Historic Pelham

Presenting the rich history of Pelham, NY in Westchester County: current historical research, descriptions of how to research Pelham history online and genealogy discussions of Pelham families.

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Information About Richard Crabb, One of the Englishmen Who Signed Thomas Pell's Treaty on June 27, 1654

This is the second in a series of four postings regarding four of the Englishmen who witnessed the signing of Thomas Pell's treaty on June 27, 1654. For yesterday's posting, which includes links to earlier postings dealing with the same topic, see Tuesday, October 30, 2007: Information About Henry Accorly, One of the Englishmen Who Signed Thomas Pell's Treaty on June 27, 1654.

"CRABB, RICHARD. -- His name first appears on the roll of the general meeting of the freemen, at Hartford, for the election of magistrates, Jan. 16, 1639; and April 9, 1640, he is present as deputy, and must have been a man of some note. He came to Stamford with the company from Wethersfield, and is on the list of those who paid the hundred bushels of corn to the New Haven Colony, and of those to whom the first assignment of land was made. He received ten acres. His land must have been assigned him west of the present limits of the town, as he is spoken of subsequently in the records, as belonging to Greenwich. His position is sufficiently attested by his appointment on the first provisional government of the colony. In 1658, we find him making trouble in the church. He seems to have become a quaker, or at least, to have harbored quakers and kept quaker books. He could not agree with the church in their opinion of the sanctity of the Sabbath, and spoke disparagingly or contemptuously of the ministry. Mr. Bishop, the pastor of the church became discouraged, and we find Mr. Crabb, the offender, brought into court for trial. He was fined to pay £30 to the jurisdiction, and give bonds in £100, for his good behavior, and also to make public acknowledgment at Stamford to the satisfaction of Francis Bell, and those others whom he had wronged. In 1660 the constables of Stamford are desired to use their endeavors to arrest the person of Richard Crabb, of Greenwich."

Source: Huntington, E. B., History of Stamford, Connecticut, From its Settlement in 1641 to the Present Time Including Darien, Which Was One of its Parishes Until 1820, p. 30 (Stamford, CT: Published by the Author, 1868).

Please Visit the Historic Pelham Web Site
Located at http://www.historicpelham.com/.
Please Click Here for Index to All Blog Postings.

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Information About Henry Accorly, One of the Englishmen Who Signed Thomas Pell's Treaty on June 27, 1654

On June 27, 1654, Thomas Pell signed a "treaty" with local Native Americans acquiring the lands that became Pelham and surrounding areas. A copy of that treaty, said to be in Thomas Pell's handwriting, exists. It is among the Pell family papers maintained by the Fort Ticonderoga Museum. That document offers some of the best evidence we have of those who knew Thomas Pell.

For more than a year I have been researching the lives of those Englishmen who witnessed the agreement on June 27, 1654. An image of that agreement and a transcription of its text is available on the Historic Pelham Web site by clicking here. Among those whose signatures or marks appear on the document as witnesses are "Richard Crabb", "Henry Accorly", "John Ffinch", "Thomas Lawrence" and "William Newman". Inquiry into the backgrounds of these men, hopefully, may shed additional light on Thomas Pell and his purchase.

Periodically I have published on the Historic Pelham Blog a little of the information of the massive amount of information I have assembled about these various Englishmen of the 17th century. For example, see:

Friday, August 10, 2007: Information About William Newman, A Witness to the Signing of Thomas Pell's Treaty with Local Native Americans on June 27, 1654

Thursday, August 9, 2007: Information About John Ffinch, A Witness to the Signing of Thomas Pell's Treaty With Local Native Americans on June 27, 1654

Friday, November 03, 2006: More About Richard Crabb, the "Magistrate" Who Witnessed the Signing of Thomas Pell's Treaty with Local Native Americans on June 27, 1654

Friday, September 22, 2006: Henry Accorly: A Witness to the Signing of Thomas Pell's Treaty with Local Native Americans on June 27, 1654

Friday, September 15, 2006: William Newman: A Witness to the Signing of Thomas Pell's Treaty with Local Native Americans on June 27, 1654

Thursday, May 18, 2006: Richard Crabb, the "Magistrate" Who Witnessed the Signing of Thomas Pell's Treaty with Local Native Americans on June 27, 1654

Today's Historic Pelham Blog posting begins a four-part series of postings regarding the lives of four of the five Englishmen who witnessed the signing of the treaty: Henry Accorly, Richard Crabb, John Ffinch and William Newman. The data is taken from a book on the history of Stamford, Connecticut published in 1868. Today's excerpt from that book relates to "Henry Accorly". The excerpt is followed by a citation to its source.

"AKERLY, HENRY, received Dec. 7, 1641, two acres, homelot, and three acres of woodland [in the new settlement known today as Stamford]. Savage makes him at New Haven in 1640. The Colony Records mention him there, as rebuked for 'building a cellar and selling it without leave' in April of that year. Hinman supposes he came with Underhill and Slawson, while our record makes him precede them nearly a year. He was a house carpenter and farmer. His death is recorded here, June 17, 1650. This name on the records is spelled as above, and also, Akerlye, Ayckrily, and on the inventory of his estate, which was witnessed Jan. 4, 1658, Accorley. His widow, Ann, is said to be 75 years old in 1662. This name is, perhaps, now represented by Ackley."

Source: Huntington, E. B., History of Stamford, Connecticut, From its Settlement in 1641 to the Present Time Including Darien, Which Was One of its Parishes Until 1820, p. 27 (Stamford, CT: Published by the Author, 1868).

Please Visit the Historic Pelham Web Site
Located at http://www.historicpelham.com/.
Please Click Here for Index to All Blog Postings.

Labels: , , ,

Monday, October 29, 2007

Brief Genealogical Information Regarding Abigail Pell, Born in 1751, Who Married Samuel Lawrence of Eastchester

Below is a brief excerpt from a book published in 1899. It reflects biographical data for Abigail Pell who was born in 1751 and married Samuel Lawrence of East Chester.

"Samuel Lawrence was born in East Chester in 1751 and married Abigail Pell, who was born in East Chester, New York, in the same year. Her father, John Pell (1722-73), was the son of the honorable Thomas Pell, third lord of Pelham manor, Westchester county (1686 - 1739), and Anna, daughter of the reigning Indian chief of Westchester county. This Thomas was a son of Sir John Pell, second lord of Pelham manor, and Rachel Pinckney, daughter of Philip Pinckney, one of the ten proprietors of East Chester, New York. Sir John Pell (1643 - 1702) was born in London and died in East Chester. He was a server-in-ordinary to King Charles II. Through a long line of illustrious history the origin of the family of Pell is traced to William Pell, who descended from Walter de Pelham, who held the lordship of Pelham in Herefordshire, 21 Edward I (A.D. 1294)."

Source: Biographical History of Westchester County, New York. - Illustrated, Vol. II, p. 889 (Chicago, IL: The Lewis Publishing Company, 1899).

Please Visit the Historic Pelham Web Site
Located at http://www.historicpelham.com/.
Please Click Here for Index to All Blog Postings.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Friday, October 26, 2007

Mystery: Why Would John Pell Travel to Porte Royall in Carolina in November 1671?

Barely a year after he first arrived in America to claim his inheritance of the estate of his uncle, Thomas Pell, John Pell received a "pass" to travel from New York to Porte Royall in Carolina. There is no indication of the purpose of any such trip if he ever made the trip. Below is a transcript of the record reflecting that the pass had been issued.


1. Marrynes De Voors.
2. John Pells. [sic]
3. Barent Course.
4. Jeremy Wood of Hempstd.
5. John Lawrenson. }
6. Abigaile Lawrenson}
7. Jeremy Burroughs.
8. Mr Mich: Smyth, wth 5 Negores.
9. Mr Richard Conant, wth 1 Negro.
10. Mrs Rachael Davenporte.
11. Mr. Timothy Biggs.
12. Wm Argent, wife and children.
Caleb Carman. 13.
Nathaniel Allen. 14.
Johnathan Smyth. 15.
Mr Peter Herne wth his wife, children & 3 Negroes. 16
John Rannce. 17.
Capt. Berry had a Pass to transport 8 Negroes. 18.
Edward Cocks. 19.
Elizabeth Jones had also then a pass to goe to Virginia to her Husband in Mr Quidley's Vessell."

Source: Fernow, Berthold, Documents Relating to the Colonial History of the State of New York, Vol. XIV, p. 659 (Albany, NY: Weed, Parsons and Co. 1883).

Please Visit the Historic Pelham Web Site
Located at http://www.historicpelham.com/.
Please Click Here for Index to All Blog Postings.

Labels: ,

Thursday, October 25, 2007

Request by Native Americans To Be Permitted to Retrieve Corn from John Pell's Estate in the Manor of Pelham During King Philip's War in 1676

As the violence between settlers and Native Americans known as "King Philip's War" loomed, local Native Americans made a plea to English authorities to be permitted to pass in canoes to collect a portion of the corn they had grown on lands belonging to John Pell, nephew and principal legatee of Thomas Pell. Council Minutes for March 29, 1676 reflect the request and are transcribed below, followed by a citation to their source.


Present: Comand r Brockholls etc.

March 29th, 1676.

The Indyans of Wiekersereeke having been sent to the 27th inst come now this day here.

Their names are Wissakane & Amone the two Sachems Sent for to come.

The occasion of their sending for was upon a Letter from ye Go: intimating a mistrust of them by report above.

Mr. Sam. Edsall Interpret r.

The matt r being told them by the Interpret r they deny to have said or thought of joyning or treating with North Indians or others not friends to this Governm t, under whose protection they desire to live, according to their Engagement w th ye Gov.

The Sachems had each of them a Councell with them, without whom they were not willing [Page 494 / Page 495] to speake. They declare rather to Suffer either by Christian or Indyan, before they stirr then to offer any harme to any they desiring to live quietly.

They promise when they certainely know of any disturbance or like to bee, they will give notice to ye Go. & they hope to have notice from hence of any hurt intended against them, and they promise to bee true to their Engagem t to ye Go. They desire as before from Mr. Philips to have leave to come upon this Island & here about Oystering.

They are promist to have a Note to certify that they have liberty, behaving themselves as they ought.

They desire liberty to send some young men with Canoes to Mr. Pells for the Remainder of their Corne, (having had but one halfe from thence already) & to fetch about halfe a dousen old men, women & boys from Greenwich that they left behind them. They are told, wee shall speak to ye Govern r about it but referre it to ye Go., who wee dayly expect. They say the shall stay till then, when they will come againe.

Upon their friendly Comport, & foe that they came so willingly being sent for, They are presented with a Coate for ye 2 Sachems.

They pretend not to expect or desire them, their hearts being good without them, but they being desired to accept of them for that reason receive them.

They are appointed to goe to Thomas Laurens the baker on Pearle Streate to stay all night."

Source: Fernow, Berthold, Documents Relating to the Colonial History of the State of New York, Vol. XIII, pp. 494-95 (Albany, NY: Weed, Parsons and Company 1881).

Please Visit the Historic Pelham Web Site
Located at http://www.historicpelham.com/.
Please Click Here for Index to All Blog Postings.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

July 3, 1666 Letter on Behalf of the Governor of the Province of New York To Thomas Pell

In 1666, Mathias Nicolls wrote a letter on behalf of the Governor of the Province of New York,. Richard Nicolls, to Thomas Pell addressing his complaints regarding efforts by others to receive land patents that he believed infringed upon his own holdings. The letter is transcribed below, followed by a citation to its source.


MEMORANOCK, July 3d, 1666.


The Governor having been Informed by Mr. Delavall and others that you Complaine of very hard Measure that you have rec d in that hee disposeth of the Lands at Westchester and there about to which you pretend a Title; his Honor gave mee Order to acquaint you, that for ye present hee hath putt a Stopp to Westchester Patent, as well as others there about (although they have for some time laying ready for his Passing) That if you have any just Clayme to those Lands or Exceptions to what hee doth, or is about to do, you may deliver them in to him, But hee conceiveth , no Person hath a more Lawfull Power to dispose thereof, than himselfe by vertue of his Commission and Authority from his Royall Highnesse And hee did believe the Tryall about Cornhill's Neck, was a Sufficient President for the Clearing of the Title to the rest; However, Its his pleasure to heare what you can alleadge or object, so that you do it Speedily for he thinkes it not convenient, to leave those matters much longer in Suspense; yor Answer hereunto by the first oppertunity will bee expected. This is all I had in Charge to deliver unto you, So I subscribe Sr.

Your humble Serv t


Source: Fernow, Berthold, Documents Relating to the Colonial History of the State of New York, Vol. XIII, p. 403 (Albany, NY: Weed, Parsons and Company 1881).

Please Visit the Historic Pelham Web Site
Located at http://www.historicpelham.com/.
Please Click Here for Index to All Blog Postings.

Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

1664 Petition of Inhabitants of Westchester to Commissioners for the Affairs of New England Mentioning 1654 Purchase by Thomas Pell

In 1664, the inhabitants of the settlement known as Westchester sent a petition to the English Commissioners of the Affairs of New England outlining their sufferings since first purchasing their lands from Thomas Pell. The petition mentions the acquisition from Pell and, thus, is transcribed below, followed by a citation to its source.


To the Hono ble his Ma ties Com rs for the affaires of New-England The Inhabitants of West Chester Humbly Shew.

1. That the said Tract of Land called West Chester was purchased for large Sumes under the Title of England by Mr. Thos. Pell of the Knowne Ancient proprietors in ye yeare 1654.

2. The pretended power of the Manhatoes did thereupon continue protesting ag t and threating [sic] of the said Plantacon keeping the Inhabitants at continual watch and ward until at length the persons of Twenty-three Inhabitants of West Chester aforesaid were seized under Commission from the said powers, committed Prisoners into the Hould of a Vessell, where they continued in [Page 391 / Page 392] restraint from all friends for the space of thirteene dayes, fed with rotten Provision creeping with wormes, whereby some of them remained diseased to this day, after w ch they were carryed away in Chaines, and layed in their Dungeon at Manhattoes.

3. That the said Inhabitants had perished w th famine in the said Imprisonment, but for the relief obtained at other hands.

4. That all this suffering was inflicted on them under noe other pretence, but that they were opposers of ye Dutch Title to the Lands afores d.

5. That when the said pr tnded powers had freed the said Prisoners and introduced their own Governm t over the sd Platacon they drove away such as would not submit to their pr tendedAuthority, to their great Endamagem t and the enslaving of such as remained.

6. That when in May 1663 the said Plantacon was reduced to the King's authority, by virtue of his Ma ties Patent to Connecticutt, the pretended powers aforesaid, sent in hostile manner for certaine Inhabitants of West Chester, whom they confined in Manhatoes and the next day sent for one Mr. Richard Mills, whom they cast into their Dungeon and afterwards soe used him for thirty-eight dayes space, as there are yet strong and crying presumptions, they caused his death, which followed soone after.

7. That the unreasonable damage of the Purchaser and the low estate of the Plantacon occasioned by the premisses, hath had no other recompense to this day, but new threatenings and thereby an utter obstruction from the peopleing and improving of a hopefull countrey, all which as an unsufferable abuse to his Royal Ma tie and our English Nation is humbly offered to the consideracon of the Hon ble Commiss rs. Aug. 22, 1664 O.S."

Source: Source: Fernow, Berthold, Documents Relating to the Colonial History of the State of New York, Vol. XIII, pp. 391-92 (Albany, NY: Weed, Parsons and Company 1881).

Please Visit the Historic Pelham Web Site
Located at http://www.historicpelham.com/.
Please Click Here for Index to All Blog Postings.

Labels: , , ,

Monday, October 22, 2007

Dutch Authorities Demand That Thomas Pell Halt His "Intrusion" at Westchester in 1656

The Dutch meant business when they arrested most of the Englishmen who, in November 1654, settled in Westchester on lands acquired a few months earlier by Thomas Pell from local Native Americans. They removed the men to a prison ship near Fort Amsterdam. Eventually the settlers were released and pledged allegiance to the Dutch to avoid further altercations. In March, 1656, however, the Dutch Fiscal presented a statement to the Director-General and the Council of New Netherland summarizing Thomas Pell's "intrusion" at Westchester and asking that he be ordered, once again, to quit the area. The text of the statement is transcribed below, followed by a citation to its source.


March 15th, 1656.

To the Noble Hon ble Director-General and Council of New-Netherland.

Not only your Honors but everybody else living in this Province know, that many years ago the land called Vreedland has been settled by several persons under patents from your Honors' predecessor and peacefully occupied under this Government until the war of 1643. Now one Mr. Pell, a resident of Onckeway in New-England, has against Christian law and custom dared lately to repurchase these lands from the same natives, from whom years ago they were bought and paid for through your Honors, as the Book of Deeds shows, and to enter upon them in his own name and live there contrary to the settlement of the boundaries agreed upon with the United Colonies of New-England in 1650 and without your Honors' knowledge or consent. Against this usurpation the Fiscal has protested ex officio in the name and on behalf of his superiors, but notwithstanding this protest duly served, Lieutenant Wheller, who commands there as chief officer, remains there with the rest of his associates and continues to build and plant, receiving and sheltering several fugitives, vagabonds and thieves, who on account of their bad behavior had to fly. Thereupon your Honorable Worships, following the instructions and orders of the Lords-Directors and in order to maintain the agreement of Hartford, have resolved, to dislodge the said Wheller and his people by a troop of soldiers. These persons met, according to your Honors' declaration of the 14th March, the Hon ble General, there present with the rest of the soldiers, they had drawn up in line under arms and showed themselves unwilling to remove, saying the land belonged to them. [Page 64 / Page 65] Thereupon the said Englishmen were deprived of their arms and 23 of them were brought as prisoners on board of the ship 'de Waagh' on the same day, while a few with the women and children were left behind, to take care of their goods.

The Fiscal therefore requests, that your Honors will please to send the Courtmessenger with one or two of the oldest men to Vreedlandt, who are to warn the remaining Englishmen, that they must remove and take away everything brought there by them, at the risk of being proceeded against according to law, if they do not obey; also that the aforesaid Lieut. Wheller and his companions pay, before being released, the expenses incurred by your Honors through their acts and disobedience in coming hither in boats and with armed men and further that they sign an act promising never again to come and live, build, plant, sow or mow without your Honors' consent and special order upon our Lords' land, situate at Vreedlandt, which they have lately called Westchester, or upon any other land within the boundaries, agreed upon at Hartford, under penalty of suffering corporal punishment according to the exigencies of the case, if found to have disobeyed.

The above written application and motion of the Fiscal, as plaintiff and attorney, against the imprisoned Englishmen, arrested lately at Vreedland, by them called Westchester, having been read and considered together with the humble remonstrance of their wives here annexed and taking into consideration the dangerous situation and the inclemency of the winter, We, the Director-General and Council of New-Netherland, have resolved for these and other weighty reasons, to release the English prisoners, after they have promised under oath and by their signatures, to remove from the lands of Vreedland and out of this Province with their property and cattle within six weeks and not to come back in to this jurisdiction, without our special consent. After having sworn to and subscribed this, the Fiscal is authorized and directed to release these Englishmen, against whom he, as public prosecutor, has no other charge than that of usurpation, as soon as they have satisfied him for the expenses incurred, to be estimated by impartial men, and this shall be his sufficient warrant. As to the fugitives or other criminals, also those who refuse to sign the aforesaid promise, they must be apprehended according to the resolution of yesterday and be proceeded against according to law.

Thus done in Council held at Fort Amsterdam in New-Netherland date as above.


Source: Source: Fernow, Berthold, Documents Relating to the Colonial History of the State of New York, Vol. XIII, pp. 64-65 (Albany, NY: Weed, Parsons and Company 1881).

Please Visit the Historic Pelham Web Site
Located at http://www.historicpelham.com/.
Please Click Here for Index to All Blog Postings.

Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, October 19, 2007

Thomas Pell Was Feared Drowned or Lost at Sea in 1656

A paper delivered by the Director-General, Peter Stuyvesant, to the Council at a meeting in Fort Amsterdam, New Netherland on January 26, 1656 contained indications that the man most hated by the Dutch -- Thomas Pell -- had drowned or was presumed lost at sea. The Dutch were unhappy that Pell had established a small village of Enlgish settlers in an area known as VreedLandt. VreedLandt was among the lands claimed by the Dutch under purchase from local Native Americans. The text of the entire paper is transcribed immediately below, followed by a citation to its source.


26th January.

To-day the following letter was read by the Noble Hon ble Director-General to the Council at the meeting in Fort Amsterdam.

I informed your honors partly by word of mouth, that on the 22d inst. I had a visit from a Mr. Weyls, formerly a resident of Stamford, now schoolmaster at Onckeway, who among other reports of news from Europe told me in presence of Do Drisisus and Willem Harcke, that he had had in his house lately an Indian from Wiequasskeck, who was a good friend of Vander Donck and had tended his cows for a time; he thought, his name was Joseph and he spoke pretty good English, anyway so much that he could understand him. He had talked with this Indian about the late troubles between his and our nations and these were the details:

First, why they had killed and captured so many Dutchmen?

Second, why they do not return the captured Dutchmen and whether they are not afraid, that the Dutch will again attack them?

Third, what they and their neighbors intended to do with the captives?

He answered to the first that they had not been the first cause or that they did not bgin and that they were afraid, the Dutch would not forget it, and they comprehend, why the Dutch kept so quiet.

As to the captives, they were a burden to them, for they had to feed them, but they retained them, as they knew well and expected, that, as long as the prisoners were with them, the Dutch would not trouble them and they were resolved, to have the prisoners ransomed in the spring or [Page 59 / Page 60] to offer them to the Dutch. To the question, whether they would then make peace with the Dutch, the Indian answered the Dutch would not keep the peace and that therefore they did not intend to ask for peace nor to make it. Asked, what they would do against the Dutch, who were so strong and it being impossible to kill all or drive them out of their strong positions, he said, they knew that well, therefore they would not visit them in their castles nor make war upon them, but they would hide in small parties in the underwood, to surprise any one, who came out, hinder them in planting and kill their cattle, when it came into the woods, until they finally would have no more food and so forth; the aforesaid Wyles thought it his duty as neighbor, to inform us hereof.

He stated in regard to the massacre and unlucky engagement, that the matter had been received by the Commissioners and other principal persons of New-England with great and heart-felt [regret] and that it was their opinion, they were, considering their neighborhood, close union and the congruity of the divine service of the two nations in duty bound, to assist us against the barbarous tribes, if they were requested and many were astonished, that we thus passed over the affair, disregarding the Christian nations.

He said also, he had heard to his regret, that many here believed, the people of New-England had had something to do with it, with the intention to get under that retext possession of Long-Island or the new plantation at Westchester : he affirmed with great confidence, that to favor such belief was unneighborly and unchristianlike, that they were so far from it, that they did not want more of Long-Island, than what was agreed to in the treaty made at Hartford and they themselves did not approve of the action of Mr. Pel [sic] in establishing a village upon somebody else's territory. He thought, this was now broken up, because Mr. Pel was drowned or as is supposed shipwrecked with his vessel and property. This is the substance of his statement to me, made in the presence of the aforesaid Do Drisius and William Harck, which I have thought necessary to communicate to your Honors and to have inserted, with your knowledge, into the minutes, also to recommend it to your Honors' further consideration, to which I must add, that, as your Honors know, some savages, about 30 in number, have [plundered] the yacht 'Endracht', stranded on the Sandpoint, and robbed the sailors under threats, although they did not hurth them, of their property, which has caused me, to prevent further mischief and bloodshed, to take away the sailors and the things, easiest to transport, from the stranded yacht and to abandon the yacht, until better times and opportunity. I stop here and impress it upon your Honors' mind, whether it would not be well, to remove also the small garrison on Staten-Island, which has no more protection, but much less than the sailors on the yacht, before something like, what I spoke of before, if not worse may happen to them and to order Captain Post, to proceed with his cattle and the few soldiers with him to Nayeeck and join the troops of Mr. Werckhoven, where a suitable refuge of stockades has been made, sufficient to defend it with soldiers against an attack by the Indians. Date as above. (26th January 1656)."

Source: Fernow, Berthold, Documents Relating to the Colonial History of the State of New York, Vol. XIII, pp. 59-60 (Albany, NY: Weed, Parsons and Company 1881).

Please Visit the Historic Pelham Web Site
Located at http://www.historicpelham.com/.
Please Click Here for Index to All Blog Postings.

Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, October 18, 2007

April 19, 1655 Dutch Protest Against Thomas Pell's Efforts To Settle Englishmen on Lands the Dutch Called VreedLandt

On April 19, 1655, the Dutch issued a protest against Thomas Pell complaining of his efforts to settle Englishmen on lands known by the Dutch as VreedLandt. It is believed that the settlement was near the head of today's Westchester Creek in the area that once was the Village of West Chester. Pell had acquired the lands as part of his massive purchase on June 27, 1654 that eventually became the Manor of Pelham. Below is a transcription of an English translation of the "Protest"


19th April 1655.

Cornelis van Tienhoven, by virtue of his commission as Fiscal for the Province of New Netherland and Attorney for its authority and jurisdiction, etc etc.

To you, Thomas Pell or whom else it may concern.

Having been directed to proceed to and upon the lands of VreedLandt, taken possession of during the time of the late Hon ble Director-General Kieft and bought from and paid for to the actual owners and proprietors, natives of this country, as the Book of Deeds and their signatures prove, I inform and warn you and all, whom it may concern, herewith, that you and your associates have not only settled upon lands, bought many years ago by the Dutch nation and occupied by the late Hon ble Director Kieft by virtue of the title deeds, but that you also occupy it by usurpation, contrary to the agreement made at Hartford and to the peace concluded between the two nations in Europe, against the will and consent of the Director-General and High Council of New-Netherland.

Therefore, I, the Fiscal, give you and all, whom it may concern, this public notice in th name, and on behalf of their Noble High: Might: the States General and the Lorde Director of the Priv. W. I. Company by the bearer hereof, Claes van Elslandt, Court Messenger, chosen and appointed to execute this errand, to warn you not to proceed with building, clearing, pasturing cattle or cutting hay or whatever else may be necessary for the cultivation of the soil upon the aforesaid purchased and long possessed lands contrary to the agreement made at Hartford and to remove within fifteen days after the service of this notice from the lands within the jurisdiction of New Netherland with your people, servants or bound slaves, furniture, cattle, implements and everything brought there by you or yours as your property, under the penalty, that if you or any of you shall be found after the date aforesaid to have acted contrarily, of being prosecuted, you and all whom it may concern, according to law. In the meantime I protest against all damage, [Page 38 / Page 39] injury, mischief and trouble, which through your actions may arise, while we declare before God and the World to be innocent thereof.

Done at Amsterdam in New Netherland on the date as above.

Whereas the present situation does not permit, that the Fiscal of N. Netherland should serve the foregoing notice and protest in person, therefore the Court Messenger, Claes van Elsland, is authorized to do it. Done at Amsterdam in N. N. date as above."

Source: Fernow, Berthold, Documents Relating to the Colonial History of the State of New York, Vol. XIII, pp. 38-39 (Albany, NY: Weed, Parsons and Company 1881).

Please Visit the Historic Pelham Web Site
Located at http://www.historicpelham.com/.
Please Click Here for Index to All Blog Postings.

Labels: , , , , ,

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

1669 Map of Lands in Dispute Between Thomas Pell and John Richbell

At the time of his death in late September, 1669, Thomas Pell was involved in a dispute with John Richbell over who owned certain lands at the edge of Pell's patent. The New York State archives contain a map of the land created at the time of the dispute. Below is an image of that map, followed by a citation to its source.

Source: Documents of the Assembly of the State of New York. One Hundred and Thirty-Third Session, Vol. XXXIII, No. 67, Part 1, opposite p. 119 (Albany, NY: J.B. Lyon Company, Printers 1910).

Please Visit the Historic Pelham Web Site
Located at http://www.historicpelham.com/.
Please Click Here for Index to All Blog Postings.

Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Information About Thomas Pell's Treaty Oak Published in 1912

Periodically I have published to the Historic Pelham Blog postings about the legend of Thomas Pell's Treaty Oak. Indeed, I have written extensively about the legends surrounding the tree beneath which Pell supposedly signed the agreement by which Pell acquired from local Native Americans the lands that became Pelham and surrounding areas. Such writings include:

Bell, Blake A., Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak (Lincoln, NE: iUniverse, Inc., 2004).

Bell, Blake, Thomas Pell's Treaty Oak, The Westchester Historian, Vol. 28, Issue 3, pp. 73-81 (The Westchester County Historical Society, Summer 2002).

Tuesday, July 24, 2007: Article About the Pell Treaty Oak Published in 1909

Monday, July 23, 2007: 1906 Article in The Sun Regarding Fire that Destroyed the Pell Treaty Oak

Wednesday, May 2, 2007: Information About Thomas Pell's Treaty Oak Published in 1922

Friday, July 29, 2005: Has Another Piece of the Treaty Oak Surfaced?

Tuesday, June 14, 2005: Ceremony in 1915 to Open Bartow-Pell Mansion as Headquarters of International Garden Club Marred by Tragedy

Today's Historic Pelham Blog posting transcribes information about the Pelham Treaty Oak and the old "Manor of Pelham" that appeared in a book published in 1922. A citation to the source follows the excerpt.

"Pelham Treaty Oak and Pelham Manor.

In the summer of 1911 a generous member of the Pell family, residing in New York City, offered to defray the expenses of erecting a tablet in Pelham Bay Park to mark the site of the Pell Treaty Oak, under which, tradition asserts, Thomas Pell purchased the surrounding lands from the Indians in 1654. Our Committee on Sites and Inscriptions thereupon prosecuted researches with a view to identifying the site, but with unsatisfactory results, as stated hereafter. The donor then offered to erect a more elaborate memorial to commemorate the creation of Pelham Manor, and the Society now has the project in hand. In connection with this subject, the Committee prepared the following tentative memoranda in regard to Pelham Manor, the Manor House, Treaty Oak, etc.

Pelham Manor, the area of which will be more definitely indicated hereafter, was originally a part of the territory belonging to a clan of the Mohegan Indians known as the Siwanoys, and in a more restricted way to the Wickquaeskeek Indians. In the early Dutch period these Indians appear to have ranged from Norwalk to the Hudson river, their winter quarters being near Hell Gate. Pelham Neck appears to have been one of their favorite haunts and one of their important burial places.

The Dutch claimed this territory by the same right by which they claimed all of New Netherland, but they reinforced their title to all the land between Norwalk and the Hudson River by a [Page 163 / Page 164] special proclamation in 1640. This title was confirmed on July 14, 1649, when Director General Stuyvesant, in behalf of the Dutch West India Company, purchased 'Wechquaesqueeck' from the Indians.

Between these dates, in the summer of 1642, Mrs. Anne Hutchinson, to avoid prosecution in New England on account of her religious views, fled here with her family and commenced a plantation. In that year the Indian War broke out and in 1643 Mrs. Hutchinson, with most of her household, was massacred by the red men. Her name is perpetuated in that of Hutchinson river, which later formed one of the bounds of Pelham Manor, and also in the name of Anne Hooke's Neck, an early name for the neck of land between Pelham Bay and Eastchester Bay afterwards called Pelham Neck and Rodman's Neck.

The site of Mrs. Hutchinson's residence is not definitely known; but tradition asserts that it was located on the property late of George A. Prevost of Pelham, near the road leading to the Neck on the 'old Indian Path.' Color is given to this tradition by the fact that thirty years ago the ruins of an old house could still be seen on the Prevost estate near the Hutchinson river, a little southwest of the Split Rock. Some ancient apple trees and a fine spring of water near by are also associated with the memoy of this woman. The Split rock is located on the west side of the Split Rock Road, just within the bounds of Pelham Bay Park, a little more than a mile from the Pelham Bridge Road. The rock is thirty-six feet long and twenty-one and one'half feet in its greatest horizontal diameter. It is so completely cleft in twain that an ordinary person can walk between the two halves on the ground level. The cleft is four feet wide at the top, and ten feet from top to bottom [See plate 28. In 1911 a tablet bearing the following inscription was placed on the rock:

Banished from the Massachusetts Colony
in 1638
Because of her devotion to religious liberty
This courageous woman
Sought freedom from persecution
In New Netherland
Near this rock in 1643 she and her household
were massacred by the Indians.
This tablet is placed here by the
Colonial Dames of the state of New York
Anno Domini MCMXI
Virutes majorum filiae conservant.

[Page 165 / Page 166]

The next proprietor of that neighborhood was Thomas Pell of Onkway, or Fairfield, Conn. Proceeding upon the theory that that territory was within the English jurisdiction, Pell, on November 14, 1654 [sic], obtained from the Indians a grant of all that tract of land called Westchester bounded on the east by a brook called Cedar Tree Brook or Gravelly Brook (later the boundary between the towns of Pelham [sic] and Mamaroneck); on the west by the river Aquehung or Bronx River, on the south by the Sound, and extending eight English miles inland. The grant was signed by the Indian Sachems Annhoock alias Wampage (who is supposed to have taken his name either from Anne Hutchinson or the neck named after her), Maminepoe [sic], and five others, under a venerable white oak tree long known as the Treaty Oak.

On October 6, 1666, in the reign of Charles II., Governor Nicolls patented to Pell all that portion of the before described tract lying between Hutchinson's River (called by the Indians Aquaconounck) on the west side and Cedar Tree Brook or Gravelly Brook on the east side, as an enfranchised township or Manor, as if he had held the same immediately from His Majesty the King of England, etc., etc., his successors, as of the Manor of East Greenwich in the county of Kent, etc.

On October 25, 1687, in the reign of James II., Governor Dongan, in response to the request of John Pell, nephew and heir of Thomas Pell, deceased, for 'a more full and firme grant and confirmation of the above lands and premises,' confirmed the grant in a patent which declared that 'the same shall from henceforth be called the lordshipp and manner of Pelham.'

The name Pelham Manor is preserved in the name of the Village of Pelham Manor, which was incorporated in 1891, and which lies adjacent to but just outside the boundary of the City of New York.

Especial interest attaches to the site of the Treaty Oak and the old Manor House, as being associated with the origin of Pelham Manor. In order that these may better be understood, mention may first be made of certain modern landmarks.

Hutchinson's river, sometimes called Eastchester river, the western boundary of the original Pelham Manor, empties into a bay called Hutchinson's Bay, Eastchester Bay, or Pelham [Page 165 / Page 166] Bay*. [Footnote * reads as follows: "* Some maps give the name Pelham Bay to the bay on the southwest side of Pelham Neck into which Hutchinson's river empties, and some give the name to the bay on the northeast side of the neck."] This bay is crossed by a bridge long known as Pelham Bridge. The road crossing this bridge and running near the shore from Westchester to New Rochelle is variously called the Pelham Bridge Road, the Boston Post Road and the Shore Road. At a point about 3,700 feet northeastward from the Bridge, the Pelham Bridge Road is joined by the Split Rock road coming in from the northward from the village of Pelham Manor. Opposite the end of the Split Rock Road and on the south side of the Pelham Bridge Road, is the entrance to a semi-circular drive leading to the so-called Bartow Mansion, and joining the Pelham Bridge Road again about 600 feet farther to the north-eastward.

The Bartow Mansion is a large stone house standing on the south side of the Pelham Bridge Road about 3,000 feet from the entrance first mentioned. As this building has erroneously been claimed to be the original Manor House, and it serves as a convenient landmark by which to locate other sites, the following data is given in regard to it.

The property forms a part of Pelham Bay Park and came into possession of the City of New York in December, 1888. Bolton's History of Westchester County says that in March, 1790, Thomas Pell conveyed this portion of the property to 'John Bartow and Ann Pell, his wife, grandparents of the late Robert Bartow, Esq.' Upon this property, Bartow erected the residence. The date of its erection is uncertain, but can be approximated. A careful examination of the house has thus far failed to reveal any date stone. It was erected prior to 1848, because it is mentioned in the first edition of Bolton's History of Westchester County which was published that year and which says: 'The dwelling house, which is constructed of native stone, presents a fine Grecian front to the road, with winds on the east and west.' Miss Fannie Schuyler, who lives at No. 380 Pelham Road in New Rochelle, and who is familiar with local history, says the building is over fifty years old, but does not know how much older. A man named Martin, caretaker of the Bartow Mansion for the Park Depart- [Page 166 / Page 167] ment of New York, says that about ten years ago there was an Irishman named Foley, ab0ut thirty years old, employed on the place by the Park Department; that when Foley told Foley's father where he was working, the father said that when he first came to this country he helped quarry stone to build the house. Martin gave the opinion that the house was about ninety years old. Mr. W. D. Morgan, of Broadway and One Hundred and Forty seventh street, says: 'My mother was the daughter of Robert Bartow who built the present house.' He is trying to learn about the date for us.

The house has been occupied in the months of July and August for the last few years, by permission of the Park Department, by the Hay Home and School for Crippled Children, whose headquarters are at 2111 Madison avenue, New York. About forty children are entertained here by this worthy charity.

We have only the most meagre indications of the site of the ancient Pell Manor House, owing to the destruction of the archives of the Pell family by fire.

Bolton's History of Westchester County (edition of 1848), says, with reference to the present Bartow house and the old Manor House:

'The dwelling house which is constructed of native stone, presents a fine Grecian front to the road with wings on the east and west. The old Manor House was pulled down many years since. It stood southwest of the present residence.'

In the edition of 1881, this passage is revised to read as follows:

'The dwelling house, which is constructed of native stone, presents a fine Grecian front to the road with wings on the east and west. The old Manor House, which was pulled down not many years ago, stood near the summer house in the garden a little southwest of the present stone mansion.'

About 175 feet south of the Pelham Bridge Road, near the eastern driveway entrance to the Bartow house grounds, and about fifty-five feet west of that driveway, stands a circular iron fence which surrounds the almost obliterated stump of an oak tree. As this tree, prior to its destruction, was the largest oak tree in the vicinity of the Bartow house, a lively but uncritical imagination [Page 167 / Page 168] fastened upon it the tradition that it was the Treaty Oak under which Thomas Pell purchased the land from the Indians in 1654. This erroneous tradition is perpetuated in the following quotation from the Report of the Department of Parks for 1902:

'Thomas Pell, in the year 1654, became one of the first permanent settlers. His purchase from the Indians included all of the present (Pelham Bay) park lands, and the tree is still standing on a portion of this park under which it is recorded that Lord Pell signed the first treaty of peace with the Indians in 1654, after their endeavor to drive the settlers from their homes. This tree stands in front of what is now known as the Bartow Mansion in this Park and has been broken in two by severe storms; but the lower half of the tree is still in a good state of preservation.'

Mr. Randall Comfort, an authority on the history of Bronx Borough, in the Annual Report of the American Scenic and Historic Preservation Society for 1910, is more guarded in his reference to the tree, not declaring authoritatively that it was the Treaty Oak, but that it was pointed out as such. He says:

'The grizzled veteran of the forest which up to a year ago stood on the immense grassy lawn in front of the Bartow Mansion was pointed out as the great tree under whose branches Lord Pell signed the celebrated treaty with the Indian sachems on November 14, 1654 -- the noted Pell Treaty Oak.'

Before proceeding to consider the site of the real Treaty Oak, it may be said with reference to the tree above indicated that prior to 1902, the tree had been broken off about midway, in a storm. It continued to thrive, however, and for a number of years continued to bear luxuriant foliage. But there was a hollow in the trunk in which boys built fires and thus killed the tree, so that now, only the stumps of the roots in the ground are to be seen.

As to the actual Treaty Oak, the original edition of Bolton's History of Westchester County, published in 1848, says:

'On the estate is one of the finest oak trees in the country, interesting as the very tree beneath which the Indian sachems ceded these lands to Thomas Pell on the 14th of November, 1654.'

In the revised edition published in 1881, this passage was changed to read as follows:

[Page 168 / Page 169]

'Not very far west of the site of the old Manor House stood, a few years ago, one of the largest and finest oak trees in the country, interesting as the very tree beneath which the Indian sachems ceded these lands to Thomas Pell on the 14th of November, 1654.'

The foregoing would indicate that between the publication of the first edition and the revised edition, the Treaty Oak was destroyed. This conclusion is confirmed by Miss Anne J. Bolton, who lives at No. 220 Pelham Road, New Rochelle, who remembers the Treaty Oak as pointed out to her by her father, the Rev. Robert Bolton. She says that it stood beside the Post Road between Pelham Bridge and the entrance to the Bartow place and that every trace of it has disappeared. She says that while it stood, travelers on the Post Road were accustomed to stop their horses under its branches to enjoy its refreshing shade.

It is apparent therefore that the iron fence in the Bartow House grounds does not indicate the site of the Treaty Oak.

About 350 feet southeast of the Bartow House is a little burying ground enclosed by a low iron railing. On the stone posts at the corners are carved pelicans, from the Pell family crest. In this enclosure may be seen stones bearing the following inscriptions:

'Her lyes Isec Pell, D. Dec. 14, anno 1748.'
'Is her the body of Joseph Pell, eged 31, D. 1752.'
'In Memory of Phoebe Pell, the widow of Joseph Pell. She departed this life on the 22d day of March, 1790, in the 70th year of her age.'
'Here lyes the body of Saloma Pell, born Jan. ye 13th, 1759, and departed this life Octr. ye 10th, 1760. Aged 1 year, 8 months & 27 days.'
'In Memory of Sussannah, wife of Benjn. Drake, who died March 4th, 1763; Aged 22 years.'
'In Memory of John , son of James and Phoebe Bennett, who died Augt. 6, 1765, aged 2 months.'

In 1862, the late James K. Pell of New York erected a marble slab bearing the following inscription: [Page 169 / Page 170]

'This stone is placed here in token of respect for the memory of, and to mark the spot where lie buried the mortal remains of several of the descendants of John Pell, who was born in the year 1643, and died in the year 1700. The son of the Rev. John Pell, D. D., of Essex, in England, and nephew of Thomas Pell, the first proprietor of the Lordship and Manor of Pelham, born in the year 1603 and died in the year 1669. 1862.'

Vandals have made at least two attempts to despoil this sacred enclosure . In the summer of 1910 they dug a hole with the evident purpose of robbing the graves, but abandoned the attempt upon striking stone or concrete. In July, 1911, another attempt was made at night by men who are said to have been Italians, and who landed at the little dock about 150 feet away. A mounted policeman who, when off duty, was visiting some friends who were camping in a tent on the shore near the dock, saw a light in the grave yard as he was riding by on way to his post. At the same time the vandals discovered the policeman and escaped in their boat, notwithstanding the attempt of the officer to stop them by firing his revolver. The excavation which the vandals had begun was adjacent to the site of the excavation made the year before."

Source: American Scenic and Historic Preservation Society, Seventeenth Annual Report, 1912, of the American Scenic and Historic Preservation Society, pp. 163-70 (Albany, NY: The Argus Company, Printers, 1912).

Please Visit the Historic Pelham Web Site
Located at http://www.historicpelham.com/.
Please Click Here for Index to All Blog Postings.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, October 15, 2007

Town Proclamation Recognizes Celebration of the 250th Anniversary of Pelhamdale at 45 Iden Avenue

Pelhamdale is a Pelham jewel. It is a lovely stone house located at 45 Iden Avenue in Pelham Manor. Philip Pell II built portions believed to be part of today’s structure between about 1750 and 1760. The home is one of two in Pelham Manor that include sections built before the Revolutionary War. The other is the “Kemble House” located at 145 Shore Road.

Philip Pell II was a grandson of Thomas Pell, so-called “3rd Lord of the Manor of Pelham”. After the Revolutionary War, Col. David J. Pell, a son of Philip Pell II, owned the property. According to Lockwood Barr, who wrote a popular book on the history of Pelham in 1946, “Pelham Dale was one of the magnificent country estates of Westchester." The home is listed on the State and National Registers of Historic Places and has been granted a New York State Historic Marker.

Yesterday (Sunday, October 14, 2007), the owners of Pelhamdale celebrated the 250th anniversary of the house with a group of family and friends. During the celebration Town Councilmen Pete DiPaola and Dan McLaughlin presented a Town Proclamation in honor of the occasion. A photograph of the home taken during the celebration appears immediately below. Beneath the photograph is the text of the Proclamation presented to the home owners.

"A Proclamation
By The Supervisor And Town Council
Of The Town Of Pelham, NY In Westchester County.

Saturday, October 14, 2007

WHEREAS, the home known as “Pelhamdale” located at 45 Iden Avenue in the Village of Pelham Manor, Town of Pelham, NY, in Westchester County is a historic home that has been awarded a New York State Historical Marker and is listed in both the New York and National Registers of Historic Places; and

WHEREAS, portions of the home were built between 1750 and 1760 with some evidence suggesting a construction date of about 1757; and

WHEREAS, the earliest-built portion of the home is believed to have been built by Philip Pell II, a direct descendant of John Pell, so-called Second Lord of the Manor of Pelham, who inherited the Manor of Pelham from his uncle, Thomas Pell, who, in turn, acquired it from local Native Americans on June 27, 1654; and

WHEREAS, portions of the Battle of Pelham were fought on or near the grounds of the Estate on October 18, 1776 during the Revolutionary War; and

WHEREAS, at least three American Patriots who fought during the Revolutionary War have some association with the Estate: David J. Pell, Philip Pell III and Samuel Treadwell Pell; and

WHEREAS, on Saturday, October 14, 2007, the owners of Pelhamdale, Drs. Alfred Z. Spector and Rhonda G. Kost will gather in the home with an intimate group of family and friends to celebrate the 250th anniversary of Pelhamdale:

NOW THEREFORE, Town Supervisor Joseph Solimine Sr., Deputy Town Supervisor William O’Connor, Councilwoman Rae Syzmanski, Councilman Peter DiPaola and Councilman Dan McLaughlin hereby proclaim Saturday, October 14, 2007, Pelhamdale Day in honor and recognition of the 250th anniversary of the estate known today as Pelhamdale.

Signed on behalf of The Supervisor and Town Council with full authority in Town Hall in the Town of Pelham, NY on this ____ day of October, 2007.

_______________________________________ "

Please Visit the Historic Pelham Web Site
Located at http://www.historicpelham.com/.
Please Click Here for Index to All Blog Postings.

Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, October 12, 2007

Images of The Lord Howe Chestnut That Once Stood in the Manor of Pelham

Once a giant Chestnut stood in Pelham. For more than one hundred years Pelham residents knew that giant tree as the "Lord Howe Chestnut". They knew it by that name because, according to tradition, a few days after the Battle of Pelham on October 18, 1776 British Commander Howe dined with his officers and Loyalist citizens beneath its branches. According to the same tradition, on that occasion General Howe told his officers and local citizens not to be afraid as the Rebels were already beaten.

The tree no longer exists. It once stood at the edge of today's parking lot on top of the high hill that overlooks Friendship Field in the Glover Athletic Complex. The local Boy Scout organization built a Boy Scout Cabin next to the tree. The giant stone chimney of that lovely cabin still stands -- covered with vines -- at the edge of the parking lot only a few feet away from where the tree once towered.

A brief reference to the tree appeared in a book published in 1913 along with a photograph of it. Additionally, the files of The Office of The Historian of The Town of Pelham have a number of photographs of the tree. Below is an excerpt from the book, followed by two images of the tree.

"In the woods not far from the large stone Pell mansion is the 'Lord Howe chestnut' beneath whose unbrageous branches Lord Howe and his officers lunched with a number of Westchester loyalists whom he had invited for the occasion. On the morning of October 23, 1776, Westchester County beheld a most magnificent pageant. Preparatory to pursuing Washington towards White Plains, Lord Howe drew up for review his entire army consisting of about 10,000 men each clad in his Sunday uniform. The soft green of the Hessians formed a charming contrast with the brilliant scarlet of the British regulars, while the bright arms of the troops glistened in the sunlight. After riding along the lines to inspect the army, Howe and his officers with the loyalist gentlemen, sat down at noon to partake of some refreshments. 'Let us hope, however,' we read, 'that the meal of these fine gentlemen was not spoiled by the presence of that rough old German, the Count Von Knyphausen, who tho a dashing soldier and a brave man, was no courtier and anything but a pleasant dining companion.'"

Source: Cook, Harry T., The Borough of the Bronx 1639 - 1913 Its Marvelous Development and Historical Surroundings, p. 177 (NY, NY: Privately Published by The Author 1913).

Source: Id.
Source: Courtesy of The Office of The Historian of The Town of Pelham (man standing next to the Chestnut trunk is Reginald Pelham Bolton).

Please Visit the Historic Pelham Web Site
Located at http://www.historicpelham.com/.
Please Click Here for Index to All Blog Postings.

Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, October 11, 2007

Biographical Data and Photographs of Clifford B. Harmon Who Developed Pelhamwood

In 1909, Clifford B. Harmon & Co. bought from the Winyah Park Realty Company a one-hundred acre tract of land just north of the Pelham train station. The company began development of a lovely residential neighborhood that it named "Pelhamwood".

Periodically I have written about Clifford B. Harmon and Pelhamwood. For examples, see:

Tue., July 10, 2007: An Early Event in the History of Pelhamwood.

Thu., June 21, 2007: Information About "Aeronautic" Exploits of Clifford B. Harmon Who Developed Pelhamwood in Pelham.

Thu. August 10, 2006: The New Development of Pelhamwood Gets Approval for its Proposed Sewage System in 1912.

Tue., November 15, 2005: Plaque Dedicated at the Historic Pelhamwood Clock Tower.

Mon., September 12, 2005: Pelhamwood Association Celebrated its 30th Anniversary in 1942.

Thu., May 12, 2005: Clifford B. Harmon, Developer of Pelhamwood.

Bell, Blake A., The Early Development of Pelhamwood, The Pelham Weekly, Vol. XIII, No. 37, Sep. 17, 2004, p. 12, col. 2.

Clifford B. Harmon was a noted real estate developer and a famous amateur aviation pioneer known throughout the United States. Today's Historic Pelham Blog posting provides brief biographical data about Clifford B. Harmon published in 1910 and provides two photographs of him from the American Memory Collection of the Library of Congress.


CLIFFORD B. HARMON has the double distinction of being not only the foremost amateur aviator of America, but his feats have also at times excelled those of the professional airmen. On July 2, 1910, [Page 401 / Page 402] Mr. Harmon made a continuous flight of more than 2 hours, breaking all American records, and this he held for several months.

Mr. Harmon's first experience in the air was as a balloonist, and in this capacity he held the duration record of 48 hours 26 minutes for a year. On this same voyage, at the St. Louis Centennial, he made a new record in America for altitude attained, 24,400 feet.

At the Los Angeles aviation meet, in January, 1910, where he went with his balloon New York, he met Paulhan, and became his pupil. At that meet Paulhan made a new world's record for altitude with a Farman biplane, and this machine Mr. Harmon bought, and brought to Mineola, L. I., where he practised assiduously, crowning his minor achievements by flying from there across Long Island Sound to Greenwich, Conn.

At the Boston-Harvard aviation meet, in September, 1910, Mr. Harmon won every prize offered to amateur contestants."

Source: Ferris, Richard, How It Flies or, The Conquest of the Air The Story of Man's Endeavors to Fly and of the Inventions by Which He Has Succeeded, pp. 401-02 (NY, NY: Thomas Nelson and Sons 1910).

Additionally, below are two photographs that show Clifford B. Harmon. Both are from the American Memory Collection maintained by the Library of Congress. The first shows Clifford Harmon with Charlie Chaplin and John Philip Sousa. The second shows Clifford Harmon with Mr. and Mrs. C. F. Bishop.

Finally, the photograph that appears immediately below shows famed early aviator Claude Grahame-White with Clifford B. Harmon making adjustments to Harmon's famous Farman biplane. The source of the photograph is listed immediately below it.

Source: Grahame-White, Claude, The Story of the Aeroplane, page facing p. 222 (Boston, MA: Small, Maynard and Company 1911).

Please Visit the Historic Pelham Web Site
Located at http://www.historicpelham.com/.
Please Click Here for Index to All Blog Postings.

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Thomas Pell Accompanies Delegation of Dutch from New Haven to Hartford in October, 1663

In October, 1663, the Dutch sent a delegation from New Netherland to Hartford to deliver letters demanding that the English abide by the terms of the Treaty of Hartford signed in 1650. That treaty, generally speaking, was intended to set an agreed boundary between lands controlled by the Dutch as part of New Netherland and lands controlled by the English as part of New England. In the meantime, in 1654 Thomas Pell acquired from local Native Americans a vast swath of land within the area that the Dutch claimed was rightfully theirs under the terms of the 1650 Treaty of Hartford.

Thomas Pell, of course, had a substantial, vested, personal interest in the outcome of the meeting between the Dutch delegation and representatives of the Assembly in Hartford. The delegations discussed whether Pell's lands and settlements on Long Island would be under the control and jurisdiction of Hartford or New Netherland. Pell actually accompanied the Dutch delegates from New Haven to Hartford as the group traveled to present letters to legislative leaders of the English colony.

A member of the Dutch delegation maintained a journal of the trip. That journal was translated and published in the mid-19th century. The journal notes that Pell traveled from New Haven with the Dutch delegation to Hartford for the negotiations. The journal is thereafter silent regarding any participation, if any, by Pell in those negotiations. However, Pell must have remained in Hartford during the entirety of the 11-day session. Moreover, journal entries certainly provide addtional strong evidence that in acquiring and arranging settlement of his lands, Pell acted -- at least in part -- at the behest of English colonial leaders. Indeed, the English proposal to the Dutch was that the all lands south of Stamford to the settlement of Westchester would be controlled by Connecticut. This encompassed Pell's lands south to Westchester, the settlement that he helped found in late 1654.
Below is the material from the journal referencing these matters. It includes a brief reference to Thomas Pell.

"Journal kept by Cornelis van Ruyven, Burgomaster Cortlandt and John Laurence, Delegates from New Netherland to the General Assembly at Hartford, in New England, in the month of October, 1663.

[From the Original, in the New-York Colonial Manuscripts, XV, BB, in the Secretary of State's Office, Albany.]

1663; 15th October, being Monday.

We departed, with the rising of the sun, in Dirck Smith's sloop. Though the wind was contrary, we arrived with that tide at Hog's Island, and, as in consequence of the strong ebb we could not make much progress by rowing, we cast anchor, went on shore, while the crew took in some ballast. When the ebb was passed we weighed anchor, passed Hellgate at low water, and arrived, by laveering and rowing, near Minnewits Island [today's City Island], where we stopt.

16th We weighed anchor before day-break; the wind remaining contrary, stopt during the tide, near Oyster bay. In the afternoon, the wind being somewhat more favorable, we discovered Stratford point, but the wind shifting again and the tide being gone, we cast anchor.

17th In the morning, before day-break, we again set sail, the wind ahead; however, by force of rowing and tacking, we arrived at Milfort between 8 and 9 o'clock. We directly called on Mr. Bryan, a merchant in that place, requesting him to procure us three horses to ride to Hartford, which he promised to do. He said that he proposed to go thither himself. Meanwhile, we visited the Magistrates, Mr. Treat and Mr. Fenn, but we did not find either of them at home. Mr. Treat visited us afterwards at the Tavern. After salutation, we communicated to him the cause of our arrival there and intended leaving in the harbor till we returned, so that some vagabonds, who, we were informed, were there roving about, might [Page 385 / Page 386] not cause us any damage. This he consented to. We recommended the same to young Mr. Bryan. Meanwhile, we were informed that two horses only could be obtained, unless a young man who arrived there from Hartford would hire his horse. When he arrived, we agreed to hire his horse at fourteen English shillings, but when he was to give the horse he hesitated. We inquired why? as we agreed together unconditionally. He could not at first be persuaded to disclose his mind; at last he said, he apprehended that his folks at Hartford would find fault with him for assisting us, who were not their friends. The Magistrates present at this conversation were very much dissatisfied, telling him that he must deliver his horse, in conformity to the agreement, which he at last, though reluctantly, did. After dinner, as soon as the horses were ready, we rode on towards Newhaven, where we arrived about an hour or 2 before sun-set. The horses being attended, we went to pay our respects to Mr. Gilbert, the Deputy Governor, but he was not at home; we tarried that night at Newhaven.

18th Thursday. Started from Newhaven at the rising of the sun, in company of Mr. Bryan, merchant at Milford, and Mr. Pell, arrived, we suppose, about 4 o'clock at Hartford. Understanding that the Governor and Court were assembled, we resolved, in order not to lose any time, to inform the Court, without delay, of our arrival, and solicit, at the same time, an audience. This being performed, we received for answer, that we may appear, if it pleased us, either now or to-morrow morning. We requested that we might do it without further delay, which was consented to. After friendly welcome we delivered our letters. When these were read, we added: if the Governor and Court desired any further explanation, we are willing and prepared to give it directly to the Governor and Court, or to any committee authorized by them. Whereupon no direct answer was communicated. They said, they would examine the letters. Having recommended the matter seriously to their attention, we took our leave, when we were informed by Major Mason, the Deputy-Governor, that a room was prepared for us at the house of their Marshal, where we were requested to take our lodgings, which we gratefully accepted.

19th Early in the morning, before the Court met, we paid our respects to the Hon. John Winthrop, and requested him to contribute his most strenuous exertions for the removal of all misunderstandings and the continuance of peace and harmony, which he promised to do. Whereupon we desired to be informed what was the result of their deliberations upon the letter which we had delivered. He said he could not give us correct information on this subject, as he left the meeting a little while after us, being very much indisposed; but he was confident that the Court had appointed a Committee to enter into negotiation with us upon this affair. As we could not obtain a more decisive answer from him, and the time of the meeting of the Court was fast approaching, we took our leave, and presented the following request to that body:

'To the Honorable, the Governor and Court of Hartford Colony.

'The purport of these few lines is merely to thank you for our amicable reception, and the courteous acceptance of the letters which we delivered, soliciting now to be favored with a categorical answer thereto, so that we may correctly know in what manner we ought to regulate our conduct. In the meanwhile remaining,' &c.

Which being carried in, we were told by the Marshal that three persons were appointed to speak further with us, who would meet within an hour at the house of Mr. Howard, the [Page 386 / Page 387] Miller, being about half way between our lodgings and the town hall, with request that we should also be there at that time, to which we agreed and went there at the hour appointed. After waiting there about an hour in vain, the Marshal came and told us, that the Committee had been hindered by some other business intervening from waiting on us, and as it was almost noon, that the Governor and Court begged the favor of us to dine with them in the town hall; to which we answered, that it appeared strange to us that the gentlemen of the Committee excused themselves as they had appointed the time; that nevertheless we should come where we were invited. In a short time thereafter the Deputy Governor and Secretary came to excuse the Committee, as some business had happened wherein their presence was required, which we put up with. After some discourse, we went with them to the town hall. After diner, we desired that our business might be forwarded, upon which the persons who were appointed as a Committee, promised to follow us immediately to the aforesaid place, as they did. After some discourse little to the purpose, and being seated, we showed our commission, with request that they would do the same, upon which they delivered in an extract, as they said, out of their minutes, in which they, to wit: Allyne, Senior, Captain Talcot, Joyn Allyne, Junior, were qualified to treat with us, adding that the showing a commission was superfluous, as we had been informed, ourselves, by the Court that they were appointed for that purpose, upon which we let that matter drop also, and asked whether they would be pleased to make answer to the propositions contained in the letter we had delivered, to which they replied: That they would fain be informed in a summary manner what the propositions were to which we required an answer. We said, that they were briefly contained in the aforesaid letter (to wit):

First. That we desired to know whether they would be pleased to conform themselves to the advice of the other three Colonies, containing in substance that everything with respect to the limits should remain as was agreed upon in the year 1650, 'till the next meeting of the Commissioners, in the year 1664.

Secondly. Or else, that they would be pleased to appoint some persons to treat farther about the limits now in dispute.

Thirldly, If not, that the matters should then be referred to our superiors in Europe, on condition that everything should meanwhile remain as was agreed to in the year 1650. Many debates, pro and con, arose on the aforesaid points, so that the whole afternoon was spent without effecting anything. The result substantially was,

To the first: That they could not conform themselves to the advice of the aforesaid Commissioners for the following reasons:

1st That they had already given notice, on Long Island, of their Patent and of the King's grant.

2dly That the inhabitants thereof, at least the greatest part of them, had voluntarily betaken themselves under their government.

3dly That they neither could nor dared refuse them (if they would not incur the King's displeasure), as the same were included in their Patent, to which they further added that, though the fixing of the limits should be deferred to the next meeting of the Commissioners, in the year 1664, they were not to regulate themselves by the advice of the Commissioners nor of the other Colonies, but by the King's Patent; and, in case the Commissioners should do anything contrary to it, that they would much rather separate themselves from the other Colonies, as they would never permit anything to be done contrary to it, or any change made in it, except by his Majesty himself, as those who would make any such change or alteration in it, would put themselves above and lord it over his Majesty. [Page 387 / Page 388]

What we alleged against this: that his Majesty's meaning was not to give anything away which had already been so long possessed by others; also, that it could not be proved out of the Patent, &c, was in vain; they persisted in their groundless opinion.

To the second point they made no direct answer, only proposed, by way of question, Whether the General had sufficient qualification from the Prince of Organe and the States-General. To which we answered that the commission of the States-General sufficiently qualified the General for that purpose, and dropped that point; and proceeded

To the third. To which they answered, that they were willing that matters should be referred to our mutual superiors, on condition that the English towns on Long Island and Westchester should, by proviso, be under the government of Hartford. This being thus proposed, ol Mr. Allen made a long harangue to this effect: That he was well assured that the English towns would no longer remain under the Dutch government, and in case we should compel them, that they were resolved to defend themselves to the uttermost; that he was, therefore, of opinion, that it would be more to our advantage, to prevent further mischief and bloodshed, that the said towns should remain under the government of Hartford 'till such time as his Majesty and the States-General should be agreed (to wit), those who had formerly submitted themselves to their government.

To which we answered: That it would not now nor ever be allowed. They replied, that for the present they could not act any further with us, nor hinder the aforesaid towns from betaking themselves under the obedience of his Majesty. We answered, that they were the cause of it, since they had, by different deputations, encouraged and excited the towns to it. They replied, that they were bound to make the King's grant known to them. We answered, that they might do it to the King's subjects, but not to their High Mightinesses and the Company's subjects. To which they again replied, that they were subjects of his Majesty, as they dwelt according to the Patent upon his Majesty's territories. Upon which proposition we asked them, In what light they looked upon the Provisional settlement of the limits in the year 1650? They answered, absolutely as a nullity and of no force, as his Majesty had now settled the limits for them, the other being done only provisionally, &c. Whereupon we again appealed to the advice of the other Colonies, to which was answered: That they (to wit, the other Colonies) could make no alteration unless they assumed to themselves an equal authority with the King; saying, that they had, in that respect, nothing to do with the other Colonies. The time being spent with many such like propositions and answers without effecting anything, we concluded, from all these circumstances, that the acts of Richard Mills at Westchester, of Coe, Pantom and others on Long Island, were committed and executed at their instigation, and that they now only sought to put a spoke in the wheel, and to keep matters in agitation till such time as the towns, namely of Westchester, Middleburgh and Rustdorp revolted (whose Deputies we daily saw here before our eyes, having free access to the principal men); as they openly declared that, in case the towns who had freely betaken themselves under their government and protection should ask assistance, they neither could nor might deny it them. All these matters being duly considered by us, and, moreover, that if we should depart without reducing things to some certainty, the English towns on Long Island would apparently have revolted before our arrival at the Manhatans; to prevent this and the danger which might ensue therefrom, and to show that we would contribute, as much as possible, to prevent bloodshed, we resolved to make the following proposal as the last: To wit, [Page 388 / Page 389]

That if they would firmly and faithfully keep the provisional settlement of the limits made in the year 1650, 'till such time as his Majesty and the High and Mighty States-General were agreed about the limits, and would not presume to take any of the English settlements belonging to this government under their protection, nor assume to themselves any jurisdiction over the same, we, on our part, would, in like manner, 'till that time, assume no jurisdiction over Oostdurp, otherwise called Westchester, to which we added: That if they would not acquiesce in this our proposal (having now contributed all possible means in our power to settle peace and unity), we declared ourselves and our constituents innocent, before God and man, of all the calamities which should arise from their unjust proceedings. After a few debtes, little to the purpose, it being now late in the evening, they said, they would take until to-morrow morning to consider the proposal, and took leave.

20th October. Between 9 and 10 o'clock, according to appointment, the abovementioned gentlemen of the Committee came to our lodgings. We went with them to the aforesaid place at the house of Mr. Howard. After some introductory discourse, we asked them whether they had considered our proposal, and what their answer was to it. After some frivolous exceptions, that the English on Long Island would not stand under us, and that if we should compel them to obedience, it would be the cause of much bloodshed, they expressly said that they could not agree with us unless the English townships, viz., Ooostdurp, Middleburgh, Rustdurp and Hamstede were under their government; if we would comply with this, they would defer the matter, and not proceed further 'till another convention, but that we, in the meantime, should not in the least interfere nor exercise any right or jurisdiction over them, and if we could not, that they also could not hinder the aforesaid towns (being by his Majesty of England included int their Patent) from betaking themselves under their protection, and consequently that they should be obliged to defend them, in case they were attacked. We answered hereunto: That his Majesty had more discretion than to include in their Patent the subjects and lands of their High Mightinesses, which they had possessed for so many years; that such was an erroneous explanation; that the Patent contained a tract of land lying in America, in New England, and, consequently, not in New Netherland; that Governor Winthrop had declared, in the hearing of us all, that it must be so understood; and that it must be understood in this case like the Boston Patent, in which it is expressly mentioned: On condition that the lands shall not have been previously possessed by any Prince or Potentate. Long Island being now so many years possessed by the subjects of their High Mightinesses, therefore the English could not, by reason thereof, claim any right or title to it. In short, what amicable proposals and inducements soever we made use of, we could not proceed any further with them. In the meantime, it being noon, we were again invited by the Governor, together with the gentlemen of the Committee to dine with him, which we did. After dinner, we complained to the Governor and Members that we did not advance in our business with the Committee on account of their unreasonable and unanswerable demands; such as giving up our right to the English towns, &c. We desired, therefore, that they would be pleased to answer the letter delivered them and the neighborly and friendly propositions contained in it, which they promised to do, but nothering was concluded upon this afternoon, as it was Saturday, And some of the Members were obliged, before dusk, to go to Windsor and Weathersfield.

21st ditto. Sunday. Went to church and supped in the evening with the Governor. After supper, being in discourse with his Excellency, among other things, he expressly declared: that the latest of the Patent was by no means to claim any right to New Netherland, but that [Page 389 / Page 390] it only comprehended a tract of land in New England, &c. We begged the favor of his Excellency to indulge us with such declaration in writing, that we might avail ourselves of it; but he declined, shaying that it was sufficiently plain from the Patent itself. We said that a different construction was put on it by others, and that such declaration would give much light; but as we observed that the Governor still adhered to his first saying, after some more discourse, we took leave.

22d ditto. Monday. We desired by the Marshal an answer in writing to the letter we delivered and the propositions contained in it, which was promised us. We dined with Mr. Wels, whose father had been Governor of Hartford. Nothing was done this day, as we expected the promised answer, but did not receive it.

23d ditto. Tuesday morning. We were told that the aforesaid Committee would meet us at Mr. Howard's. We went there. The aforesaid Committee being also come, we demanded an answer in writing to the propositions contained in the delivered letter. They said, that they were come once more to speak with us about the aforesaid towns, as they had endeavored to persuade the Deputies of those towns to remain quiet under our government till farther determination, but that these would not consent to it. That it would therefore be best for as not to claim them, in order to prevent farther mischief. We answered that those of Hartford were the cause of it, as they had, by frequent deputations, drawn the subjects of their High Mightinesses from their oath and allegiance, and had encouraged them to revolt, &c. They did not deny it, but said: It is so now, and we would fain have them remain quiet, but what can we do now that they are included in our Patent, and desire to be received and protected by us, which we cannot deny them? Much was said against this; that they were not included in the Patent; that the Patent mentioned a tract of land in New England and not in New Netherland; that the Governor so understood it himself. They answered, the Governor is but one man. We and more besides us understand it so that our Patent not only takes them in, but extends Northward to the Boston line and Westward to the sea. We asked, in case another Royal Patent should intervene, where would New Netherland then lie? They answered without hesitation: They knew of no New Netherland, unless a Patent for it from his Majesty could be produced. We said, that we had no need of a Patent from any Prince or from their High Mightinesses, by which such a tract of land was given. We appealed to the Charter and to the approval of their High Mightinesses of the Provisional settlement of the limits made at Hartford in the year 1650. They answered, that the Charter is only a commercial Charter, and the said settlement of the limits was only conditional, &c. If you can't show a special Patent for the land, it must fall to us. We said, that the right of their High Mightinesses was indisputable, as appears by first discovery -- purchase from the natives -- most ancient possession, &c. They answered, that they would let us keep as much as was actually possessed and occupied by our nation, but that we could not hinder them from possessing that which was not occupied by our nation. Many objections were made to this, that the possession of part was taken for the possession of the whole, &c., but it availed nothing. They said, we had no right to hinder them from possessing unlocated lands which were comprehended in their Patent, and we could show no Patent from any Prince or State. After many debates pro and con, we asked them, how they would have it for the present, as they had not as yet answered our reasonable proposals. In the mean time, it being noon, they promised to acquaint us, after dinner, with their meaning; [Page 390 / Page 391] whereupon we went with them to the Town Hall, but before we got there a few propositions were shown us by young Mr. Allen and one Willets, a Magistrate of Hartford, containing in substance that, if we would give up all right and title first to Westchester, with all the lands as far as Stanford and, further, divest ourselves of all authority and jurisdiction over the English towns on Long Island, they would then agree farther with us. As these propositions were full of blots (it being the rough draft), we desired that the same might be copied fair, which they undertook to do. In the meantime we dined; after dinner we desired that they would expedite matters, as we had been there so long without effecting anything, upon which they promised to make an end at present. After some talk the following unreasonable articles were delivered to us:
These Articles are recorded in English.
'1st That Westchester and all the people and lands between that and Stanfort shal belonge to the Colony of Connecticutt till it be otherwise issued.
'2d That Connecticut wil for beare exersiseing any Authority over the Plantations of Heamstede, Jamecoe &c. until the Case be further considered, provided the Dutch will forbeare to exercise any Coercive Power towards any off the English Plantations upon Longe Island until there be a Determination off the Case.
'3d It is also agreed that the Issue of these Differances shal be by our mutual Accord or by a third Person or Persons mutually chosen by us or by our Superiors in Europe and that the Magistrates now in Beinge one Long Island in those Plantations shall govern those said Plantations, until there be an Issue of these Differances as aforesaid.
'4th That all and every Person on Longe Island shall be wholly indemnified for all Passages and Transactions respectinge these Affairs to this Day.
'That we mutually advice all Persons concerned both English and Dutch to cary it peaceably Justly and friendly to each other.'
The above Propositions being read by us, we answered: That they were wholly unreasonable and we should not be justified in consenting to them. We desired that they should desist from their pretensions to the towns on Long Island, situate within our government, when we should express ourselves on the other points; but to no purpose. They said, as before, that they could not refuse receiving these towns and defending them against all persons whatsoever, which they said they would also do, &c. Seeing that we did not advance, in order to prevent further encroachments and damages, and being inclined to fix something certain, of which we had no prospect unless we made some concessions, we resolved, for the reasons aforesaid and to obviate further mischief, to make the following offer:
These Proposals are recorded in English.
'Westchester, with the Land and People to Stanfort, shal abide under this Government of Connecticut, til the Time that the Bounds and Limits betwixt the abovesaid Colony and the Province of the New Netherland shall be determined, here by our mutual accord, or by Persons mutual Chosen or by his Royal Majesty of England and the High and Mighty Estates General off the united Provinces. The Plantations of Middleborrow Rustdorp and Hamstede the which are said to revolt and to come under the Colony off Connecticut shall absolutely abide under the Government of New Netherland till the aforesaid Determination, and that the Magistrates for the Time beinge one Long Island in those Plantations shall govern those said Plantations under the said Government until there be an Issue off these Differences as aforesaid. [Page 391 / Page 392]
'That all and every Person one Long Island shall be wholly indemnified for all Passages and Transactions respecting these Affairs to these Day.
'That we mutually advice all Persons concerned both English and Dutch to carry it peaceably Just and friendly each to other.
'That both Parties in Difference namely Connecticut Collony and the Governour and Counsel off New Netherland, shal be Ingaged to use their utmost Endeavours to promote and accomplish the Issuinge off the above Differances.'
Being, at our request, admitted within, and having delivered the above Propositions, which they read, we were answered by some of them, that whether we proposed it or not it was all the same; the aforesaid towns would not continue under us. Others said, that they did not know any Province of New Netherland, but that there was a Dutch Governor over the Dutch Plantation on the Manhatans; that Long Island was included in their Patent and that they would also possess and maintain it, and much more such like discourse.
To the first was answered, that we were assured they would continue under our government if Hartford Colony did not claim a right to them.
To the other, that they had, in the making of the conditional settlement of the limits in the year 1650, acknowledged the Province of New Netherland, &c. But observing we made no progress with them, we desired that the matter might remain as it is at present, till a farther determination of his Majesty and the States-General. To which they answered, that his Majesty's Patent fixed the limits, and if we could not acquiesce in their propositions nothing could be done, but if we would sign them, they would treat farther with us. As we deemed a compliance, on our part, wholly unwarrantable, we desired, if they proposed to make any answer to the letter we delivered, that they would not delay it as we intended to depart early the next day and acquaint the General and Council of New Netherland how we fared. They answered that they would have one ready. After begging of them to take the matter into serious consideration and endeavor, all in their power, to continue everything in peace and unity till his Majesty and the States-General should determine the limits, we took leave. This happening in the afternoon, we went to them again in the evening to know whether the letter was ready. We were answered, that it would be brought to our lodgings, and, as we were resolved to depart next day early in the morning, we took leave of the Assembly as we also did that evening of the Governor to whom we complained that nothing more was done on our reasonable proposals. To which his Excellency answered, that it was so concluded upon in the Assembly, and that he wished something had been fixed upon. We answered, that we had done everything in our power to effect it. After some compliments we took our leave. In the evening a letter was delivered to us with this superscription: These for the Right honourable Peter Stuyvesant, dr Generael at the Manados. We said to the Secretary who brought it, that it ought to be, Director-General at New Netherland. He answered, that it was at our option to receive it or not, &c.
24th ditto. Wednesday. As we were obliged to wait some time for one of our horses, we departed between 8 and 9 o'clock from Hartford and came to New Haven about sun-set.
25th ditto. Thursday morning we left Newhaven and came, about 10 o'clock, to Milford, Towards evening, the tide serving, we went on board our sloop, got out of the creek, and cast anchor, it being very dark. [Page 392 / Page 393]
26th ditto. In the morning, about two hours before day-break, we weighed anchor with a fair wind, and came, in the evening, between 8 and 9 o'clock, to the Manhatans.
Source: O'Callaghan, E. B., ed., Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New-York; Procured in Holland, England and France by John Romeyn Brodhead, Esq., Vol. II, pp. 385-93 (Albany, NY: Weed, Parsons and Company, 1858).

Labels: , ,