History of York County, Pennsylvania : from the earliest period to the present time, divided into general, special, township and borough histories, with a biographical department appended, Part 19

Author: Gibson, John, Editor
Publication date: 1886
Publisher: F.A. Battey Publishing Co., Chicago
Number of Pages: 1104

USA > Pennsylvania > York County > History of York County, Pennsylvania : from the earliest period to the present time, divided into general, special, township and borough histories, with a biographical department appended > Part 19

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).

*II Smith's Laws, note.

+The court haron was for the redressing of misdemeanors and nuisances within the manor, and for settling disputes of property among the tenants. (90, II Blackstone's Commenta- ries.)

#Sergeant's Land Laws, 196.

* Page 404.

+ Page 241.

HISTORY OF YORK COUNTY.

John Marshall. The following is the war- rant in that case :

PENNSYLVANIA, SS .- By the Proprietaries.

WHEREAS, Bartholemew Sesrang, of the County of Lancaster, hath requested that we would grant him to take up 200 acres of land, situate between Codorus Creek and Little Conewago Creek, adjoin- ing the lands of Killian Smith and Philip Heintz, on the west side of the Susquehanna River, in the said county of Lancaster, for which he agrees to pay to our use the sum of £15 10s. current money of this province, for every acre thereof. These are, therefore, to authorize and require you to survey, or cause to be surveyed unto the said Bartholemew, at the place aforesaid, according to the method of townships appointed, the said quantity of 200 acres, if not already surveyed or appropriated ; and make return thereof into the secretary's office, in order for further confirmation ; for which this shall be your sufficient warrant; which survey, in case the said Bartholemew fulfil the above agreement with- in six months from the date hereof, shall be valid ; otherwise void.

Given under my hand and seal of the land office, by virtue of certain powers from the said proprie- taries, at Philadelphia, this eighth day of January, Anno Domini, one thousand seven hundred and forty-two. GEORGE THOMAS.

To William Parsons,

Surveyor-General.

The warrant of resurvey of Gov. Hamilton set forth : "That in pursuance of the prim- itive regulations for laying out lands in the province, W. Penn had issued a warrant, dated the 1st of September, 1700, to Edward Pennington, the Surveyor-General, to survey for the proprietor, 500 acres of every town- ship of 5,000 acres ; and generally the pro- prietary one-tenth of all the land laid out, and to be laid out ; that like warrants, had been issued by the successive proprietaries to every succeeding Surveyor-General; that the tracts surveyed, however, are far short of the due proportions of the proprietary ; that therefore by order of the then Commis- sioners of property, and in virtue of the gen- eral warrant aforesaid to the then Surveyor- General, there was surveyed for the use of the proprietor on the 19th and 20th of June, 1722, a certain tract of land situate on the west side of the river Susquehanna, then in the county of Chester, afterward of Lancaster, and now of York, containing about 70,000 acres called, and now well known by the name of the manor of Springetsbury; that sundry Germans and others, afterward seated themselves by leave of the proprietor on divers parts of the said manor, but con- firmation of their titles was delayed on acconnt of the Indian claim; that on the 11th of October, 1736, the Indians released their claims, when (on the 30th of October, 1736), a license was given to each settler, (the whole grant computed at 12,000 acres), promising patents, after surveys should be made; that the survey of the said tract of land, is either

lost or mislaid; but that from the well-known settlements and improvements made by the said licensed settlers therein, and the many surveys made around the said manor, and other proofs and circumstances, it appears that the said tract is bounded east, by the Susque- hanna; west, by a north and south line west of the late dwelling plantation of Christian Eyster, called Oyster, å licensed settler; north by a line nearly east and west, distant about three miles north of the present great road, leading from Wright's Ferry through York Town, by the said Christian Oyster's plantation to Monockassey; south, by a line near east and west, distant about three miles south of the great road aforesaid; that divers of the said tracts and settlements within the said manor, have been surveyed and confirmed by patents, and many that have been sur- veyed, remained to be confirmed by patents, for which the settlers have applied; that the pro- prietor is desirous, that a complete draft or map and return of survey of the said manor, shall be replaced and remain for their and his use, in the Surveyor-General's office, and also, in the Secretary's office; that by special order and direction, a survey for the proprietor's use was made by Thomas Cookson, Deputy Sur. veyor (in 1741), of a tract on, both sides of the Codorus, within the said manor, for the site of a town, whereon York Town has since been laid out and built, but no return of that survey being made, the premises were resur- veyed by George Stevenson, Deputy Surveyor (in December, 1752), and found to contain 4363 acres."

After the recital, the warrant directed the Surveyor-General "to re-survey the said tract for the proprietor's use, as part of his one- tenth, in order that the bounds and lines thereof, may be certainly known and ascer- tained." James Tilghman, Secretary of the land office, on the 13th of May, 1768, wrote to John Lukens, Surveyor-General, to pro- ceed with all expedition on the survey, and make return of the outline of the manor at least. The survey was accordingly executed from the 12th to the 13th of June, 1768, and the plat was returned into the land office, and also into the Secretary's office, on the 12th of July, 1768, containing 64,520 acres, a part of the original tract of 70,000 acres having been cut off, under the agreement between Penn and Baltimore, to satisfy the claims of Maryland settlers. This is known as Hamilton's Survey.

THE MANOR OF MASKE.

Between 1736 and 1740 there were early settlements made on an immense tract of land

SPRINGETSBURY MANOR.

in the western portion of the county of York laid out for the proprietaries' use, and named the Manor of Maske. When the provincial surveyors arrived for the purpose of run- ning its lines, the settlers upon it, not under- standing, or not approving the purpose, drove them off by force. Some of the settlers had taken out regular warrants, others had licen- ses, and some were there probably without either. As a result, the lines were not run till January, 1766, and the return of them was made on the 7th of April, 1768, to the land office.

"The manor then surveyed is nearly a perfect oblong. The southerly line is 1,887 perches; the northern, 1,900 perches; the western line, 3,842 perches; the eastern 3,- 954. It is nearly six miles wide, and about twelve miles long. The southern line is probably a half mile north of Mason and Dixon's line, and the northern is about mid- way between Mummasburg and Arendtsville, skirting a point marked on the county as Texas, on the road from Gettysburg to Mid- dletown, does not quite reach the Conewago Creek. The manor covers the town of Get- tysburgh and Mummasburg, the hamlet of Seven Stars, and probably McKnightstown, all of the township of Cumberland, except a small strip of half a mile along the Mary- land line, nearly the whole of Freedom, about one-third of Highland, the southeast corner of Franklin, the southern section of Butler, the western fringe of Straban, and a smaller fringe on the west side of Mount Joy. Gettysburg is situated north of the center, and on the eastern edge of the manor, and is thus about five and a half miles from the northern, and seven and a half from the southern. The manor is separated by a nar- row strip on the west from Carroll's Tract, or "Carrolls Delight," as it was originally called, and which was surveyed under Mary- land's authority on the 3d of April, 1732. It was patented August 8,1735, to Charles, Mary and Eleanor Carroll, whose agents made sales of warrants for many years, supposing that the land lay within the grant of Lord Balti- more, and in the county of Frederick. As originally surveyed Carroll's Delight con- tained 5,000 acres. * "

A special act of Assembly was passed on the 23d of March, 1797, relating to the Manor of Maske. It recited that "certain citizens had settled themselves and made improve- ments on the lands comprehended within its limits antecedently to the warrant issuing for the survey of the same; and without notice that any such measure was in contempla-

tion," and as doubts had arisen whether the said survey was regular, "and the said set- tlers and inhabitants in whose favor the said exceptions might have been urged, waived the same, and had agreed or are in treaty with, and ready to conclude a purchase for John Penn and Richard Penn, Esqs., There- fore, to remove any uneasiness in the minds of the said inhabitants that the committee may claim the land to encourage agriculture and improvement, by sending titles free from dispute and remove any prejudice against the rights derived from the late proprietaries, the lands marked by the survey of the manor in the month of January, 1676, shall be free and clear of any claim of the Common- wealth." But in 1800 all this territory was included in the new county of Adams .*

BLUMSTONE'S LICENSES.

In 1734 a title originated, which in con- troversies concerning the Manor of Spring- etsbury, became the subject of judicial in- vestigation. The land on the west of the Susquehanna not having been purchased from the Indians, no absolute title, irregular, or otherwise, could be given according to the established usage and law. But the dispute was existing with Lord Baltimore, concerning the boundary of William Penn's charter and the Marylanders were extending their settle- ments up the Susquehanna. On the 11th of January, 1733-34,* a special commission was given to Samuel Blunston, a gentleman resident on the banks of the Susquehanna, to encourage the settlement of the country, and most of the titles over the Susquehanna originated in the licenses issued by him, to settle and take up lands on the west side of the river. Not because the land office was at that time closed as has been generally conceived, but because the office could not be opened for those lands which were not yet purchased of the Indians. He issued many licenses from January, 1734.

*In Day's Annals it is said that the manor was established by warrant from the Penns in 1740.

About the year 1740 a number of the Scotch-Irish made the first settlement on what is now Adams County, among the hills near the sources of Marsh Creek. At that time the limestone lands in the lower part of the county (of York), now so valuable in the hands of the German farmers, were not held in high estimation, on account of the scarcity of water, aud the Scotch- Irish passed them by to select the slate lands, with the pure springs and mountain air to which they had been accustomed at home.

Descendants are still cultivating the farms which their fathers opened one hundred years since. Mr. McPherson's an- cestors settled about 1741-42, when the patent is dated. Mr. William McClellan, the well known and obliging landlord at Gettysburg, says that his ancestor obtained his patent from William Penn, at New Castle, but did not settle until about 1740. The land still remains in possession of the family, and the graves of the deceased members are all there."-Days Annals, p. 58, (1840).

+This was before the begining of the year was fixed by law on the Ist of January instead of the 25th of March, hence old and new style .- II Archives, 68.

*A. Sheely, in Egle's Hist. of Penna , pp. 381-82.

HISTORY OF YORK COUNTY.

to October, 1737, by which he promised patents on the usual terms, when the pur- chases should be made from the Indians. The first license issued by Samuel Blunston was dated the 24th of January, 1733-34, and the last on the 31st of October, 1737, all of which, and they were numerous prior to the 11th of October, 1736, were for lands out of the Indian purchase. These grants the pro- prietors were bound to confirm, being issued by their express consent, as soon as they purchased the lands from the natives, upon the clearest legal principles, as expressed in the case of Weiser's Lessee vs. Moody .*

This title was always recognized, and after the purchase made in 1736, the propri- etary confirmed the licenses by regular war- rants. They were likened by some to loca- tions, by others to warrants. They had all the essential parts of a warrant, except in the single circumstance of the purchase money not being previously paid. They contained a direction to make a survey, equally with a warrant, and it was the constant usage of surveyors to make surveys under them, in the same manner as under warrants, and such surveys were accepted in the office. t

In the case of Penn's Lessee against Kline, į it is said, "In order to resist the Maryland intrusions, encouragements were offered by Sir W. Keith, and accepted by a number of Germans, for forming settle- ments on the tract, which had been thus surveyed; and in October, 1736, Thomas Penn having purchased the Indian claim to the land, empowered Samuel Blunston to grant licenses for 12,000 acres (which were sufficient to satisfy the rights of those who had settled, perhaps fifty in number) within the tract of land "commonly called the Manor of Springetsbury," under the invita- tions of the Governor. But in addition to such settlers, not only the population of the tract in dispute, but of the neighboring county, rapidly increased." In 1736, Thomas Penn was in Lancaster, and signed warrants taken under Blunston's licenses. The number of Germans who had formed settlements on the tract is elsewhere men- tioned as fifty-two. In Calhoun's Lessee vs. Dunning, § the inception of the plantiff's title depended upon an extract from the record of licenses or grants by Blunston, dated March, 1734-35, which was merely a minute in these words: "John Calhoun, 200 acres on Dunning's Run, called the Dry Spring, between Jacob Dunning and Ezekiel Dun-

ning." A number of ejectments were brought for tracts of land, lying in York County, in all of which the general question was, whether the land was included in a tract called and known by the name of a pro- prietary manor duly surveyed and returned into the land office, on or before the 4th day of July, 1776. The titles of the lessors of the plaintiff, to the premises in dispute, were regularly deduced from the charter of Charles the Second, to William Penn, provided there was a manor called and known by the name of Springetsbury, duly surveyed and returned, according to the terms and meaning of the act of the 27th of November, 1779 .* On the trial of the cause already mentioned, evidence was given on each side to maintain the oppo- site position respecting the existence or non- existence of the Manor of Springetsbury, from public instruments, from the sense expressed by the proprietaries, before the Revolution, in their warrants and patents; from the sense expressed by the warrants and patents issued since the Revolution; from the practice of the land office, and from the current of public opinion. The general ground taken by the plaintiff's counsel was: First. That the land mentioned is a part of a tract called or known by the name of a Pro- prietary Manor. Second, that it was a proprietary manor duly surveyed, and Third, that the survey was duly made and re- turned before the 4th of July, 1776. . The defendant's counsel contended: 1. That Sir William Keith's warrant, being issued in 1722, without authority, all proceedings on it were absolutely void, and that neither the warrant nor survey had ever been re- turned into the land office. 2, That Gov. Hamilton's warrant was issued in 1762, to resurvey a manor which had never been legally surveyed, and was in that respect to be regarded as a superstructure without a foundation. 3, That the recitals of Gov. Hamilton's warrant are not founded in fact, and that considering the survey, iu pursuance of it, as an original survey, it was void as against compact, law and justice, that the proprietor should assume, for a manor, land settled by individuals.

The licenses granted by Thomas Penn, in 1736, to about fifty-two settlers, in different parts of the first, as well as second survey, in which this is called the Manor of Sprin- getsbury was strongly relied upon to show that, even at that early period, it had acquired this name. The tenor of the war- rants afterward granted for lands within this manor, varying from the terms of the

*II Yeates, 27.

+Lessee of Dunning vs. Carruthers, II Yeates, 17.

ĮIV Dallas, 405.

¿IV Dallas, 120.

*I Smith's Laws, 480.

SPRINGETSBURY MANOR.

common warrants, marked this manor land. There was testimony to show that the west line of this manor was always reputed to go considerably beyond York to Oyster's.

As some of the persons interested in the ejectments brought for lands in Springets- bury Manor had purchased from the Com- monwealth, and it would be entitled to all arrears of purchase money if the proprie- tary title should not be established, the Leg- islature had authorized the Governor to employ counsel to assist the counsel of the defendants. After the decision of the case of Penn's lessee vs. Kline, the Legislature ap- pointed James Ross and James Hopkins, Esqs., to take defense in the next ejectment, Penn's lessee vs. Groff,* which was tried in the .April term, 1806, and upon the same charge, the same verdict was given. The defendant's counsel. having tendered a bill of exceptions to the charge of the court, arrangements were made to obtain a final decision of the Supreme Court, upon a

writ of error. It appears, however from the journals, that the Legislature was not dis- posed to interfere any further, and terms of compromise were proposed and accepted by the parties. The resolution appointing Messrs. Ross and Hopkins, counsel for the inhabitants of Springetsbury Manor, was passed March 31, 1806.+

The proprietary manors were reserved by the Legislature after the Revolution to the Penns, while their title to all other lands in the province was divested in favor of the commonwealth. The royal grant of the province of Pennsylvania to William Penn was au absolute one, and the quit rents reserved by him and his heirs, on the aliena- tion of lands therein, became their private property. By the Revolution and consequent change of government, the proprietaries lost the right of pre-emption of unpurchased land, in which the Indian title was not extinguished. The grant to Penn was in free and com- mon socage; but the Revolution and the act for vesting the estates of the late proprieta- ries in the commonwealth and for the opening of the land office, passed in 1779 and 1781, abolished all feudal land tenures, and ren- dered them purely allodial in their character, even as to lands held by the late proprieta- ries in their private capacity. At the com- mencement of the war of the American Rev- olution, the proprietary went to Great Brit- ain, where he remained, and in the year 1779 the Legislature of Pennsylvania passed

the act "for vesting the estates of the late proprietaries of Pennsylvania in this common- wealth." It was held, however, in the courts, that the lands within the lines of the survey of the manor were excepted out of the gen- eral operation of the act, and were not vested in the commonwealth .* The powers of gov- ernment and rights of property were always kept distinct, the former being exercised by the General Assembly, and the latter by means of an agency, constituting what is called a land office. After the Revolution, the pro- prietaries had, and still have a land office, to receive purchase moneys and grant patents. The commonwealth did not receive the pur- chase money of lands included within the limits of manors, nor grant patents for them. There were, in fact, two land offices. The act of investiture contained the following:

"All and every estate of those claim- ing to be proprietaries of Pennsylvania, to which they were entitled on the 4th day of July, 1776, in, or to the soil and land con- tained within the limits of said province, together with royalties, etc., mentioned or granted in the charter of said King Charles; the Second shall be, and they are hereby vested in the commonwealth of Pennsyl- vania."

" There was nothing in the act of 1779, which would lead to the opinion that the legislature was actuated by a spirit of hos- tility against the Penn family. The great object of the act was to transfer the right to the soil of Pennsylvania from the proprietary to the commonwealth. This was the great and national object. In addition to the private estates of the family, to man- ors actually surveyed and to the quit rents reserved on the lands sold within the manors, 120,000 pounds sterling are bestowed on the family amongst other considerations, in re- membrance of the enterprising spirit which distinguished the founder of Pennsylvania. The line of partition between the common- wealth and the Penn family was to be drawn. It was proper that the commonwealth, and Penn, and the people of Pennsylvania, should be able distinctly to discern it.t "To have suffered the Penn family to retain those rights, which they held strictly in their pro- prietary character, would have been incon- sistent with the complete political indepen- dence of the State. The province was a fief held immediately from the Crown, and the Revolution would have operated very in- efficiently toward complete emancipation, if the feudal relation had been suffered to re-

*IV Dallas, 410.

+P. L. 682. 8 Bloren, 474. 12 Smith's Laws, 532.

*8 Wright, 500.

+Marshall, C. J., 9 Wheaton, 267.

HISTORY OF YORK COUNTY.

main. It was therefore necessary to extin- guish all foreign interest in the soil, as well as foreign jurisdiction in the matter of govern- ment."* "We are then to regard the Revo- lution and these Acts of Assembly, as eman- cipating every acre of soil in Pennsylvania from the grand characteristic of the feudal system. Even as to the lands held by the proprietaries themselves, they held them as other citizens held under the commonwealth, and that by a title purely allodial. . The State became the proprietor of all lands, but instead of giving them like a feudal lord to an enslaved tenantry, she has sold them for the best price she could get, and conferred on the purchaser the same absolute estate she held herself."+

Among the proceedings of the Supreme Executive Council, January, 25, 1787, ap- pears the following: "A letter from Tench Francis, Esq., requesting the delivery of a number of counterparts of patents for lands within the Manor of Springetsbury, granted by the late proprietaries of Pennsylvania, now in the keeping of the Secretary of the land office, was laid before Council; and on consideration, an order was taken that the Secretary of the land office be authorized and instructed to deliver to John Penn and John Penn, Jr., or their attorney the counterparts of all such patents for lots within the Manor of Springetsbury as upon examination shall appear to be entered: in the Rolls office, taking their re- ceipt for the same. And on September 22, 1788, the following appears: "A memorial from John Penn, Jr., and John Penn, by their agent, Anthony Butler, containing a brief of their title to the Manor of Spring- etsbury, lying north of the city of Philadel- phia, was read together with several inclos- ures; the memorial and inclosures were put into the hands of the committee appointed upon the petition of Thomas Britain and others."İ

THE TOWN OF YORK.

" The warrant for the survey of Springets- bury Manor, "issued by Gov. Hamilton, on the 21st of May, 1762, recited: "That by special order and direction a survey for the proprietor's use was made by Thomas Cook-

son, deputy surveyor (in 1741) of a tract of land on both sides of the Cordorus, within the said manor, for the site of a town, whereon York Town has since been laid out and built, but no return of that survey being made, the premises were resurveyed by George Stevenson, deputy surveyor (in De- cember, 1752,) and found to contain 436} acres."

The original survey was made in the month of October, 1741. Glossbrenna's his- tory says:

"The part east of Codorus, was immediately laid out into squares, after the manner of Philadelphia. For doing this the following instructions were originally given: 'The squares to be 480 feet wide; 520 long; lots 230 by 65; alleys 20; two streets .80 feet wide, to cross each other, and 65 feet square to be cut off the corner of each lot to make a square for any public building or market of 110 feet each side; the lots to be let at 7 shillings sterling or value in coin current ac- cording to the exchange; the squares to be laid out the length of two squares to the eastward of Codorus when any number such as 20 houses are built.' On the margin of the original draught of the town as then laid out, are these words: The above squares count in each 480 feet on every side, which in lots of 60 feet front, and 240 feet deep, will make 15 lots; which multiplied by the num- ber of squares, (viz, 16, for the original draught contains no more) gives 256 lots; which together with the streets, at 60 feet wide, will not take up above 102 acres of land.' "

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 York County, Pennsylvania : from the earliest period to the present time, divided into general, special, township and borough histories, with a biographical department appended, Part 19

Author: Gibson, John, Editor Publication date: 1886 Publisher: F.A. Battey Publishing Co., Chicago Number of Pages: 1104

Author: Gibson, John, Editor
Publication date: 1886
Publisher: F.A. Battey Publishing Co., Chicago
Number of Pages: 1104