USA > Pennsylvania > Welsh settlement of Pennsylvania > Part 25
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
At this time there was an election shortly due for coun- cillors and assemblymen, and there was to be returned for Philadelphia county, in which the Welsh Tract lay, one councillor and six assemblymen. There were two sets of candidates-the Governor's tickets, and that of the Quakers. With the Welsh Tract Quakers voting solid against the administration's candidates, there was no hope of their election. Therefore it was the scheme of the political sup- porters of the administration to force the acceptance of Holme's Chester county line before the election. If they gained their point, as we see they did, this would throw the votes of the two big Welsh townships of Radnor and Hav- erford into Chester Co., and with the lost of the sixty Welsh Quaker votes in these townships, or 72 votes, if we are to believe Holme, who, on his map, has this number of land owners in these townships, the power of the Welsh Tract would be broken. Further, the casting of these Welshmen's votes in Chester Co. would make no difference
[360]
WELSH TRACT AFFAIRS
in that county, as it was overwhelmingly in favor of the administration.
But when the election took place, the transplanted Welsh Quaker freemen declined to recognize the new dividing line, and cast their votes as with Chester Co., but voted for their candidate for councillor, John Eckley, with Merion town- ship, as of Philadelphia county, with this solid Welsh Tract vote Eckley was elected to represent Philadelphia Co. in the Executive Council, and the administration candidate was defeated.
The Deputy-Governor and the Council immediately con- sidered this feature of the election, the irregularity of which was reported by the sheriff, 1 Sept., 1689, and threw out the entire Welsh Tract vote for Mr. Eckley, declaring "yt ye Election of Jo Eckley was not a good Election accord- ing to ye Charter," and ordered a new election.
Then arose a momentuous question. The Council debated the proper manner of choosing the candidate, and conduct- ing the election, as all were not of one mind, and the "Form of Government," and the "Charter" were ambiguous and uncertain on this subject, so "the usual custom" had to be considered as the rule, whether the election must be "by vote or by ballot," a distinction being made in these methods, that is, "by vote" the expression of choice was viva voce, and "by ballot" the proceeding was comparatively secret.
In the second election ordered, the freemen, uncertain which was correct, generally "voted" by both methods, for the same candidates, in different counties, so the proper manner of voting was not settled, nor was the result of the election changed.
In this new election, the Welsh freemen of the three townships of the Welsh Tract, voted together again, and this time viva voce, and again elected Mr. Eckley unanimously.
But the Deputy-Governor and the Executive Council would not accept this second election, because "the Haver-
[361]
WELSIE SETTLEMENT OF PENSYLVANIA
ford and Radnor freeman voted in the wrong county," and because "all the polls were not taken uniformly," and a new election ordered, although the administration could be defeated without Haverford and Radnor voting in Phila- delphia and refusing to vote in Chester Co.
This brought up again the discussion between the free- men and the Council, over the manner and method of choos- ing at a poll. It was on this occasion that Griffith John, or Jones (the father-in-law of Thomas Jones, of Merion, son of John an Thomas), deserted the Welsh column, and took side against the views of the Welsh Quakers beyond the Schuylkill.
One Mr. Curtis claimed, in the debate, "it was a very fayre Election. In other places we are generally chosen by the Vote." Another gentleman said, "the balloting box is not used in any other place but this country." And Griffith Jones replied, "this was a mistake, for it is used at Upland, and all the Lower Countyes, by black and white beans put into a hatt, wch is a ballotting in my sense, and cannot be denyed by the Charter when it is demanded." (Pa. Col. Rec. I. 282.)
The above gives a good idea of primative elections for officials in Pensylvania in 1689. But the manner, I don't think, agreed with the instructions in the 1633 "Frame of Government," which was to use a written ballot, as was the custom in West Jersey, since 1676, and in the New Eng- land colonies, following the ancient Roman institution.
So bitter was the feeling against Mr. Eckley that the doors of the Council Chamber were shut to him, and he would not be allowed in the room even only as a spectator. But then spectators had the privilege of injecting remarks, expressing their opinions, if not actually taking part in debates. Nor was Thomas Lloyd permitted to enter the Chamber, because he annoyed the Governor even ly his presence. Nor was Samuel Richardson, because he refused to recognize Blackwell's authority over the Welsh Friends in the "barony." Mr. Lloyd urged him to enter one morn-
[362]
WELSHI TRACT AFFAIRS
ing, but the Governor had him forcibly ejected from the Chamber. Captain Blackwell's tenure of office was as unpleasant to himself as to the people generally, and when he was ordered home, he thanked God for his removal, for "he was sick of the Pensylvania mess." Thomas Lloyd again received the appointment to Governorship, and suc- ceeded him, much to the delight of the Friends, in Jan., 1690-91.
The Council refusing to accept the election of Mr. Eck- ley, the opinion of the Court of Chester was sought, as to the status of the Welsh Quaker votes, and manner of voting in Chester county. But as Mr. Lloyd shortly returned to the Deputy-Governorship, he settled the questions satisfac- torily out of court.
Of course, after the Welsh Quakers of Haverford and Radnor found they were irrevocably located in Chester Co., they accepted county offices for their own protection, but as the Executive Council, or the Court of Chester had no control over their spiritual matters, the Haverford and Rad- nor Welsh Friends continued their allegiance to Merion Friends, and the three meetings continued as the Haver- ford (or, subsequently, Radnor) monthly meeting, and in the jurisdiction of the Philadelphia quarterly meeting, ignoring altogether the Chester quarterly meeting, in spite of its protests, and this situation still obtains.
In this connection, the following note from the Haver- ford Monthly Meeting, addressed to the Chester Quarterly Meeting, preserved with the papers of John ap Thomas, in the Levick family, of Bala, is not without interest :-
"To ffriends of the Quarterly Meeting in Chester County.
"From our Monthly Meeting held at Haverford, the 10th of the 8th month, 1700. Dear friends, In the Truth of God our Salutation is unto you, desireing we may be one in it forever.
"The proposal Layd before our monthly meeting of friends appointed by your Quarterly meeting, viz. that our
[363]
WELSII SETTLEMENT OF PENSYLVANIA
monthly meeting should be Joyned to your Quarterly meet- ing, was Laid before the Quarterly meeting at Philadelphia, by the friends of our monthly meeting appointed to attend the same, And their unanimous desire & sence, and also the generall sence of this our monthly meeting is, That being we Joyned to their Quarterly meeting from our first Settle- ment, That therefore & for other Reasons we Should So continne, which in answer to your desire we thought fitt to Signifi unto you.
Signed by the approval of the meeting, By Thomas Jones".
Sometime before the alleged final decision as to the posi- tions of Haverford and Radnor, the Chester County Court cited all the freemen of the county, inhabitants of these two townships included, for not paying their taxes into Court. But these Welsh towns pa'd no attention to the command. When it was supposed there was no longer any question where they were, the Chester Court cited the Welsh Qua- kers alone to pay, not only current taxes, but "back taxes" even from the 12mc., 1685, when it was assumed they were transplanted into Chester Co. Long and bitter was the contest over this fought out by Judge David Lloyd ;* and
*Judge David Lloyd had more than the interest of a paid attorney in this matter, for though he was not an inmate of the Welsh Tract, he owned some land therein, and was a Welsh Quaker, and a relative of Gov. Thomas Lloyd. He and his wife, Sarah, a native of Ciren- cester, in Gloucestershire, came over in the ship Amity, of London, to Upland, or Chester, and arrived on 15. 5mo. 1686. He was born in Manavan parish, Montgomeryshire, in 1656. In Pennsylvania and in England he had a reputation as both a shrewd politician and a learned lawyer, and in 1690, he was mentioned in a proclamation of Queen Mary, as a suspected conspirator against King William. In 1700, he was appointed attorney-general of the province, and was Penn's champion in his troubles with the Quarry-Moore faction. But in the next year, he turned and became opposed to the Penn-Logan party, and so stood when Penn died. He also served the province as speaker of the assembly, and was the register, and recorder of
[364]
WELSHI TRACT AFFAIRS
it all goes to make up the sum and substance of the harsh treatment of the Welsh Quakers. Judge Lloyd argued that payment was due only from the time of the decision as to in which county Radnor and. Haverford were, and gained his case. Some inhabitants of these townships had paid taxes into Philadelphia County. They were indemnified. Patents describing Haverford and Radnor lands as in Philadelphia County, were changed in the records to read as of Chester County.
Yet, for all this, the arrangement at that time was only tentative,-accepted by the Welsh Friends because of their aversion at this time to "fighting the case in court," for in June, 1720, the dividing line question had not been settled definitely, for once more it was up before the Provincial Council to give opinion on the division line between the counties of Philadelphia and Chester, as the "inhabitants of the South side of Schoolkill" had been assessed in both counties. Nor was it settled in the next year, when it was again asked that a proper adjustment and re-survey of the whole division line be made. And on this matter, on 26 March, 1722, David Lloyd, the lawyer, appeared for the Commissioners, and also the petitioners. He declared that up to this time no regular division between the two counties "had yet appeared to this Board" of Commissioners, and "tax collectors did not know what to do, as an injunction stood," till the line was positively determined. Mr. Lloyd was thoroughly posted in this matter, having been con- cerned in it from the first. He mentioned the beginning of
Philadelphia county, and was chief justice of the Supreme Court when he died, in 1731, aged 75 years. He was buried at Chester, where he resided in the mansion called "Green Bank," built in 1721, as a tablet in west gable said, subsequently owned and occupied by Como. David Porter. In Feb. 1882, this old house, which had degenerated into a fire-works factory, was destroyed by fire. Judge Lloyd also had a Philadelphia residence, where the Bank of Pensylvania was erected. His second wife, Grace Growden, died in 1760, aged 80.
[365]
WELSH SETTLEMENT OF PENSYLVANIA
the trouble in 1688-9, and carlier, but he said that the rec- ords of the early surveys and proceedings therein, except- ing the slight mention in Council minutes, could not be found, and therefore the Board was unable to determine the matter till these papers could be produced. He knew that they had passed from official into private hands years ago, but who now had them he did not know, so an order was given to try to find them.
One of the carliest annoyances the Welsh Quakers had was that a Chester Co. man, as Deputy-Surveyor, was con- tinually making lands, which he laid out for non-Welsh, adjoining the Welsh Tract, overlap the Welsh lands. So frequently did this occur, that the Welsh finally complained to the Executive Council.
17, 7mo., 1685. Minute of the Council, Thomas Lloyd, president :
"Complaint being made by Henry Lewis, John Bevan, and others, in ye behalfe of ye Welch friends, that their Lines runn out Regularly, according to ye Gov'rs Warr't, were notwithstanding, by Charles Ashcome, Deputy-Surveyor of Chester County, his undue Execution, of several Later War- rants, prevented from ye quict Enjoym't of ye tract that was legally laid out for them.
"The Board [of Land Commissioners], upon ye hearing of ye same, ordered yt Charles Ashcome be required to pre- pare and bring in to ye Council a Draught by a scale of a 160 perches in an inch, for all ye Lands Surveyed and Laid out by him Westwardly of ye N.N.W. line, runn by Ralph ffretwell and himselfe, and to attend the Councill & Com- iss'rs with it ye next Third day, by ye hour in ye fore- noo. , for ve Speedy Composing ye Differences & ascer- taining ye lines between ye Chester friends and others, and ye Welch friends, & in the meantime to Survey no more Land until further Or'd."
At the Meeting, 22, 7mo., 1685, Ashcome appeared bring- ing "a Drauglit of ye Settlement upon ye West side of ye
[366]
WELSH TRACT AFFAIRS
line Runn out, ye Councill upon perusall and observation of ye same, and Comparing the lines thereof with a Draught made up by ye same Scale by David Powell, of ye Tract surveyed by him in behalfe of ye Welch friends, have recom- mended by adjustment of ye disputed bounds, and accomo- dating the Differences thence arising & further likely to Ensue, unto ye Council and Comiss'rs Joyntly, at their next sitting."
At this meeting, Thomas Holme, the Surveyor-General, stated, to excuse himself, that he only kept Ashcome as a deputy-surveyor "on order of Gov. Penn, verbally, and by letter." Ashcome was asked to explain the faults of his surveys; his answer not being satisfactory, he was sus- pended by Thomas Lloyd.
Along in the next year, according to the minutes of the Commissioners of Land, the Welsh across the Schuylkill began to have other trouble about their Tract, not only with squatters within their bounds, and, as above, with influ- ential English patentees for whom land was surveyed over- lapping their Tract, but, what was more disappointing, with Penn's Commissioners, and even with the Proprietary himself.
Pressure was brought on him by those who coveted the fertile lands beyond the Schuylkill, and by those desiring the breaking up of the Welsh Tract, to dispossess the Welsh of their unoccupied land, and put it up for sale again. To satisfy the new applicants, realizing, by doing as they sug- gested, he could raise money,-he then needed it badly,- he established some new rules as to holding land; the one aimed directly at the Welsh was embodied in the following Proclamation, "Given at Worminghurst Place in old Eng- land the 24th of the 11th Month, 1686" :-
"Since there was no other thing I had in my Eye in the Settlement of this Province next to the advancement of Virtue, than the comfortable Situation of the Inhabitants hercin and for that end, with the advice and consent of the
[367]
WELSH SETTLEMENT OF PENSYLVANIA
most eminent of the first Purchasers, ordained that every Township consisting of five thousand Acres should have tenn familys at least," to the end that the Province might not be like a Wilderness as some others [West Jersey ?] yet do by vast vacant tracts of Land, but be regularly improved."
He commanded his Commissioners "that they inspect what Tracts of Land taken up lye vacant and unscated, and are most likely to give cause of exception and Discourage- ment to those yt are able and ready to scate the same, and that they dispose of them. if not seated by the present pre- tenders within Six Months after the Publication hereof."
This was followed by another proclamation by Penn dated 1. 12mo., 16 3-7, which contained many new rules jealously guarding his lands and rights, and thereby limiting those of the first comers. For instance, "no warrants of resurvey be granted for Land within five Miles of the River Dela- ware, or any Navigable River." In this document, he acknowledges that "I formerly granted a warrant for 40,000 Acres for the Welsh People to lie contiguous on the West side of ye Schoolkill," yet it was the experience of the grantees that they could not have their purchases within the tract "lie contiguous."
Penn further claimed "one share" for him elf in every township. "with all ye Indian Fields that are in the town- ships." The Welsh were undoubtedly sore over this rule, for it not only cut up their tracts, or far.as, but took away from them cleared land, that the Indians had cultivated, but they could only protest, and that to no relief.
This was mentioned in taking notice of a survey of 4,000 acres to Thomas Barker & Co., that over-lapped the Welsh Tract, concerning which trespass Messrs. David Powell, Hugh Hoberts, Griffith Owen, Edward Jones, William
*This sounds very like the instructions to the Council of New Amsterdam, over thirty years before,-to have "Colonists settle them- selves with a certain number of families in some of the most suitable. places, in the manner of towns."
[368]
WELSH TRACT AFFAIRS
Edward, Price Jones, and Rowland Ellis, the most promi- nent Welshmen, appeared before the Commissioners "in behalf of ye Welsh friends," on 13. 3mo., 1687. A matter that was settled to the partial satisfaction of the Wel h.
Some years after the Welsh Friends had settled on land, for which they paid according to the acreage described in their deeds, their holdings being defined by rough surveys, marked by natural objects, Penn concluded to have all the grants of land carefully resurveyed, and laid out according to the deeds, for he felt sure, on certain information, that his grantees held more land, or acreage, than their deeds called for. To this end, he included in his proclamation of 1. 12mo., 1686-7, the notice :- "All overplus Lands upon Resurvey be reserved to my use, and Dispos:1."
Penn was within his rights in this order, but when it was found that nearly every Welshman had more land in his possession. than his deed called for, and that Penn informed them they could have the "overplus," but only by paying for it, at then current prices, they became very indignant, and felt much abused; but Penn was obdurate. If we may be allowed to judge from the results of the resurveys of Turner's grantees, given above, where resurveys showed great overplusare, and I have mentioned many other instances, Penn was right in discovering what belonged to him, and also in selling it at the best advantage, though it was considered a hardship to have to pay the advanced prices for land which had been improved by the holder, so this order, probably, should not be included in the catalog of Penn's unjustness towards the Welsh Quakers, at whom the notice seems to have been particularly aimed, although it was one of their grievances.
All these sundry curtailments of gifts, promises and rights by William Penn, caused the Welsh Friends, not only mortification and annoyance, but loss of property, standing and respect, and these injuries brought out the following petition, written in English, but now almost illegible :-
[369]
WELSH SETTLEMENT OF PENSYLVANIA
"Philadelphia, the 23rd, 3d mo., 1688."
"To the Propriotry," Et.
"The humble petition of the Inhabitants of the Welsh Tract, Showeth,
"That, whereas William Penn, Propriet'y" &c., &c. Because, not understanding with English tongue, and court proccedings," . "he gave his most solemn word before they removed from the land of their nativity, that they, ye petions, should have abt forty thousand acres of land contiguously laid out as a Barony, and that they should not be obliged to answer nor sweare in any court whatsoever, but should have Courts and Magistrates of their own, wherein justice should be ministered according to the laws of the Governmt," or to that effect.
"In consideration whereof, and for a manifestation of ye pets Love & gratitude to the Govr and his Governmt, they came over to this Province.
"And Whereas, these Proprietary, in pursuance of his former promise, Did grant a Warrant for Surveying the tract accordingly.
"And thereupon, further, that yr petionrs should enjoy the said previledges in manner aforesaid, and be exempt from attending all others [?], save only that they should maintain members to serve in the Council's and Assembly.
"And, also, whereas, this Tract extends to the county of Philadelphia, and therefore [? is as in a county or barony]. Yr petrs have been summd to the County Courts of both these Counties to serve on juries, and are likewise to be taxed in both places, to their great imposition.
"Now, for as much as the priviledges & exemptions afore- said so [?] proposed by the Gover, is most thankfully acknowledged as a peculiar kindness to yr Pet'rs, Neverthe- less, they desire to improve the same to no other end than to have their Courts & Magistrates of and among them- selver, as they had in Wales, and to be governed by the laws of Pensilvania here as they were by the laws of England
[370]
WELSH TRACT AFFAIRS
there; and [in order ] that good rule and order may both better be kept amongst them, and are [make them] amiable with those English and others [our] neighbors."
Further, they hoped especially that their monthly, and other Meetings may not be separated, and asked "what had been granted them by parole may now be confirmed to them, and other purchasers, and inhabitants of said tract."
This "autograph petition," (preserved at the Pa. His. Soc. among the "Penn MSS.") beautifully written, in quaint expression, with some words uncertain, was signed, in autograph, by the following prominent gentlemen of the Welsh Tract :-
Thomas Ellis.
John Humphrey.
Griffith Owen.
Samuel Rees.
John Bevan.
Morris Llewelyn.
Hugh Roberts.
John Roberts.
Henry Lewis.
Daniel Meredith.
William Howell.
John Evans.
Richard Moor. Rees Peter.
Robert Davies.
Hugh Jones.
Francis Howell.
David Evan.
William Jenkins.
John Fairman.
Phylyp Evan.
@: the reverse, the petition is endorsed :- "The petioners are worthy and are very earnest about it, but John Sym- cock much against, [and] as [to] also laying another County [the Welsh] beyond this," [Philadelphia].
It is almost impossible to imagine what the political development in the "Welsh Barony" would have been, if the Welsh Quakers-if so there had been enough of them, and there never was,-had had their rights as they under- stood them; an independent State within the Province, with only one party in the field, and therefore no party struggles, an arcadic condition. But this could not have continued.
[371]
WELSH SETTLEMENT OF PENSYLVANIA
There would have always have been a changed condition to face, and the crisis would come when non-Quakers became in the majority in the "Barony," unless the Quakers had intended putting a Chinese-wall of immigration laws about their State, for the Quaker yoke, though mild to Friends, would be galling to non-Quakers," as was the Mormons's to the Gentiles. Spiritual authority and control might have been tolerated so long as the majority were Quakers; but this condition had been, and has been tried, never with suc- cess, as it never obtained long, unless the little common- wealth of San Marino, which originated from a religious community, may be the exception, but the Welsh Tract Quakers did not for long constitute a singular community, either of all Welsh, or of all Quakers.
Or, if it would not be the religious atmosphere and authority in the "Barony," that would be repugnant to new- comers, who were not of the Society, then it would have been the owners of the small farms, and the sense of free- dom the General Assembly gave, and universal suffrage, woul have dragged down such suggestions of feudalism in their midst, as being dictated to by the owners of the princely estates. But this is only a trite conclusion, for it is a fact that "revolutions do not arise from discontent of the rich," and there was bound to be many small farmers in the Welsh Tract, because Penn had omitted the feudal law of primogeniture from his plan of government for his social and "holy experiment," since he was one of the advanced in thought who believed it the moral and religious duty of a parent to provide equally for all of his children, the laws of England, of course, preventing him from following the conviction in his own case. The benefits,
*Or, as Mr. Isaac Sharpless says of the general government of the Province, in his work, "A Quaker Experiment in Government," "Had all the inh: tants been Friends and amenable to their discipline, very little civil government would have been needed in internal affairs, *
* *
* and the courts of law would have been shorn of nearly all their criminal and much of their civil business."
[872]
WELSH TRACT AFFAIRS
or discomforts, with or without primogeniture had often been thrashed out in his time, and apparently good found concealed in both plans, so it is only necessary here to observe that the incessant sub-division of property, that began in Penn's day, has not resulted in any remarkable general misery and poverty and barbarism as predicted would be the condition in Pensylvania in a hundred years by the prophets opposed to the revolutionary principal he recommended. We have seen the great estates of the Welsh Tract pioneers livided in the second generation among all the sons, and sub-divided in the third, and then again cut up, all to the advantage of the general community.
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.