USA > Pennsylvania > Welsh settlement of Pennsylvania > Part 27
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
The first surveys were roughly made,-land then was so abundant, but nearly ten years after the Welsh Friends were seated, accurate surveys of their lands were ordered for the tracts they claimed, because it was found that more land was claimed under the original surveys than the deeds called for, and this "overplus" reverted to Penn. The claim- ants, however, were generously permitted to buy the sur- plus from him at an advanced price. But if a located farm fell short of acreage called for by the deed, the owner w .. privileged to buy enough, wherever it could be had, and make it up after having once paid for the full amount! Then frequently, in surveys of adjacent properties, none of the farms took in certain pieces of land (called "concealed land"), yet one or the other of the abuttors supposed it was his,-this Penn took, too.
[387]
WELSH SETTLEMENT OF PENSYLVANIA
Another unpleasant experience the early Welsh Friends had was over grist mills and saw mills they had erected.
When the Welsh settlers for the Falls lands came, they brought enough wheat flour to last them, they supposed, till they could raise a crop, and build a water-mill on the creek, or at the Falls, for themselves. But great was their astonishment, when they learned that private grist and saw mills were taboo in the Province, and that "William Penn & Co." had the monopoly of all kinds of milling, and when the Welsh wanted grain ground they would have to pack it miles off to the Chester Creek to the "Proprietor's Mill."
This, the Welsh felt was an imposition, but, as it was "not in the bond" that they should have water-mills, there was nothing for them to do, but to submit to Pen's greed.
One of the carliest acts of Mr. Penn was to secure all mill rights to himself. He organized a milling corporation in 1682, with thirty-two shares of stock (the celebrated Philip Ford subscribed for five shares), and allowed the man who was to set-up the "Government Mill," and the man selected to manage it, called "the Governor's Miller," have a few shares in payment for services, at prices fixed by himself. And, in 1682, he brought over 'Richard Townsend, with all the 1. terials required to construct a grist and saw mill, to superintend its building, and then appointed Caleb Pusey, who had been sent on ahead to prospect, and was here when Penn and Townsend arrived, to manage it, collect the tolls, and remit to him. This mill was put up on Chester Creek, on "reserved mill land," protected by Penn's warrant. This was the first of the company's mills, and the start of a short lived "trust."
Caleb Pusey may have been the official "government mil- ler," but as he was a last maker by trade, it may be pre- sumed that Mr. Townsend attended to the practical part of of the Government Mill. He made enough money for him- self out of this mill to build a good, old fashioned stone house. But it was the governor's miller, Mr. Pusey, who erected the "mansion house" (still standing, and tenanted
[388]
WELSH TRACT AFFAIRS
by Negrocs at last account), about 1683. Even in the time of Pusey and Townsend, Pusey's house was not a good ex- ample of American "colonial architecture," it may be imagined, if we have any clear conception of what that style of architecture really was. Its beauty was certainly not enhanced by the hipped roof added by Samuel Shaw shortly before the '76 war.
-
When the Welsh Friends found they had to patronize Penn's establishment if they wanted bread, those among them, who had lawyers's minds, thought they had found a way out of this method of paying tribute to their grasping over-lord, who enjoined all water-mills, and began to erect grain-grinding wind-mills! But Penn declared this was but a subterfuge; ¿ endeavor to evade paying him his income, and threatened the undertakers with the jail if they did not desist. But he gave them something to hope for, and to look forward to, when he graciously informed them that just as soon as the mills, in which he was a partner, were on a good paying basis, and the plants were paid for by the profits, he would possibly issue generally warrants for mill-rights, on terms yet to be determined by him. But in time, this mill matter regulated itself, and the Welsh had mills of their own.
Besides the grist and saw mills on Merion's Mill Creek and the Schuylkill, there were two small ones in Haverford. The one on Cobb's Creek and the road which passed the Haverford Meeting House, is of record as early as in 1688. It must have been a small one, as, in 1695, it was valued for assessment at only £20, by the Grand Jury of Chester Co., while the Darby and Chester mills were valued at £100 each. In t' . t year, there were only five mills in Chester county. There was a second mill in Haverford, in 1703, on Darby Cre <, where the Radnor and Chester road comes in, and it may have been there earlier, and have had the "mill way" lead to it which was ordered by the Chester Court, in 8mo., 1688, to be cut in Marple township.
[389]
WELSH SETTLEMENT OF PENSYLVANIA
Another little unpleasantness, and near the last, between Penn and the Welsh Friends beyond the Schuylkill arose from Penn asserting his right was exclusive to any an. every ferry across the Schuylkill, which ferries must be a source of revenue to him, either through receipts from leases, or ferriage. The wonder is that he did not place toll gates on the paths through the woods.
Ever since the Welsh had settled on their land, they had hed communication with the city, if they did not boat down the river, either by way of a ferry at the Falls, or, one at the end of the Haverford road-"the upper ferry," thence by path to where they wished to go, or by a path on the west side of the river, to opposite the Schuylkill end of the city, and then across the river, and through the woods to the village on the Delaware. This was known as the Center, or Middle Ferry, where the Welsh Friends, or their Month- ly Meeting, had a subsidized ferryman, and a flatboat to carry them, and their teams, forth and back, to market- fairs, and the assembly.
But of course this could not go on long without someone coveting such a valuable franchise, or without Penn de- manding a share of the receipts. Therefore, on 29 April, 1693, the Middle Ferry rights were granted by him to a Philip England (whose land laid nearest this ferry, and on the south side of the "road," adjoining the burial ground of the Welsh Friends, or Schuylkill Meeting, on the west side of the river), for which England was to pay him yearly, by way of lease, seven pounds. He got his ferry into work- ing order promptly, but had to compete with the Welsh- men's ferryman, who still continued doing business at the old stand, much to his annoyance and loss.
But Philip did not put up long with this infringement and interference, and carried his protest into the Provin- cial Council, and according to the minutes, 7 Feb., 1693-4, he "petitioned," stating that he was "lawfully impowered" "to keep an ordinary and ferry att Skuillkill by the Pro- prietor, 16. 8mo., 1683, and that no one else was to trans-
[390]
WELSH TRACT AFFAIRS
port any one over the river for money, or gain, or reward, att or near his ferry." And then he told that the franchise was granted on a lease to him, 29 April, 1693, and "that from the first he conducted the ferry properly, transferrying people, Baggage, and Horses," and cited William Powel, a Welsh Friend, who owned 300 acres in "West Philadelphia," as a trespasser on his rights, because for a long time he had ferried here for money.
Mr. Powel was sent for, and appeared before the Coun- cil on 18 July, 1693, and told the Councillors he was not the man they wanted, as he had sold out his boat and business "to certain people," who employed "Nathaniel Mullinox" (or "Mull," as the clerk wrote it), to ferry them over the river. England urged that all this was still in contempt of his grant.
But, according to the subsequent Council Minutes of 27 June, 18 July, and 29 September, the matter was not yet settled to England's entire satisfaction, for he made the Council believe that Powel had not told the truth about his selling out, as he still acted so often as the ferryman. Finally, the Council got "Nate Mullenex" befor them, and when asked who employed him, replied "that most of the people of Harford and Merion, and some of Darbie employed him to ferry, and that they were to pay him wages, and knew no reason why he ought not to earn a living this way." "And after some time, he brought in a list of names of some that employed him, namely-Evan Brothero, William Howell, Thomas Smith, William Smith, Morris Luellen, David Meredith, John Rhodes, William Warner, Humphrey Ellis, Ellis Ellis, Hugh Roberts, Robert Owen, Jno. Apowen, Richard Hayes, Adam Rhodes, Christopher Spray, David Lues, Lues David, David Ewer, John German, Hugh Shone, Evan Hendrie, William Garret, John Bennstone, and Sam- uel Lewes."
As the Council knew that in this list were the names of some of the most respectable people of the Welsh Tract, and the adjoining Liberties, it convinced them that the extent of
[391]
WELSH SETTLEMENT OF PENSYLVANIA
Nathaniel's custom was a great injury to Philip, therefore, "it was ordered the sd Nathaniel Mullinux be committed to the Common Goale of this County till he give Good and Sufficient security to the Lieutenant Governor that he shall ferrie no more persons, horses, or cattle, over the Skuillkill att William Powell's for gift, hyer, or reward, directlie or indirectlie. And that the said boat be forwith Seazed and secured by the Sheriffe till the owners thereof appear before the Lieuteant Governor, or give the like Securitie."
1693-4, February 27th, the minutes state, "Appeared Robert Owen, and others of the Inhabitants beyond the Skuillkill, and claimed interest in the Boat, and stated that the transportation of themselves therein over the river did not procede from least Contempt to Authority, and requested the return of the Boat, so they would go to Meetings, fairs, markets, elections, &c., and attend the Assembly."
"Lest they pretend they were hindered from coming to election the Lieutenant Governor ordered the boat returned, and they could use it only for themselves, and take, or give no pay, untill the Governor came and decided. For which the committee returned William Markham, Lieutenant Gov- ernor, heartie thanks," and waited for Governor Fletcher's return to town.
On 11 June, 1694, Governor Fletcher forbade the Welsh even using their own boat to cross the river, as Penn's ferry right should be observed. The Welsh asked for another ferry along side of England's with Mullineaux as ferryman, under a grant from Penn. This was referred to Penn's Commissioners, and pigeon-holed, and it was some time before Mullineaux was released.
Four years after this, as Penn lost his milling monopoly, so he lost his ferry rights. It is of record that a town meeting of the Welsh was held at the Haverford Meeting House, in 1694, to regulate certain matters of the Towns, and particularly the one of the Schuylkill ferry, at High Street.
[392]
WELSH TRACT AFFAIRS
It may be supposed that this monthy meeting moved the General Assembly to take some action in matter, because from its minutes, 24. 3mo. 1694, we learn that a committee was appointed by the Assembly "to inspect the Aggriev- ances of the Inhabitants, reported, That there was not more than one ferry allowed over the Schuylkill. That the seizing, or taking away the boat belonging to the Inhabitants of Haverford, Radnor, Merion, and Darby, is an Aggrievance, and of ill-tenancy to the Inhabitants of this Province."
Subsequent . , the minutes of the Haverford monthly meet- ing prove that this ferry was conducted, in 1698, by the Haverford Monthly Meeting (composed of the peculiar meetings of Merion, Haverford, and Radnor), and that the revenue from the ferry was paid to this monthly meeting by the ferryman, "Nathaniel Mullenex," who was employed on a salary. The ferry was subsidized by these meetings, and any loss shared between them. On the last page of one of the minute books of the Haverford Mo. Mtg., is preserved "The Recept of Nath Mullinex, 1699, of the Inhabitants of Haverford, Radnor and Merion full satisfaction for my service at the ferry, and I do acquitt and discharge them in General and every of them in particular of the same."
It was not until in 1721-2 that the Philadelphia city council awoke to the need of a well regulated ferry over the Schuylkill, when a committee was appointed to examine a route "to the Middle Ferry of the Schuylkill through the woods," (probably the original woods beyond Broad Street, because on 2 Feb. 1705, it was ordered that "the city between Broad Street and the Delaware be grubbed, and cleaned from all its rubbish, in order to raise grass for pasture.") On 4 February, 1722, the city council ordered as to the "Schuylkill middle ferry" that "the Assembly be petioned for an Act to vest it in the city corporation, which should have sole management of it." This granted, the city council gave order to fix on a site for "a public ferry at the Schuylkill end of High Street." Shortly, in this year, a wharf-boat, or landing was placed on the city side, and
[393]
WELSH SETTLEMENT OF PENSYLVANIA
another on the "country side," and a license was given to John Maultsby to conduct this ferry under city control. In the Weekly Mercury, 18 December, 1728, Maultsby offered for sale the lease of "the Sculkil Ferry on High Street," saying the lease had sixteen years to run. But it was not until 30 September, 1723, that the city council ordered High Street opened to the "New Ferry," (only a few years pre- vious to this, "the seven streets of the city," on the Delaware side, were ordered "to be staked-out, so that people would not build houses in the streets.") The upper and the lower ferries still continued as private property. In 1762, there was still a ferry at High Street, over the Schuylkill, but during the Revolution, a floating-bridge was maintained.
One other "little unpleasantness" (referred to elsewhere) between Penn and the Welsh purchasers, especially the original ones, those who interviewed him in May, 1681, and who bought, as they thought with the full understanding of the "Conditions," some of whom, if they did not help com- pile them, signed them, was about the land bonus, or con- cession of land, in the "great Town," or Philadelphia, in with their country purchases, the promise being, that every one who bought and paid for 500 acres in the country, should receive gratis ten acres in the city, "if space therein would allow it," that is, two per cent. on purchases of 500 acres, or more, would be given to buyers of "country lots."
After the sale of the 40,000 acres was made to the Welsh Friends, Penn saw the impossibility of giving away so much land in the city, as "space did not allow it." This was mortifying to the Welsh gentlemen, the first purchasers, the buyers of 5,000 acres in "country lots," or "one share, called a propriety." But to conciliate them and some others, Penn ordered 10,000 acres to be laid out "contiguous to city's site, as liberties," and in the said "town" (i.e. township), lying between the Schuylkill and the present city line on the west be agreed to give them 100 acres, with each pur- chase of 5,000 acres in the country, "out of that 10,000 acres," and one small city lot.
[394]
WELSH TRACT AFFAIRS
But when some of the Welsh gentlemen came to ask the benefit of these new concessions, and that the bonus-land be conveyed to them, they experienced a surprise. They were informed that they were not purchasers on their own accounts of 5,000 acre "country lots," but only acted as "trustees," or agents, for the real purchasers, and that their shares, or those of their principals, none of them, of course amounted to 5,000 acres. This they could not deny, when they studied their deeds, so these received no bonus-lands, in large quantities, only some single city lots, on the south side of Chestnut Street, between 4th and 5th Streets, "reserved for the Welsh."
Naturally, as in any colony, made up from all walks of life. there were some people who had better have not come for many reasons, and some who were disgruntled, and fault finding, and, of course, some too lazy to work and support themselves, and even some who thought they had been vulgarly cheated by William Penn. In this connection the two following extracts from letters are interesting, as they are the opinions of two men who passed through all the troub'.'s experienced by the Welsh Friends in Pensylvania.
Mr. Hugh Roberts, in one of his letters to William Penn, wrote,
"My dear frd, it is well known unto thee that many of cur ffrds in England, had hard thoug's of thee and we, because of our removal from that to this country, and I doe not hinke but they had som cause, for here cam som peopel that had not a right end in their removals, some for fere of persecution, som that were discontented with their brothern where they were, and others that promised to themselves to be great in the world.
"I believe all these meet with great disappointments and som of them cam back unto England, others of you did send very bad reports, both of the cuntry and ffrds, for they were not contented with ffrds here, no more than they were in their native Land, and so when som ffrds in England
[395]
WELSHI SETTLEMENT OF PENSYLVANIA
heard and perceved these things, some were rody to con- clude that they had not mist in their first thoughts of us, but for all this I know here is many hundreds that cam here in the integrety of their hearts, and in a true sence of what they did, and never to this day had cause to repent nor repin, though they were very hard put to in the outward."
And, in 1698, Mr. Rowland Ellis, of "Bryn Mawr," wrote to his son-in-law :
"I desire yt none may take occasion by any word yt dis- covers, nor suppose if I do nor did repent of my coming, for be it far from me from encouraging any to venture ymselves, and what they have, furtherly they live comfortably in their native country, to ye danger of ye seas, and many more inconvenience yt may happen, and on ye other hand, dis- courage any yt hath any real inclinations to transport them- selves into ye hands of providence. Some came here might have better staid in their own country, and it is my thought yt great many more would have done better here yt ever they are like to do in their own country."
In a general way the principal is responsible for the acts of his agent, so the blame for all of the disagreeable features of the first eight years of the experience of the Welsh in Pensylvania has been put on William Penn following con- temporary public records, and statements in private letters.
Well, it may have been Penn's fault indirectly, and often times directly, that the Welsh Friends were badly treated, but, as all of his provincial affairs were mismanaged by him, during the time mentioned by this reason all of his colonists had to experience different degrees of annoyances.
What was the reason William Penn lost his grip on his "province business," for certainly he started out brave enough? The answer I find to this, which is a matter con- cerning the Welsh Friends as much, if not more, as any, is that there was in these first eight years some greater and personal matters on his mind, besides the happiness of the Welsh ..
[396]
WELSH TRACT AFFAIRS
One was the gay life he was leading in the King's com- pany, as we shall see, the other, there was "a skeleton in his house" about which he worried, knowing that, sooner or later, it would be discovered, when it would be imagined that he had been living a double-life and trying to account for it, be suspected of having done a thing that was quite in keeping with the then customs of the "high life" he was born to.
The dread of the revelation was on his mind for years, for the peculiar position he held among Friends would make his conduet more reprehensible when it became general gossip. This was "eating the very heart out of him," but it was years before his friends knew it and more before they knew the reason. They discovered what he let them see; if they supposed they saw more, they kept to themselves and his "greater secret" died with him. Anyone is at liberty to imagine what it was or if there was one; but here I give only the story of the "effect," as known to only a few when he told it, but which is now generally known. It is that of an alleged dishonest employee, one Philip Ford.
The story goes that Ford, a young Quaker, had been an unsuccessful merchant in London when he applied to Penn for aid, and that Penn, taking pity on him, made him his steward for his Irish estates, at the salary of £40 a year, in 1669, and from then was most intimate with the Fords, though they were not his social equals.
This may have been the cause of one of Penn's mottoes: -"Guard against encroaching friendships."
In the summer of 1682, a few days before Penn set out for Pensylvania, Ford submitted a memorandum to him, claiming that Penn owed him a balance of £2851. 7.6., "On account salary arreares, money advanced, and expenses." Without taking time, as Ponn subsequently confessed in Court, to examine the account, on Ford's suggestion, he also said, not having the money to pay, he signed, without even reading, "a due-bill and an acknowledgment of the debt,"
[397]
WELSH SETTLEMENT OF PENSYLVANIA
as he supposed, which, much to his astonishment, he dis- covered subsequently was a deed of lease and release, dated 24 August, 1682, for a grant of 300,000 acres of land to be laid out in Pensylvania, which conveyance should stand good unless he paid Ford £3.000 "within two days." And, for full security for the payment of this sum and interest it would draw, Penn also executed a bond in double the amount.
Since Penn wrote James Logan, twenty-three years after- wards, when this matter was still unsettled, for him not to worry, as "Ford's business is only a mortgage," it may have been that Penn did suppose if he thought anything about it, that £3.000 (the indebtedness "in round number"), with bond and mortgage security. That is, a bond in double the am. unt of the "loan," and the mortgage on 300,000 acres, which valued at the price he then sold land, namely 5,000 acres for £100, would equal the debt, and claimed to have had no knowledge that he would forfeit the land if the money was not paid within two days after date. Penn sailed on 31 Augsut, 1682, therefore he had time to take up the note, but did not do so.
Here is where the queer part of this transaction is first introduced. It seems that without foreclosing this mort- gage, or cancelling the bill, Ford sold rights to the land in lots for a total of £8.000, and kept the money, and Penn said, when he returned to England, in 1684, Ford told him he then still owed him a balance of £4.293.3.0! Penn says he thereupon gave him £500 in cash on account, and, as security for the mysterious balance, after many delays, signed a note, dated 10 June, 1685, for £5.000, with interest, payable on or before 21. 1mo., 1686-7, giving as security, what he supposed was an ordinary mortgage, but which was in fact a straight deed for 300,000 acres of land in Pensylvania, besides the grants of the manors of Penns- bury and Springettsbury, a manor in Chester Co., an island in the Delaware, and city lots, and all the revenue from the Pensylvania quit-rents!
[398]
WELSHI TRACT AFFAIRS
No one has ever thought William Penn was a fool, nor suspected him of being ignorant of the simple forms of business papers and transactions, for there are too many instances to the contrary. At least, he has been supposed to have been gifted with considerable business acumen. Then, why did he allow himself to be imposed upon? Why did he tie himself up so with promisory notes, and convey away his property by deeds in this manner, are questions that have never been answered. The excuse of "implicit confidence in Ford" has been suggested. If so, it was an act of credulity past the understanding of worldly people.
Looking at the matter from another point, the question is, did Ford and his wife have knowledge, since they were well acquainted with Penn, of some incident in his life, which would ruin him if exposed? And, for this reason, they pro- ceeded to blackmail him? Or, if this was not the nature of influence they possessed, was it hypnotic control? What- ever it was, it caused Penn much unhappiness, for he was continually fearful of exposure, and he was ashamed to let his most intimate friends know that "he was in the clutches of a brace of sharpers," as the Fords have somewhere been defined.
Because, after Ford's death, his widow was so vindica- tive towards Penn, it has been presumed that she was all along the master mind in getting Penn into this compro- mising position, and that Mr. Ford acted under her instructions.
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.