USA > Pennsylvania > Northampton County > History of Northampton County [Pennsylvania] and the grand valley of the Lehigh, Volume I > Part 6
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
Of the three sons of William Penn, John and Richard were spendthrifts, and of not very estimable character. Thomas was haughty, reserved and, for a person of his pretensions, not of very good morals, fond of evil com- pany and frequently prosecuted for evildoing. On his last departure for Europe some of the venturesome boys of Philadelphia erected a gallows along the street where he was to pass. John Penn, the eldest, born in Phila- delphia February 29, 1700, has been called "the American" because he alone of all the Penn family, except possibly one child of his nephew Richard, was born in the New World. He was recognized as the head of the governors- in-chief of Pennsylvania, being older than his colleagues, Thomas and Rich- ard, and having twice as much interest as either of them in the property. Before the more active brother, Thomas Penn, made his visit to Pennsylvania, an agreement was entered into by the three proprietors to preserve the estate to their heirs male. They covenanted by articles dated May 8, 1732, that none of the three would dispose of his share, except to create charges upon it, otherwise than to his eldest son tail male, with remainder to his other sons successively in order of birth in tail male, and if any of the three should die without issue his estate, subject to charges, should go to the sur- vivors, as he might appoint. At this time only Richard was married, his wife being Hannah, daughter of John Loudner, a physician; and only one son had yet appeared to gratify the desire for establishing a family.
John Penn, the American, had not thought well of a suggestion to make Thomas the lieutenant-governor, perhaps because of the latter's want of popularizing manners, perhaps because he had already entered upon a life offensive in morals. His lack of cordiality or effusiveness is fully illustrated in the abrupt reception of a certain Welsh clergyman who, shortly after Thomas' first arrival to this country, prepared a poem of welcome and called
1
THOMAS PENN Proprietor of Pennsylvania and Founder of Easton
37
THE PENNS
upon him. Thomas Penn spoke these sentences: "How does do? Farewell, The other door," and consequently did not receive the poem.
John Penn came to Pennsylvania in September, 1734, but returned to England the following year. He figures in the history of Pennsylvania as counsellor, lieutenant-governor and proprietary. He appears to be the only descendant of William Penn to remain a Quaker. He died without issue in October, 1746, leaving his rights in the province to his brother Thomas.
Thomas Penn was born in England in 1702. He came to Pennsylvania in 1732 with a power of attorney from his brothers John and Richard, and took a seat in the council. He returned to England in 1741. Both he and his brother were much disgusted with the colony, a feeling the colonists recipro- cated with compound interest. He was enthusiastically loyal to the Crown. Thomas Penn, at his brother's death, took the direction in the government and business of property to which his share and seniority entitled him, and for which ability and experience fitted him. He was master over his weak nephew John (son of Richard), whom he sent away and kept away from the girl, objectionable in herself or her surroundings perhaps only because they were humble when, as a schoolboy, John had married. He himself remained a bachelor until 1751, when he entered a family of the nobility by marrying Lady Juliana, daughter of Thomas Fermor, first Earl of Pomfret. Thus the middle-aged bridegroom, the profligate son of a noble sire, became one of the rich gentry of England, ruler of an American principality larger than Ireland. He ceased to be a Quaker, regularly attending church after his marriage, and in 1760 purchased the historic seat of Stoke Park at Stoke Pogis, where he established his family. He died in England, March 21, 1775, leaving two sons, John and Granville. John succeeded to his father's interest, but with his cousin lost the proprietaryship and governorship of Pennsylvania by the American Revolution. Granville was one of the most learned laymen of England. He left several sons, all of whom died without issue, so that the pension paid by the British government descended to his sister, Sophia Margaret, wife of William Stuart, Archbishop of Armagh.
Richard Penn, the youngest son of the founder, was born in England about 1710, and never came to Pennsylvania. The chief thing to remark is that at an early date he forsook the Society of Friends, and if he did not sacramentally join, otherwise conformed to the Church of England, his chil- dren receiving infant baptism. He died October 4, 1771. His children who lived to grow up were John, Hannah and Richard, of whom Hannah married James Clayton, and died without issue. John, his eldest son, was a counsellor, lieutenant-governor and proprietary in Pennsylvania's history ; he died with- out issue. Richard, the other son, was also lieutenant-governor ; he had two sons, William and Richard, who died childless.
The Penns were represented in the province by a deputy or lieutenant- governor, and a council composed of appointees, and known as the governor's council. These deputies were generally men of slender abilities, and mean tools of the proprietors. They held their official position at the will of the proprietors, and were placed under heavy bonds for their faithful performance and loyalty, first due the King and British government, next to the pro- prietaries, and thirdly and, it might be added, lastly, to the province or colony.
38
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY
Theirs was a difficult task to assume, for there were three masters to serve for what they owed to those abroad and what was due to the circumstances by which they were surrounded. It may be surprising that with all the power exercised over them, the province paid their salaries, which were fixed and allowed by the assembly. The assembly was composed of representatives from the different districts of the colony, and elected by the people. The powers of the assembly extended little beyond making laws relating to the collecting and appropriating revenues.
The council could only act with the advice of the governor, and with him possessed the appointing power. The greatest power of the Penns to carry through any unjust designs against the will of the people or of the assembly, who it appears were generally disposed to justice, lay in the ap- pointing power. Thus, the judges of the courts, the attorney-general, surveyor- general and sheriffs down to all deputies, were appointed and commissioned by the governor and council through the instructions of the proprietors, and should the governor disobey he would at once be set aside. The council, though in one sense independent, was completely subordinate to the governor, without whom they could not act; again, when duly obedient or passive, themselves and their sons would likely at some time be rewarded by office or promotion. This was the general character of those in the courts as well as in other provincial offices of the people. The governor had still the right to appoint and commission either one of the two receiving the highest vote for office, and often the candidate receiving the highest vote was not appointed to the office:
These Penns cherished those erroneous Tory notions of the rights of sovereignties which Lord Bute infused into the contracted mind of George III, and which cost that dull and obstinate monarch his colonies. Not satisfied in the pride of possessing acres by the millions, they felt themselves to be lords of the land they owned and of the people who dwelt upon it, and it must be confessed they were long upheld in this belief by the Pennsylvanians themselves. When one of the proprietors deigned to visit the province, he received the address as a king might from his subjects, and replied to them with a brevity more than royal. The tone and style of all their later com- munications to the Pennsylvanians were that of offended lords to contuma- cious vassals ; and yet at home, as Franklin records, they were so insignificant as hardly to be found in the herd of gentry-not in court, not in office, and not in Parliament.
The Penns, by reason of being involved in lawsuits in England, had acquired considerable experience in matters pertaining to law, and turned their knowledge to account in the government of Pennsylvania. Hence they kept a vigilant eye on those designed to be judges of the courts, as well as sheriffs who had the selection of jurors. So much were those holding these positions their creatures that in any case in which the interest of the Penns would be involved there could be but a poor chance for justice. It is doubtful whether in any of the other English colonies there could have been found so servile a set of judges and so devoted to the proprietary interests as those in Pennsylvania down to the Revolution. Thus, in the collection of their quitrents and other revenues, the leasing and disposing of lands, and in the
39
THE PENNS
disputes arising therefrom, they wielded a power that now can scarcely be credited. In those matters the royal government had no interest, and was consequently indifferent; but it was otherwise with the people, who, as a general thing, were too liberty-loving to be blind to such gross abuses of power; and we need not wonder that there was such a spirit of opposition to the proprietors and that they preferred a government directly under the Crown. "On the one side was the proprietary family with their feudal pre- rogatives, their manors of 10,000 acres, their quitrents, and baronial pomp- alienated in their sympathies from the colony-preferring the luxuries of aristocratic life in England to the unostentatious manners of the New World -ruling the colonies by capricious deputies-and ever refusing to be taxed for the common defence of the country. On the other side was a hardy and enthusiastic band of colonists, free in this New World to develop the great principles of civil liberty then just dawning upon the human mind-willing to bear their share, provided the proprietaries would consent to be equally taxed."
When the proprietary was finally abolished in 1779, the interest of the Penn family in the soil was vested in the colony. The act of 1779, however, appropriated £130,000 to be paid out of the colonial treasury to the heirs of William Penn in full for all claims and damages, and secured to them all private estates, lands and manors owned by them in fee simple at the date of the act. The Penn heirs were all Tories, and they made a claim under an act of Parliament for £945,000. After a reviewing of the claim, they were allowed £500,000, which was paid in consols at par. It thus appears that the heirs of William Penn realized from the governments of Pennsylvania and Great Britain £630,000, besides securing their private estates in Pennsylvania. In 1790 the proprietary rights of Penn's descendants were bought by the British government for a pension of £4,000, payable annually to the eldest male descendant of his second wife; this pension was commuted in 1884 for £67,000.
1
IN THE LEHIGH VALLEY
CHAPTER III
SCOTCH-IRISH SETTLEMENTS
The Scotch-Irish were Scotch and English people who were encouraged in their immigration to Ireland by James VI of Scotland, afterwards James II of England, to occupy the estates of the Irish rebels whose estates had been confiscated by Queen Elizabeth and James I. The immigration was numer- ous, and began in the early part of the seventeenth century. Towards the middle of the same century the confiscation of Irish lands by Cromwell increased the emigration to still greater proportions, and many Englishmen joined the movement. These people became known in England as Ulstermen, diametrically different in character and religion to the native Irish. They were not Celtic Scotch, but people of English stock, whose progenitors had lived for many generations in Scotland. They were more thrifty and intelli- gent than the native Irish, took long leases of the lands they occupied, and began to make the country blossom like a garden. They were, however, persecuted by Charles I in his attempt to force the Scotch people in both Scotland and Ireland to conform to the Church of England. At the same time the native Irish rose to expel the Scotch, and they succeeded in killing a few thousands of these people. So between these two persecutions the set- tlers, already sturdy from their race and religion, were not without the additional discipline of suffering and martyrdom.
Charles II, on his restoration to the throne of England, attempted to introduce episcopacy into Scotland; this act was resisted by the people of the Lowlands, who were disciples of John Knox. The immigration to Ire- land was increased by these acts of Charles II, and the inhabitants of the southern portion of Scotland crossed the North Channel to the counties of Londonderry and Antrim in northern Ireland. The immigration was not diminished by the accession of William of Orange to the throne of England, though he had a decided preference for the doctrines and principles of the Presbyterian church. In the revolution that followed the attempt of James II to regain the throne of England, the Scotch Presbyterians of Ireland ren- dered valiant aid at the Battle of the Boyne and the Siege of Londonderry.
For one hundred and nineteen years these hardy Scotch-Irish dwelt on the new land that James VI had given them. Some of them, however, in 1718 and a few years later, had emigrated in small parties to New England. and became identified with the early settlements of Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Those remaining in Ireland were in 1727 overtaken by the famine of that year; for three seasons their crops failed, mills were closed, there was no work; gaunt starvation ruled the land, and taxation devoured their property. The Duke of Ulster foresaw an alarming disaster springing up. Speculators in American lands flooded Great Britain with exaggerated descriptions, and the desire to emigrate became an epidemic disease, hurrying immense multitudes to the land of promises and new desires. In Ireland they were simply tenants, holding their lands by lease, having no prospects
42
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY
of rising above the conditions of hired laborers, and in a new country they could acquire lands and better their social and religious conditions. In the summer of 1726 over three thousand left their Irish homes for the land of freedom and progress, and the following summer ships carried thousands of Scotch-Irish to New England and Pennsylvania.
Among these bands of home-seekers in a new land was one led by Colonel Thomas Craig, which arrived in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in 1728. They proceeded northward in their endeavors to find a permanent location, finally deciding to locate at the Forks of the Delaware. Here they estab- lished three Scotch-Irish settlements-on the north branch, at Mount Bethel; another, the Craig Settlement, on the west branch, in what is now Allen township, Northampton county.
The Craig or Irish settlement was situated in original Allen township, and extended from the Monocacy on the east to the Hockandauqua on the west. It included the Manor of Charlton, a holding of fifteen hundred acres, in what is now East Allen, patented in 1735 by Sir James Page of London ; also the Manor of Fermor, or Drylands, which at that time constituted the unsurveyed lands not definitely described in Northampton county, granted to the Proprietaries in 1736. This settlement antedated the settling of Easton eleven years, of Bethlehem thirteen years, and of Nazareth fifteen years.
There is no list of the names of the original band of Scotch-Irish, but from authentic authorities there were living in 1737 at the Irish Settlement the following: Thomas Craig and his son William; James Craig, his sons Robert and James, and in his family was Thomas Reed and wife; John Boyd ; Hugh Wilson and his sons Thomas, Samuel and Charles; Thomas Armstrong ; Robert Gregg; James King; John McNair; John Walker; Robert Walker; James Ralston; John Hayes; Arthur Lattimore; James Lattimore; James Horner ; James Kerr and Samuel Brown.
The Craig families were not related. Colonel Thomas Craig was well advanced in life at the time of the settlement, and his only son William was in the vigor of manhood, and married a daughter of Hugh Wilson. Colonel Craig's name first appears upon the roll of the Synod of Pennsylvania in 1731 as an elder, and it was about this time that a Presbyterian church was organ- ized in the Settlement. It may be supposed he was the original elder. James Craig was a connection by marriage of Chief Justice Allen, who presented him with a gift of a farm in the Irish Settlement.
Hugh Wilson was born in Cootehill, near Coleraine, Ireland, in 1689. He was one of the commissioners appointed to establish the site of North- ampton county. He was granted 730 acres of land northwest of what is now Hanover township. He operated in 1740 a grist mill on the Hockan- dauqua, and was one of the first justices in Northampton county. He married, in Ireland, Sarah Craig, and they had a family of five sons and three daughters. Samuel, Thomas and Charles, as before stated, were residents of the Irish settlement; William was in business in New York; and Francis was an Episcopal minister in South Carolina. One daughter married Rev. Francis McHenry of Deep Run, Pennsylvania; another became the wife of William Craig; and a third daughter married William McNair.
James Horner was born in Ireland, 1711; he took an active part in the
lare John Ruch de
North Meladelphia 1 dag. West
48 pass
82.2 2.32 7108.16
Anthony
Mountain
Hoe? Land
Road
Easton
- Fence 8
chance
...
9º percher
Mountain
Cleared
Land
100 perches
Delaware
dwell Houle
River
Philipsburg
DRAFT OF THE POINT OPPOSITE EASTON, PA.
B.O.
East
300 per by the
453
af
1000
Hickory
& Allowance of 6 faleus
River to y
Last 250 The slow ble
yves
Sure? 8ber 4. 26th 1736
4 Pound
.P. Eg?
500 año
Allowance &c 60€ Jure? 8 ber 25 1736 434 Polis to
yrer
mich"
moorf at 40
10.0
DRAFT OF THE THOUSAND-ACRE TRACT
West Branch
The Humble the Proprietaries Lane purchased of Baltzer Hefs.
South 89 deg West 172 perches
tony Albright JA" + allowance
north 89 day" last
-- The It
old Avast to the Ferry
Momentan :.
mountain
158
43
SCOTCH-IRISH SETTLEMENTS
early affairs of the county, and lived to be an octogenarian. His farm was located near the Hockandauqua creek. His wife, Jane Horner, was born in County Derry, Ireland, May 1, 1713; she was killed by the Indians in 1763. Their family consisted of Hugh, John, Thomas, Sarah, Mary, James and Jane.
Three brothers-Arthur, James and John Lattimore-were natives of Ire- land. Arthur was born in 1710, and settled near the mouth of the Hockan- dauqua creek. He married Mary, a daughter of Hugh Wilson. She was a native of Ireland, born in 1715. Arthur died in 1777; his widow survived him till 1780. They were the parents of two daughters, Elizabeth and Jane, both deaf-and-dumb. James Lattimore also was a land-owner; he purchased in 1766 of Andrew Allen, a son of Chief Justice Allen, a farm just east of the Monocacy creek, on which the greater part of the borough of Bath is now located. He died in 1781, intestate, and the homestead was acquired by his eldest son Robert, an appointee of the Provincial Assembly in 1777 to collect clothing for suffering patriots. John Lattimore was also a resident of the settlement, and the father of General William Lattimore.
James Ralston was born in Ireland, 1698. He was a member of the first grand jury of Northampton county, and died in 1775. His surviving children were: John, who was a delegate to the first constitutional convention of Pennsylvania, and a captain and paymaster in the militia. His son James surveyed for the plan of the village of Bath. The other children were Samuel and Jane.
Samuel Brown resided on a farm near Bath. He was born in Ireland, 1714, and died 1798. He married Jane, a daughter of John Boyd, and their family consisted of Robert, born 1745, was an officer in Pennsylvania "flying camp," a brigadier-general of state militia, was a member of Congress from December 4, 1798, to March 3, 1815. Samuel Brown's other children were: William, James, Esther, Sarah, and another daughter.
John Hayes was born in Ireland, 1704, and died November 16, 1789. His farm was located on the Catasauqua creek, near where Weaverville is now located. James King, who married Mary Walker, died in 1745, aged thirty- eight years; he was survived by his wife and four daughters. John McNair married a sister of Mrs. King, who was also a sister of John, Robert and Captain Richard Walker.
John and Robert Walker were brothers of Captain Richard Walker, who married a relative of Chief Justice Allen, and resided at Neshaminy. Robert died unmarried. The other Scotch-Irish families that lived near Bath were the Boyds, Clydes, McCords, McCooks, McConnels, McKeans, Rosbroughs, Agnews, Kennedys and Clendenens.
The Irish Settlement in the township of Lower Mount Bethel, a few miles northward from Easton, Pennsylvania, was first settled by a band of Ulster Scots about 1730, who gave it the name of Martin's Settlement, but now known as Martin's Creek. The first Scotch-Irish settler was named Smalley ; he built a grist mill in 1728, and the stream became known as Smalley's creek. The property was purchased by James Martin, who was a leader amongst the Scotch-Irish, and the waterway became known as Mar- tin's creek. On the ancient tombstones in the old church burial yard are read the names of Galloway, Foresman, Lowrey, Lyle, McCallum, McCracken,
44
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY
McCrea, McFarren, Mckibben, McFall, Moody, Patton, Rea, Scott, and other North Irishmen whose names also are recorded in the Colonial and Revolu- tionary wars, where they were active in the struggle for American independ- ence. Among the early settlers and wealthy land-owners besides the above- mentioned were the Beards or Bairds, Brittains, Crawfords, Gastons, Hannas, Hutchinsons, McDowells, McIlhaneys, McIlroys, McQuouns, Morris and Nelsons.
Another Scotch-Irish settlement was located near the present site of Portland, south of the Blue Mountains, bordering on the Delaware. It was called Hunter's Settlement, and was supposed to have been named in honor of Governor Hunter of the province of New York. In the "Documentary History of New York," mention is made of this band of Scotch-Irish, who had been refused a settlement in Massachusetts, and asylum was offered them by Governor Hunter, but the settlement was subsequently lost sight of. The country at this time was a wilderness, and the new settlers supposed they had settled within the boundaries of the province of New York, but they were, however, within the limits of Pennsylvania.
The Scotch-Irish in these settlements were ardent patriots; their fighting proclivities and their antipathy towards the German settlers caused inharmo- nious conditions with the peace-loving Moravians. During the later years of the Revolutionary war some of the Scotch-Irish became disloyal and many of them became Tories, which made them antagonistic to the government. Colonel Robert Lever had superseded Samuel Rea, a Scotch-Irishman, as lieutenant of the colony, and the demonstrations of the disaffected portion of the Scotch-Irish practically ceased, though Lever was decided in his actions in cases of disloyalty. He was magnanimous and friendly as a magis- trate, and his efforts were concentrated in having the Scotch-Irish become loyal to the country and establish themselves as home-loving and law-abiding people. They were, however, persecuted by the German settlers, and they decided it was better for them to emigrate, and upwards of eighty or one hundred families, consisting of nearly all of the Scotch-Irish excepting those who had intermarried with the Germans, decided to find a home beyond the pale of civilization in the unsettled country of the west, taking with them all of their historical records if they had any. They finally located near what is now Knoxville, Tennessee, calling their settlement Mount Bethel, and established Mount Bethel Church. The burying-ground adjoining this is revered in the hearts of the citizens of Knoxville, in which are graves of many of their Irish settlers. In eastern Tennessee their descendants still live, and the same family names here abound similar to those in Northampton county.
At the time of the settlement of the Scotch-Irish colony, the nearest place of worship was at Tinicum, in Bucks county. They were, however, people not to wait long without the means of grace, and application was made to New Brunswick Presbytery, then recently organized, for a minister to supply the district, and Rev. James Campbell was sent to supply them. For the next five years itinerate preachers were sent to supply the congrega- tion, among whom were the Revs. William Robinson, Charles McKnight, William Dean and Eleazer Wales. In May, 1744, they were visited by the
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.