacredly observed. If now, on this momentous occasion, they should sanction the princi- ple embraced in the resolution offered by the member from Mercer, they would opeu a door for practices, for legislation, leading to a subversion of liberty of con- science, to a union of church and state; Legisla- tures would have imposed upon them prayers, gra- tuitously for a time, but soon compensated by enforced taxation.

He believed the mind should always be in the atti- tude of prayer, that men should "pray without ceas- ing," that they should do their own praying, and not by proxy.

He was satisfied with Scripture doctrine; that such things as are revealed belong to us, and those things that are secret and not revealed belong to the Great Fountain-Head and source of all good. It is truly won- derful, his disregard of popularity and determination to uphold what he believed to be right. His life was one of remarkable energy and activity throughout all of seventy-five years of the same, was exceedingly use- ful, desirous of wearing out instead of rusting out. He was prompt to form opinions of measures touching public welfare, and solicitous to discharge every duty. He was well informed in matters of law, and when consulted on those points gratuitously gave counsel and advice; and where parties were at variance his advice rarely failed to promote harmony. He lived to the advanced age of ninety-one years. His death oc- curred Second Month 27, 1882. He was buried in Friends' burial-ground, Rancocas, N. J.

He attributed his long and happy carcer through life to the fact that he always endeavored to follow that beacon, " The Light within," which never mis- led or betrayed his conscience. The rule of life by which he had lived proved to be a perfectly safe one in the hour of death. He bore his illness with resig- nation, and remarked " that Divine Providence has been good to me; I have the comforts of life and am surrounded and cared for by a loving and attentive family. The manifestations of friendship on the part of others is exceedingly joyful to me ; I love them all ; I do not entertain an unkind feeling for any one. I feel that life is ebbing away ; I am resigned. My mis- sion is nearly ended ; I am prepared and ready to die." Thus ended a long, happy, useful and well-spent life.

1162

HISTORY OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY.

CHAPTER LXXX.

WHITPAIN TOWNSHIP.1

IN the years 1681, 1682 and 1683, William Penn, the proprietary, executed leases and re-leases to Samuel Fox for fifteen hundred acres ; Charles Marshall, two thousand acres; and James Claypole, one thousand acres. James Claypole shortly afterwards sold his tract to John Marshall, containing in all four thou- sand five hundred acres, Richard Whitpain, citizen and butcher of the town of London, subsequently be- came seized in fee of the whole four thousand five hundred acres.

This tract, to distinguish it from the rest of Whit- pain's purchases, was called or known by the name of " Whitpain's Creek," situated in Philadelphia County.

Richard Whitpain made his will and testament, dated April 27, 1689, and willed the payment of his debts and funeral expenses, and anthorized his wife, Mary, his executrix, to sell so much of his lands in the province as she should find needful for the payment thereof, and shortly after the said test ator died.

Mary Whitpain, in accordance with the provision of the will, by her indenture dated July 30, 1689, sold the entire tract to Mary Davice, John Eldridge, Wil- liam Ingram, John Blackhall and John Vace, all of whom were creditors. Shortly afterward John Black . hall, the surviving trustee, sold the great tract above named to William Aubrey, of the town of London.

William Anbrey, by his indenture dated April 24, 1713, sold the tract to Anthony Morris, maltster and brewer of Philadelphia, and Rees Thomas, of the township of Merion.

John Whitpain (the only surviving son and heir-at- law of Zachary Whitpain, and also heir-at-law to his uncle, John Whitpain, which Johu Whitpain, the uncle of the oldest son and heir-at-law of Richard Whitpain) became dissatisfied with the sale. An agreement was entered into, dated May 28, 1718, by which the entire tract fell into the hands of Morris Rees and Whitpain, and they requested of the com- missioners a resurvey thereof.

In pursuance of a warrant from the commissioners, dated Third Month 20, 1726, the property was resur- veyed by Nicholas Scull, May 23, 1727, and found to con- tain four thousand eight hundred and fifty-eight acres.

John Whitpain made his last will, dated December 20, 1718, and willed the property that was due him (real estate), according to the agreement made withi Morris and Thomas, his portion thereof, to his two children, Sarah and Zachariah, and left his wife, Ann, his executrix. Concerning the Whitpain family, Buek, the historian writes,-

"Zachariah Whitpain removed on the same the summer of 1685, if not earlier, and making extensive improvements, he settled on the property a number of tenants. In 1686 he married Sarah Owens, and was ap-

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 Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, Part 246

Author: Bean, Theodore Weber, 1833-1891, [from old catalog] ed; Buck, William J. (William Joseph), 1825-1901 Publication date: 1884 Publisher: Philadelphia, Everts & Peck Number of Pages: 1534

Author: Bean, Theodore Weber, 1833-1891, [from old catalog] ed; Buck, William J. (William Joseph), 1825-1901
Publication date: 1884
Publisher: Philadelphia, Everts & Peck
Number of Pages: 1534