USA > Pennsylvania > Welsh settlement of Pennsylvania > Part 24
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
[347]
WELSH SETTLEMENT OF PENSYLVANIA
(just as the Friends minister, Hugh Roberts, also said), he so understood Mr. Penn promised him at the time he bought and paid for the land, when, "not respecting his own profit, but the welfare" of the Germans, he was "graciously pleased to distribute" the lands of his province "to them as shall seek the same." As late as in 11mo., 1693-4, these Germans, like the Welsh, wanted to know if their grant, or charter, did not exempt their "town" from paying two sets of taxes, their own, and to Philadelphia County.
Penn evidently made some promises, possibly "with a mental reservation" not to keep them if they did not suit him ultimately. Therefore, it is not surprising that we do find him "changing his mind" about having independent states within his province. Once, he might have supposed this plan practicable, but, as he wrote in his "Frame of Government" (1682), a most wonderful document, even if compiled from the ideas of previous promotors, but it had defeets, yet it has "excited the enconiums of many histor- ians," "I do not find a model in the world that time, place, and some singular emergencies have not necessarily altered," so changed his mind. It is history that nearly every one of his ideas : government, on trial, turned out dreams, and failures, and were easily replaced by the care- fully thought-out Charter of Privileges, in 1701. The prac- tical men on the ground rather than Penn, the almost stranger, knew what the province required.
Penn was not only vacillating in the manner of disposing of his land, and promises made concerning it, for at the very first, he had no fixed rule for either mode, or extent of his grants; they were in consequence of an irregular, and informal nature, but even in the little matter of selling "whiskey," or intoxicating liquor to Indians.
At a meeting of the Provincial Council, 21. 1mo., 1683-4, at which he presided, it was left to him "to discourse with the Indians concerning an agreement with them about let- ting them have Rum." On 10. 3m. following, Penn in per- son informed the Council that he "had called the Indians
[348]
WELSH TRACT AFFAIRS
together, and proposed to them to let them hay Rum, if they would be contented to be punished as ye English were [when they became noisy-drunk], which they did agree to, provided that ye law of not Selling them Rum be abolished," which we all know was a distinct departure from Penn's original ideas as to rum for Indians.
Less than three years after the successful settlement of the great "Welsh Tract," the English of the province be- came jealous of its advancement, and started in to wreck it. Their procedure was not systematic, but in point of date, the matter of having a new boundary line for Chester county, particularly between the counties of Philadelphia and Chester, that would be directed so as to place the "towns" of Haverford and Radnor within the county of Chester, when a big slice would be cut off from the tract, was the first move, in 1685, and deserves first considera- tion. Upon this first occasion, the Chester people were not so much vexed over the irregular and uncertain bounds of their county, as they were concerned in extending their ter- ritory, and increasing their tax list, and consequently, revenue.
From Minutes of the Provincial Executive Council, 1. 2mo., 1685. Thomas Holme (or Holmes), the surveyor gen- eral, acting president, and present, the following matter was introduced :
"WHEREAS, The Gov'r in psence of John Symcock and William Wood, was pleased to Say & grant, That ye bounds of the Countys of Chester & Philadelphia should be as fol- lowed, Viz't :-
"That the bounds should bigin at the Mill Creek ["Darby Mill Creek," or Cobbs' Creek], and Sloping to ye Welch Township, and thence to Scoolekill, &c., in obedience thereto and Confirmation thereof,
"The Council having Seriously Weyed & Considered the same, have and doe hereby Agree and Order that ye bounds betwixt the said Countys shall be thus: That is to Say, 'then
[349]
WELSH SETTLEMENT OF PENSYLVANIA
follows the description of the lines proposed for Chester County laid down so as to take into it the Welsh town- ships of Harford and Radnor,' mentioning in the courses 'the land of Andros Boone & Co.,' the 'Severall Tracts of Land belonging to the Welch & Other Inhabitance,' 'Land belonging to Jno Humpheris,' and 'land of Jno Ekley.'
"The Question was put, whether the afore mentioned Creeks, Courses, and Lines, shall be the bounds betwixt the Countys of Philadelphia & Chester, according to ye Gov'rs grant as aforesaid; Unanimous Carried in ye Affirmative."
No Welsh Quaker was a member of the Provincial Coun- cil at this time. No notice, or warning was sent to the Welsh that question of throwing their "towns" of Haver- ford and Radnor out of the Welsh Tract, and Philadelphia county, into Chester county, was sent to their leading men. The Irishman, Mr. Holme, was presiding that day over the meeting during the absence in New York of Thomas Lloyd,t and advantage of this was taken by the Chester members, as it was well known that Mr. Lloyd did not favor this trans- ference. Symcock and Wood, who brought up this matter at the meeting, represented Chester county, and it was upon their statements that the matter was considered, and there thus could never have been a more favorable chance
*By deed dated 30 Oct. 1682, Edward Prichard, of Almeley, Here- ford, glover, for £25, sold 1250 acres, a part of his 2500 acres in the Welsh Tract, to John Eckley, of Kimbolton parish, Herefordshire, yeoman. Prichard also sold 312 acres, for £6.5.0. to John Vaston, of Docklow parish, Hereford, yeoman, and 312 acres to Elizabeth Good, of Kimbolton parish. Both deeds dated 1 Nov. 1682.
There is a letter from Mr. Lloyd, preserved by the Pa. Historical Society, written in New York about this time. And there is one from Penn to Lloyd, dated London, 21. 2 . 1686, saying, "Thyn from N. York of Novemb'r last is come to my hand." Lloyd apparently in- tended to desert Pensylvania and take up his residence in New York, for Penn wrote at this time, "Since the Lord has cast thy lott else where, I am glad thou affordest the Province thy presence Some times."
[350]
WELSH TRACT AFFAIRS
to introduce it, and have it acted on to satisfy their con- stituents of Chester.
However, although the resolution had been properly passed in the Executive Council, it could not become opera- tive until it had the sanetion of William Penn, or of his deputy governor, and Mr. Holme would not presume on using all the power of the latter entrusted to him. There- fore, at the next meeting of the Council, a week later, or on 8. 2mo., 1685-6, the subject was again introduced by the Chester members, who urged the acting president to for- ward the resolution to Mr. Penn, to get him to ratify it, owing to the continued absence of President Lloyd.
But by this time, the scheming of the Chester county people had become known to the Welsh Quakers across the Schuylkill, and they did considerable lobbying and wire- pulling, as their efforts against the proposition would be known to us, and through their influence it was decided by the Council that the bounds of all the counties should be adjusted and determined, for the purpose of properly col- lecting taxes, and defining sheriffs' jurisdictions, before sending the resolution as to the Chester line to Penn, and when all the counties had been bounded to send the deserip- tions together to him. It was decided to consider the bounds of Bucks county at the next meeting, and, in due time, the bounds were considered, and laid down, but no other county was reached before adjournment, which was just what the Welsh hoped would happen. At the next meeting, Mr. Lloyd presided, and for reasons of his own the matter of county boundaries was dropped. Whatever was the nature of Mr. Lloyd's influence over the Council and with Penn, it must have been strong, for the Chester line matter lay dormant for three years, although the resolution passed on the 1st of 2mo., had been sent by Holme to Penn, when Mr. Lloyd declined to confirm it.
Up to March, 1689-90, the Welsh Traet was left in a peculiar position, with thanks to Mr. Lloyd, Mr. Eckley,
[351]
WELSH SETTLEMENT OF PENSYLVANIA
and Mr. Turner, the majority of the five commissioners. Its large "towns" of Haverford and Radnor had been trans- ferred from Philadelphia county to Chester county by the resolution of 1 April, 1685, and this was acknowledged by the Philadelphia county authorities, as they made no at- tempt to collect taxes in these townships for Philadelphia county uses. And, although attempts were made to induce them to do so, they had paid no taxes, or assessments for the expenses and support of Chester county, the resolution aforesaid not having the sanction of Penn, nor had it been confirmed by him or his deputy governor. The Welsh Quakers did not care how long this state of affairs lasted. In fact, this being separate and distinct from all county organizations, was what Penn had given them to understand would be the status of their whole tract in the province, so they could only suppose they had come so far into their own (it was as near as the tract ever came to being a real "barony"), and accordingly, in these years, carried on the affairs of the two "towns" through their monthly meeting, and collect d assessments, and contributions within them for the use of the whole "barony."
But unexpectedly, on the morning of 25. 1mo., 1689-90, the Chester line matter, and the assignment of Haverford and Radnor, was suddenly revived in the meeting of the Executive Council, Captain John Blackwell, the then deputy gove1. or, presiding, by a motion to consider.
Information as to this soon reached Thomas Lloyd, the attorney and champion for the Welsh in the "line matter," so he went to the Chamber, and inquired of the Governor as to the rumor. The Governor assured him, saying, "No such thing was yt brought before them, but that if any such thing were, wherein it should be found requisite to hear them [the Welsh Quakers] they should have notice ' ' ereof."
That very afternoon, the justices, and some inhabitants of Chester county, appeared by appointment before the Council, and presented a petition, stating :--
[352]
WELSH TRACT AFFAIRS
"WHEREAS, Ye said County [Chester] is but a Small tract of Land, not above nine miles Square, & but Thinly seated, whereby ye said County is not able to Support the Charge thereof [the illproportioned tax put on it for the support of the Provincial Government]. Upon our humble Request to The Proprietor & Goer'r, and his Serious Con- sideration of our weak Condition, was pleased out of Com- passion to us, to grant an Enlargement of ye same, in man- ner following, viz: to runn up ffrom Delaware River, along darby mill Creek, ye severall Courses thereoff, untill they took in Radnor and Herford Townshipps."
The Chester county people thereupon again prayed for the confirmation of the bounds named in the resolution of 1685, so their county would be large enough to be able to defray the charges against it, and the justices urged that the new line be run and recognized, on the ground of general juris- diction and assessments.
The Governor, John Blackwell, then demanded the Ches- ter county committee should put in writing, as a matter of form, and submit to the Council, "their allegations" as to the bounds of the county, and proof that the Proprietor said that Radnor and Haverford townships should be included in Chester county, for the object they claimed, as there was no documentary proof of it.
John Biunstone, of Chester Co., wrote: "A few days before Govern'r Penn left this Province that upon ye bank by John Simcock's house, I moved him to decide this mat- ter," "who then, before me and Others, did
Declare that" [the new bounds should] "take in the Townds of Herford & Rudnor," &c., "then I asked him if he would be pleased to give it under his hand, to avoyd further Trouble," and he said that Penn told him to see him the following day. A Chester Co. man, Blunstone con- tinued, was sent the next day to see Penn, and came back without getting the order, "what then obstructed I am not certaine," said Blunstone, and Penn sailed to England two days later, without leaving directions.
[353]
WELSH SETTLEMENT OF PENSYLVANIA
Randall Vernon, of Chester Co., testified in writing, that, "some time since William Howell, of Harford [he served on the petty jury 28, 8, 1683], Signified unto me, and gave it under his owne hand, yt some time after they there Set- tled that he asked ye Govern'r to what County they should be joyned, or belong unto, & The Govern'r was pleased to answer him that they must belong to Chester County."
Thomas Usher, the sheriff of Chester Co., testified, that in conversation with Penn, the Governor said to him, "Thomas, . I intend that ye bounds of Philadel- phia County Shall Come about 3 or ffour miles on this side of the Skoolkill."
To clinch the "evidence," a map of Pensylvania,* "made for the Governor" by Surveyor Holme sometime after it was voted, in 1685, at the Council meeting over which Holme presided, that Haverford and Radnor should be included within Chester county, was produced, and examined by the President. It showed these two townships located in Ches- ter county, of course, for that was where IIolme wanted them, and he had the resolution of 1685 as his "authority" for so placing them (that the "bounds of Chester county should begin at the [junction of Darby Creek and] Mill creek [now Cobbs creek] and sloping to ye Welsh township [line], and thence to Schoolkill," in a straight line, thus throwing the townships of Radnor and Haverford, and the lands of "Rowland Ellis & Company," "John Eckley &
*"Thomas Holme's Map of the Province of Pensylvania, containing the Three Counties of Chester, Philadelphia, and Bucks, as far as yet surveyed and laid out," was the title of this map. The bounds are in different colors, and the statement is made: The divisions or distri- butions made by the different coullers aspects the settlements by way of townships." The map is drawn to scale of one mile to an inch. The information on the printed map is 'First printed and sold and dedi- cated to William Penn by John Thornton and Robert Green, of Lon- don.' The original map is in the Philadelphia Library. In 1845, 200 ropies in facsimile, by "the asastic process," were made from the original, for Mr. Lloyd P. Smith.
[354]
WELSH TRACT AFFAIRS
Company" into Chester county, while originally the divid- ing line borran at the mouth of Darby creek, and a straight line, with Haverford and Radnor Towns on the East side of this line, and New Town on the West side, continued to the uppermost line of the Welsh Tract), so it was taken for granted by the President that it was Penn's desire, although there was no evidence that he had confirmed the resolu- tion of 1. 2mo., 1685.
Ever since then there has been mystery surrounding the date of Holme's map, as it bears none, yet it is certainly an interesting, if not valuable one to us. In October, 1690, certain Welshmen reported in a petition (quoted there- after) to the Executive Council that there were at that time "near four score" settlements in the whole Welsh Tract, which they desired should be understood as a fine showing of population after eight years' possession. But according to Holme's map, alleged to have been compiled in 1683-4, or in 1685, he mentions in it as settlements, or seated plantations, in the Welsh Tract, forty in Radnor, thirty-two in Haverford, and thirty-two in Merion, that is 104 in all. He did not name the settlers of Haverford and Radnor, but did those of Merion, excepting the "17 lots" in the "Thomas & Jones" tract. He, being a surveyor and acquainted personally, or through his deputies, with this section, must have been certain of his statements. There- fore, from the statement of 1690, it looks as if Holme made his map long after 1685, and about 1689, when it was dis- played to convince Blackwell, and when the actual seats numbered near eighty, the other score, or more, being names of land owners only.
""Twas asserted," by someone, "that the Welch Inhabi- tants had Denyed themselves to be any part of The County of Philadelphia, by refusing to bear any Share of Charges, or [to] serve in office, or Jurys, And the like as to ye County of Chester." "That the pretence thereof was," said
[355]
WELSH SETTLEMENT OF PENSYLVANIA
another, "they were a distinct Barrony, wch [and this] they might be, yet [that] severall Barronys might be in one and ye same County." This was in 1689.
The members of the Council present "Declareing them- selves satisfied Concerning their [Haverford and Radnor] being : part of Chester County, upon ye grounds alliged and proved as aforesaid," were going to confirm the bounds, when they were informed that Thomas Lloyd was without, and had something to say against this.
On being brought into the Council Chamber, Mr. Lloyd again said he "understood something had been moved about adding ye Welsh Towns, or tracts, to the county of Chester, and if anything was proposed, desired they would give him an opportunity to speak."
So, he was invited to come next morning and "shew cause why they should not be Declared to be of the County of Chest r, as the Proprietor had promised." "Otherwise, the Evidence se med so full as that they should proceed to Declare their judgment therein."
The following morning, 26 March, 1689, "At the Coun- cill in the Councill Room," the minute of the Council, "touching the ascertayning the dividing lyne betweene the Countys of Philadelphia & Chester, dated ye 1st day 2. Mo. 1685," was read. Samuel Carpenter and William Yardley thought the Welsh of Philadelphia Co. should have a longer time to consider the boundary question, but the Governor thought the matter was so plain, there was no need debat- ing it further. However, if there was anyone without who wished to say anything at once, he would hear him if brought in. The Secretary, William Markham, was sent from the room to inquire, and brought back the attorneys, Thomas Lloyd and John Eckley. "The Governor asked them if they had anything to object (on the behalf of ye Welsh people), against the Running of the lyne as appeared by the map, which added them to ye County of Chester."
"Tho. Lloyd sayd, 'the Proprietor assured them their Barony should not be divided, and had given them grounds
[356]
WELSH TRACT AFFAIRS
to Expect they should be made a County Palatine.' The Govern'r inquired if any such thing had beene past? [recorded]. Nothing appeared." Apparently, Gov. Lloyd did not produce the warrant of survey as voucher that the Welsh tract was to be as in a barony.
"Tho Lloyd asked the Govern'r by what authority these dividing Lynes were drawne? The minute on this matter, of the day before, was read to him as answer; to which Tho. Lloyd declared his opinion: That some more time should have been allowed for their appearing to make their Exceptions." "He also demanded of the Gover'r whether the Proprietor had power of himself to divide the Countycs, or whether the Proprietor & Councill. The Govern'r an- swer: 1 that by ye said Depositions, minutes, & map, it appeared to be done by both in this case."
"John Fekley declared he had nothing to say, but that he thought further time might be allowed in the matter."
After the attorneys for the Welsh has retired, the ques- tion was put in Executive Council as to accepting the bounds of Chester Co., "Expresst by the dividing line marked in the large map of the Province, dedicated to ye Proprietor, and being according to the Order of the Pro- vinciall Councill, dated ye 1. of ye 2d month, 1685." The motion was "carried by a rising vote. Carpenter and Yard- ley voting contrary, because they thought the Welsh ought to have had a longer time for making their defence."
Friend Thomas Lloyd, who had good reason for not liking Gov. Blackwell, and the Governor had no liking for him, as he was one of the men he could not control, or bring into his way of thinking, was not only exceedingly annoyed at the loss of his "case," but was angry over the "snap judgment." Whether, or not, he wished to annoy the Gov- ernor, Col. Markham, the secretary of the Council, tells that Thomas hung about the Council Chamber door har- ranguing a crowd so loud about the injustice to his client that the Governor could not proceed with business in Coun-
[357]
WELSH SETTLEMENT OF PENSYLVANIA
cil, "and desired ye sayd Tho Lloyd would forbeare such lowd talking, telling him he must not suffer such doings, but would take a Course to suppresse it, and shutt ye Doors, So he went away." And the Governor, the erstwhile Crom- wellian, remarked, "Seems we have two Governors, one inside the Council Chamber, and one outside," thus recog- nizing the great influence the Welsh Quaker, Mr. Lloyd, had in the city, and the Province.
After the Governor's decision, the regulation of Haver- ford and Radnor was left to the Chester Co. Court, and it had a hard proposition before it to make the Welsh Quakers submit to its authority. The first attempt to organize the townships with proper officers, was when the Court made .he order appointing as constables, John Lewis for Haver- ford, and John Jarman for Radnor. But as they declined to appear at Court and qualify, the Court ordered that war- rants of contempt be "directed to the sheriff to apprehend the bodys of Lewis and Jarman for their contempt in not entering into their respective offices of Court,
when thereunto required by this Court." Lewis does not appear to have surrendered, but Jarman was, in a few months, attested constable for Radnor by the Court. David Lawrence was drawn as a grand juror from Haverford, and declining to serve, "was mulet in ten shillings fine," William Jenkins for the same reason was also fined, and finally consented to serve. As early as in the June term of Court, William Howell, mentioned above by Vernon, was appointed the justice of the Court, in Haverford, but would not accept the commission, "But he did afterwards sub- scribe to the solemn declaration prepared by the 57th chap- ter of the great Law of this province." In 1mo., 1689-90, John Blunston, mentioned above, was rewarded for his efforts in the "line matter" by being returned by Chester Co. to represent it in the Provincial Council for three years. But being unable to serve, William Howell, of Haverford, was elected in his place, but he, too, sent a letter "setting forth his Incapassity of giveing Such attendance as is
[358]
WELSHI TRACT AFFAIRS
Requisite to that Service." Like the others of the Welsh Quakers, he was stubborn, and could not be conciliated even by high office, and the supposition is, Vernon misquoted him at the hearing. The Court at Chester presented "the want of the Inhabitants of the townships of Radnor and Harfort and the Inhabitants adjacent they not being brought in to join with us in the Levies, and other public services of this County." But in about a year, the jurisdiction of the Ches- ter Court was recognized, and the Welsh "towns" had the proper officers in 1690, when the civil authority exercised by the Monthly Meeting was supplanted by the usual town- ship government.
In fact up till now, no Welsh Quakers would accept appointments from the Chester Co. Court, else it would be construed an acknowledgment by the Welsh that Haver- ford and Radnor were parts of the county of Chester. It was such continued refusals in past years that forced the Chester Court and inhabitants to bring the line matter up again before the Executive Council, as above related, and this is the proof that the Chester Court had considered the action of the Council, on 1. 2mo., 1685, as final, but to make the resolution valid, wanted the new Governor's confirma- tion, as Penn, nor Lloyd, would not give it.
I don't suppose there ever was a better sample of fake evidence winning a cause than that of this use of "Holme's Map of Pensilvania." Gov. Blackwell, a stranger here, it would be charitable to believe was "easy" and credulous, and had no suspicion that Holme was always unfriendly to- wards the Welsh, and had made his map, in 1685, or later, after the Council meeting, on 1. 2mo., 1685, at which he acted as presiding officer, showing Haverford and Radnor, located in Chester Co., and the Welsh Tract bisected, for the very object in which it was used.
What was Penn's part in this suspicable transaction ? When he received the map in England, if he examined it, he must have supposed that his surveyor-general had placed the two Welsh "towns" in Chester Co. only to let him see
[359]
WELSH SETTLEMENT OF PENSYLVANIA
what the proposed county line would do, if he sanctioned it. Ile certainly knew that the Council passed the "line resolution" in 12mo., 1685-6, for it was sent to him, and also that he, or his Deputy Governor, never confirmed the action. But as there was no protest from Penn on file, Governor Black vell, with the map dedicated to Penn before him, could have presumed it was just as Holme, and the Chester justices, and principal inhabitants of Chester Co. assured him, for although Lloyd and Eckley must have been familiar with the situation, they only asked that the Welsh have "more time to consider" about giving their consent. However, we have only the scanty Council minutes on this matter as authority for this. But there was more behind this "line affair" than "the county sheriff's jurisdiction," and "assessments," that showed the personal interests of Holme, et al.
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.