How Did Pelham Get Its Name?

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.
Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.
Order a Copy of "The Haunted History of Pelham, New York"
Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."

The precise origins of the name of The Town of Pelham in lower Westchester County, New York, are shrouded in the mists of time. Yet, after years of work by local historians and Pell family genealogists, the origins of the name may be a little clearer. 

The first written use of the term “Pelham” to describe the lands that Thomas Pell purchased from local Wiechquaeskeck Native Americans on June 27, 1654 (old style Julian calendar) appears in the October 20, 1687 patent issued to Thomas Pell’s sole legatee, his nephew John Pell. The patent, signed by New York Governor Thomas Dongan, confirmed John Pell as owner of the lands inherited from his uncle. Those lands included today’s Pelham. The 1687 patent refers to the lands as “the lordship and manner [manor] of Pelham.” 

The lands were known as the “Manor of Pelham” for more than a century until the division of Westchester County into towns on March 7, 1788. As of that date, much of the land that formed the Manor of Pelham became, officially, the “Town of Pelham.” 

For many years, local historians who considered the matter concluded that the name “Pelham” derived from an early English phrase meaning “home of the Pells.” Lockwood Barr, who published a history of Pelham in 1946, wrote that “The word ham was early English for home – so Pelham came to mean the home of the Pells.” 

Barr apparently based his conclusions on the work of earlier historians, including the work of Robert Bolton, Jr. who first published a two-volume history of Westchester County in 1848. That work included a chapter on the Town of Pelham. Bolton wrote in 1848 that “The name itself is of Saxon origin, and compounded of the two words Pel (remote) and Ham (mansion.) The former, being the ancient surname of the manorial proprietors, affords us a very good reason for its adoption in connection with the last.” 

Monumental work by Pell family genealogists in the last sixty years, however, has cast substantial doubt on Bolton’s theory. Although the matter is not free from doubt, the explanation may be simpler than Bolton supposed. 

Thomas Pell, born in 1612, and his brother, John, never knew their parents well. The boys lost their mother and, a little later, their father by the time young Thomas was about four years old. A stepmother and two of their parents’ “Trustees” reportedly raised the boys. One of the “Trustees,” also the “Overseer” of John Pell’s will, was a man named Pelham Burton. Many now believe that Thomas Pell named the area “Pelham” in honor of his father figure, Pelham Burton. 

Who was Pelham Burton? Some have described him as Thomas Pell’s “tutor.” Pelham Burton, however, was far more than a tutor. He was Thomas Pell’s family friend, benefactor, legal guardian, and surrogate father. 

Pelham Burton seems to have been the single most important figure in the life of young Thomas. Thomas Pell’s mother, Mary, died in February, 1614/15. His father remarried to Joanne Gravette, but died a short time later on April 14, 1616/17. According to PELLIANA, a genealogical publication about the Pell family: 

“The boys were orphaned when Mary, first, and then John, their father, died and were raised and educated by their stepmother Joanne Gravett Pell and John’s ‘Trustees’ or Executors, Pelham Burton and the Reverend Richard Vernon, Rector of Eastbourne.” 

Just as Pelham Burton cannot be described merely as Thomas Pell’s tutor, he likewise cannot be described as a mere “Executor” of the will of Thomas Pell’s father. Rather, Pelham Burton became, in effect, a surrogate father to Thomas. 

As the “Overseer” of John Pell’s will, Pelham Burton served as legal guardian of Thomas and his brother. According to PELLIANA, Burton “took in the boys and their widowed stepmother, made them a home at Compton Place and directed their education”. He sent them to the local “Free School” where the boys received a classic Latin education designed to prepare them to “read” for matriculation into Oxford or Cambridge. 

Pelham Burton was a member of the local gentry and an honorable and respected member of the Southwyck community. According to genealogical research by the Pell family, Pelham Burton “took a prominent part” in the affairs of the Sussex area in England in the early 17th century. In addition, he built Compton Place, the estate where he brought the boys and their stepmother upon the death of the boys’ father. That magnificent estate later became one of the residences of the Duke of Devonshire. 

There is no known documentary evidence that would prove that Pelham derives its name from Thomas Pell’s legal guardian and surrogate father, Pelham Burton. But, documentary evidence strongly suggests that Pelham Burton was an extraordinarily strong and positive influence on young Thomas Pell. This seems to provide overwhelming support for the theory that later in his adult life, Thomas paid homage to the only “father” he had ever known – Pelham Burton – and named the lands he purchased from local Wiechquaeskeck Native Americans 365 years ago “Pelham.”

Though There is No Known Image of Pelham Founder Thomas Pell,

This Drawing by Thom Lafferty, Based on an Original by an Unknown

Artist, Depicts Pell as the Artist Imagined Him.  NOTE:  Click on Image to Enlarge.

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.
Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.
Order a Copy of "The Haunted History of Pelham, New York"
Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."

How Extensive Did Thomas Pell Believe His Land Acquisition from Local Wiechquaeskecks To Be?

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.
Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.
Order a Copy of "The Haunted History of Pelham, New York"
Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."

For nearly 150 years, Pelham lore held that Thomas Pell's land purchase from local Natives on June 27, 1654 (old style Julian Calendar) involved 9,166 acres.  During the late 1980s, Pelham Town Historian Susan Swanson reviewed primary sources and demonstrated that Pelham lore was flatly wrong.  Pell's purchase involved up to roughly 50,000 acres of land in today's Bronx and lower Westchester County.  What lands, however, did Pell believe he acquired from local Wiechquaeskecks?

The agreement Pell signed with local Natives that day provides some evidence of the lands Pell believed he bought in 1654.  It describes the lands as follows:

"a piece of land Bounded by ye Sea to ye South wth yt Tract off land Called by ye English Longe Island; to ye west & west & by South wth ye bay & River & River Diawockinge Acqueonunge (Chemaqūanaock to ye East) wth all ye Islands yt are in ye salt water to ye South South East & South West Against yt Tract off Land wch is Beffore expresd."

In his history of the Town of Pelham published in 1946, Lockwood Barr described the bounds of the purchase in modern terms, stating:

"This treaty [sic] conveyed to Thomas Pell the lands east of Hutchinson River to Mamaroneck, including City Island, Hunter's Island, Travers Island and all the others, large and small, bordering the Shore. On the mainland, the tract included Pells Point, all the Pelhams, and New Rochelle. West of the River it included the Town of East Chester, part of Mt. Vernon, and a portion of the Bronx."

Source:  Barr, Lockwood Anderson, A Brief, But Most Complete & True Account of the Settlement of the Ancient Town of Pelham Westchester County, State of New York Known One Time Well & Favourably as the Lordshipp & Manour of Pelham Also The Story of the Three Modern Villages Called The Pelhams, pp. 12-13 (The Dietz Press, Inc. 1946).

A variety of conveyances of portions of the property by Thomas Pell (and by his legatee nephew and nephew's wife, John and Rachel Pell) as well as lawsuits over disputed boundaries of the land Pell purchased shed fascinating light on the extent of the lands that Pell believed he purchased from the Natives and demonstrates that Pell understood his purchase to encompass lands explicitly claimed by the Dutch on which the Dutch previously had planted settlers in 1643 and, perhaps, earlier.  

Pell clearly believed his purchase to extend from Long Island Sound (while including numerous islands off the shores of the mainland) westward to the Bronx River.  Clearly he also understood it to extend southwest of Eastchester Bay to encompass not only today's Throgg's Neck but also the entire mainland from Throgg's Neck to the Bronx River and extending all the way to the mouth of the Bronx River where it enters Long Island Sound (including Cornell's Neck, an area now known as Clason Point in the Bronx).  To the north, Pell clearly believed his land holdings extended into portions of today's Mamaroneck on the coast and even as far as an area slightly beyond the northwestern tip of today's City of New Rochelle.

This, indeed, was a vast swath of land nearly six times the size of the 9,166 acres of land that most historians claim Pell purchased.  See, e.g., Bolton, Jr., Robert, A History of the County of Westchester from its First Settlement to the Present Time, Vol. I, p. 513 (NY, NY: Alexander S. Gould, 1848) (noting that Pell's purchase "originally embraced nine thousand one hundred and sixty-six acres"). 

What evidence do have that Pell understood his purchase to be that large?  First, by November 14, 1654, only months after his purchase, Pell planted a group of English settlers in a settlement that became known as "West Chester" by the English and "Oostdorp" by the Dutch.  Indeed, it appears that on November 14, 1654 (old style; Julian calendar), Thomas Pell entered into some form of agreement selling the portion of his lands that became the little settlement of West Chester to the English settlers.  Before the settlers paid (or completed payment) for the lands, there arose "some troubles which hindered the underwriters possession". That trouble, of course, was the intervention of Dutch authorities who arrested and imprisoned many of the settlers claiming that they had settled on land owned by the Dutch. Ten years later, Pell seems to have "settled" this longstanding matter by obtaining written confirmation from the inhabitants of the Town of West Chester that he remained the owner of the land because they (or their predecessors) had not paid Pell for the land. At the same time, Pell affirmed in writing that the inhabitants could continue to "enjoy the present improvements of Their labors, Their home Lotts, and planting grounds with what meadowes were in times past laid out to each man's particular". In short, he affirmed that he would not evict them from the land.  For more, see Mon., Nov. 06, 2006:  The Source of Confusion Over the Date Thomas Pell Acquired the Lands That Became the Manor of Pelham. 

Next, on June 24, 1664, Thomas Pell sold lands between the Hutchinson River and the Bronx River to Phillip Pinckney and James Eustis from Fairfield, Connecticut who, in turn, arranged for ten Puritan families to come by boat in August of that year to settle on a portion of the land previously occupied by Anne Hutchinson before her murder by local Natives in 1643.  Those lands included today's Town of Eastchester, City of Mount Vernon, and portions of the Bronx.

Two years later, in 1666, Pell became embroiled in a significant lawsuit with Charles Bridges and Sarah Cornell Bridges disputing ownership of Cornell's Neck.  The map immediately below illustrates the location of Cornell's and its relationship to Pelham Neck, the settlement of Westchester, and Throgg's Neck. 

Map Showing Location of Cornell's Neck and its Relation to the

Settlement of Westchester, Throggs Neck, and Pelham Neck.

Source:  Cornell, John, Genealogy of the Cornell Family Being

an Account of the Descendants of Thomas Cornell of Portsmouth,

R. I., Opposite p. 21 (NY, NY:  Press of T. A. Wright, 1902).

NOTE: Click on Image to Enlarge.

Pell claimed ownership of the region including Cornell's Neck and argued, essentially, that the claims of Charles Bridges and Sarah Cornell Bridges to the land derived from a chain of title that began with an award of the land by Dutch Colonial authorities which, according to Pell, had no ownership of, or right and title to, the land.  Eventually the court rejected the positions taken by Pell.

Next, only two weeks before Thomas Pell died in late September, 1669, John Richbell of Mamaroneck started a lawsuit against him claiming that he "Doe unjustly detaine & keep from him a certain parcell of meadowe Ground lyeing & being neare unto or upon one of ye three necks of Land at Momoronock."  Pell claimed these lands as part of his original purchase.  Richbell also claimed the lands.

The death of Thomas Pell two weeks after John Richbell first demanded a hearing on the matter before the Court of Assizes seems to have brought the matter to a halt for quite some time.  In the interim, Thomas Pell's nephew, John Pell, became the principal legatee under Thomas Pell's will and succeeded to his estate including his large land interests.

Eventually, Francis Lovelace, Governor of the Province of New York, stepped into the matter and appointed a group of Commissioners to make recommendations regarding resolution of the dispute.  The Commissioners could not agree on a resolution. Interestingly, however, they reported to Governor that they had discovered a tree in the disputed meadow "markt on ye East side with J. R. [John Richbell] & on the West with T. P. [Thomas Pell]" from which, if a line were drawn from the tree directly toward Long Island Sound, would divide the meadow exactly in half.  Though the Commissioners did not resolve the dispute, Governor Lovelace ordered Pell and Richbell to consider the report and attempt to resolve the matter before a trial would be conducted.  On January 25, 1671/72, the men reportedly settled the matter and "agreed upon [the land] to bee divided equally between them, both Meadow & Vpland, quanity & quality alike."  Consequently, a portion of the lands originally claimed by Thomas Pell were confirmed as the property of John Richbell due to his purchase from "Cakoe," a local Native who sold the land to Richbell and likely was the "Cockho" who was among the local Natives who signed the Pell Deed in 1654.  See Tue., Oct. 24, 2006:  Thomas Pell's and John Pell's Land Dispute with John Richbell in the Late 1660s and Early 1670s.

Two decades after Thomas Pell's death, on September 20, 1689, Pell's principal legatee and nephew, John Pell, and John Pell's wife (Rachel) conveyed to Jacob Leisler of New York City 6,100 acres of land that had formed portions of the northeastern part of Thomas Pell's original land acquisition in 1654.  See Fri., Apr. 06, 2007:  The Deed Reflecting John Pell's Sale of the Lands that Became New Rochelle.  

Finally, of course, in 1895, New York City annexed a large part of the Town of Pelham including Pelham Bay Park, City Island, and other islands nearby.  All of these lands likewise were part of Pell's original purchase.  Out of roughly 50,000 acres that Pell believed comprised his original purchase from local Natives, only slightly less than 1,570 acres of remain within the boundaries of today's Town of Pelham.

During the 1980s, then Town Historian Sue Swanson reviewed material and crafted a map that serves as a powerful visual aid to understand the magnitude of the lands that Thomas Pell believed he bought from local Wichquaeskecks in 1654.  An image of the map appears immediately below.

Map of Pell's Purchase from the Indians and Pelham Today

by Susan Swanson, Former Town Historian of the Town of

Pelham.  NOTE:  Click on Image to Enlarge.

Another such map sheds similar light on the monumental scope of Pell's original purchase.  Although the map does not purport to depict the entire area acquired by Pell, it is an early map that helps understand the size of the purchase.  It is a map prepared in 1708 in connection with efforts begun in 1704 to have John Drake, Henry Fowler, Joseph Drake, Edmund Ward and Jeremiah Fowler act on behalf of the freeholders of the town of Eastchester in connection with procuring a patent for local lands as they sought to clarify a land dispute with the settlement of Westchester.  The map was entitled "A Draft of the Lands in Controversy Between the Inhabitants of East Chester Joynd with William Pear Tree & Surveyed & Laid Down 1st August - Graham Lell."  An image of a later copy of the map appears immediately below.

"A Draft of the Lands In Controversy Between the Inhabitants of

Westchester & the Inhabitants of East Chester Joynd with William

Pear Tree & Surveyed & Laid Down 1st August - Graham Lell" prepared

by Colonel William Peartree in 1708. NOTE:  Click on Image to Enlarge.

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.
Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.
Order a Copy of "The Haunted History of Pelham, New York"
Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."

What Was Pelham Like in the 1660s?

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.
Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.
Order a Copy of "The Haunted History of Pelham, New York"
Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."

What was Pelham like during the 1660s, barely a decade after Thomas Pell acquired the land from local Native Americans on June 27, 1654?  It is possible to tease a little from 17th century records to help piece together an answer to this question.

It seems that today's Pelham Neck on the mainland and City Island in Long Island Sound were the centerpieces of the Manor of Pelham during the 1660s.  We know from an inventory of Thomas Pell's estate at the time of his death in late September, 1669 that Pell had a working farm on today's Pelham Neck, known then as Ann Hook's Neck (various spellings).  See:

Fri., Jun. 24, 2016:  Archival Record of the Last Will and Testament and Estate Inventory of Pelham Founder Thomas Pell.

Wed., Dec. 10, 2014:  Did Pelham Founder Thomas Pell Have a Residence in Pelham?

Mon., Mar. 31, 2014:  Inventory of the Estate of Pelham Founder Thomas Pell Taken Shortly After He Died in Late September, 1669.

Wed., Mar. 07, 2007:  Published Abstract of 1669 Will of Thomas Pell, Followed by Entire Text of Will of Thomas Pell.

Though Thomas Pell never lived in Pelham, he clearly seems to have maintained a farmhouse on Ann Hook's Neck in the Manor of Pelham presumably as a base for when he visited his Pelham property and, perhaps, as a caretaker residence (although records have not yet revealed whether he actually employed a caretaker).

Apart from the fact that the Neck of land at issue (Ann Hook's Neck) has long been known as "Pell's Point," as early as the 18th century, tradition in Pelham also held that Thomas Pell had a farmhouse that stood near the end of Ann Hook's Neck on the site of the old Bowne homestead.  Although the references to such effect are numerous, one example comes from Bolton's 1881 edition of The History of Westchester County. It states: 

"Pelham Neck is terminated by the property of the late Gilbert Bowne. On the site of the dwelling-house, stood the residence of Thomas Pell, Esq., first lord of the manor. Perhaps the finest view of City Island and the adjacent waters are to be had from this portion of the Point." 

Source:  Bolton, Robert, The History of The Several Towns, Manors, and Patents of the County of Westchester, From Its First Settlement to the Present Time, Vol. II, p. 71 (NY, NY: Chas. F. Roper, 1881). 

Thus, it appears that during the 1660s near the tip of Pelham Neck (today's Rodman's Neck) there stood the Pell farmhouse looking out over City Island and the Long Island Sound.  There likely was at least one residence on City Island after about 1668 -- that of Ralph and Mary Hall who had fled from Setauket, Long Island (today's Town of Brookhaven) after being tried for witchcraft and sorcery.  See Drake, Samuel G., Annals of Witchcraft in New England and Elsewhere in the United States from their First Settlement Drawn Up from Unpublished and Other Well Authenticated Records of the Alleged Operations of Witches and Their Instigator, the Devil, pp. 125-27 (NY, NY: Burt Franklin 1869) ("Under these Bonds they continued until the 21st of August, 1668, at which Time 'they were living upon the Great Miniford's Island.'").  See also Tue., Jun. 12, 2018:  Original Records of Witchcraft Trial of Ralph and Mary Hall Who Afterward Fled to the Manor of Pelham (and materials cited therein).

Pelham Neck may well have been used to graze cattle during the 1660s.  Indeed, records of the Court of Assizes suggest that one of Thomas Pell's friends, William Newman of Stamford, Connecticut, may have grazed cattle on the Neck at some time prior to September 1, 1668.  (William Newman was among the Englishmen who witnessed the signing of Thomas Pell's so-called "Indian Deed" on June 27, 1654, and who signed the document as such a witness.)

William Newman appears in the records of the Colony of New Haven as early as February 26, 1640/41.  The next year William Newman became one of the founding settlers of Stamford, together with Richard Crabb, John Finch and Henry Ackerly. In October, 1642 he received two acres of marshland and three acres of woodland in Stamford.

According to one historian, William Newman “was evidently a man of note in the young colony, and once represented the town in the General Court.”  He remained in Stamford for a number of years.  In fact, on July 8, 1652, he and Richard Crabb (another Englishman who signed the Pell Deed) signed as witnesses to the last will and testament of Robert Hussted of Stamford.  The records also suggest that William Newman occasionally acted as an attorney on behalf of Stamford residents.

It is also possible that Newman had some experience at some point as a cobbler or, perhaps, a shoe dealer.  In 1659, after the Colony of New Haven received complaints from residents regarding disputes over the “sizes of shoes” sold to them, the Court turned to William Newman for help.  Court records indicate that Newman had an instrument that he had brought from England that “was thought to be right to determine this question.”  Thus, the Court ordered that the instrument be procured from Newman and used to develop a standard “which shall be the rule between buyer and seller, to which it is required that all sizes be conformed.”

Shortly before signing Thomas Pell’s deed, William Newman was involved in a series of events that shed important light on Thomas Pell’s reasons for moving to acquire the lands in question.

In March, 1653/54, the Magistrates and Deputies of the Colony of New Haven hauled a man named Robert Bassett before the General Court.  At the time, the First Anglo-Dutch War was underway, though there had been no fighting among the Dutch and English colonies in North America.  The Court charged Bassett with carrying on an “insurrection” against the Colony of New Haven by attempting “to raise volunteeres to goe against the Duch . . . wthout any approbation from authority here, so that he hath bine a ringleader in these wayes of disturbance and undermining the gouermt of the jurisidiction, and this hath bine contrary to his oath of fidellitie taken to this jurisdiction.”

The Court demanded that Bassett name his confederates.  He named several Stamford residents including William Newman noting that each was “unsatisfied wth the gouerment of the jurisdiction because they have not their votes.”  The Court ordered Newman and others to appear at its next session.

Newman and the others appeared before the General Court on March 22, 1653/54. The Court charged Newman with being “one of the disturbers of ye peace of Stamford, in pleading for such libertie in votes as would overthrow the foundations of gouerment here laid, wch by his oath hee should have upheld and maintayned”.

The Court found all the parties guilty as charged, but saved the most severe punishments for confederates John Chapman and Jeremiah Jagger.  As for William Newman, the Court directed that he “enter bond to the valew of twenty pound, to attend his oath of fidellitie hereafter and maintayn the foundations laide for gouerment here and the lawes of the jurisdiction, to the utmost of his abillitie, avoyding all wayes of disturbance in this kinde wch he hath formerly gon on in.”  The Court required all of the offenders to execute an agreement promising to post bonds for good behavior and reaffirming their oaths of fidelity to the Colony of New Haven.

Despite such difficulties, William Newman remained in Stamford.  For example, on May 31, 1658, he appeared in court to pursue an unspecified action against Peter Disbrow.  Two years later, Newman testified on October 13, 1660 in a lawsuit over ownership of a horse brought by John Archer of Stamford against Francis Brown of Stamford. In that testimony, he described himself as “aged about 50 yeares”.

Sixteen years later, in 1676, a “William Newman” described as a “planter of Stamford”, sold land to John Austin, a “taylor” of Stamford. Newman’s will, dated “7.9.1673”, names as his legatees a wife named Elizabeth and his children “Thomas, Daniel, John, ---------, Elizabeth, and Hannah”. The will also mentions his brother, John.  (For more on William Newman and citations supporting these references, see Bell, Blake A., The New Englanders Who Signed Thomas Pell's 1654 Agreement Acquiring Much of Today's Bronx and Lower Westchester Counties From Native Americans, The Bronx County Historical Society Journal, Vol. XLVI, Nos. 1 & 2, pp. 25-49 (Spring / Fall, 2009).

William Newman of Stamford, therefore, had known Thomas Pell for many years when, in 1668, he became involved in a dispute with another Stamford resident named William Graves.  Graves brought a lawsuit alleging "Debt and damage" against Newman and, on September 1, 1668, obtained from the Court of Assizes led by the new Governor of the Colony of New York, Francis Lovelace, a warrant "to attach certain cattle found on Anne Hookes Neck and belonging to William Newman of Stamford, Conn."

The warrant directed the Constable of West-Chester "to attach so many of the Cattle or other Goods, as you shall find upon the said neck of Land or within the precincts of your Towne belonging unto the said William Newman, to the value of therty pounds good pay, or that you take sufficient security or sec[ ]rityes for the Appearance of him the said William Newman at the next Generall Court of Assizes, to be helden in this City begin[ ]ing on the first day of October next."  (See transcription and citation below.)

The special warrant of attachment was never served on William Newman.  It turned out that no cattle or other goods belonging to Newman were found on Thomas Pell's lands at Pell's Point.  Moreover, as a Stamford resident in the Colony of Connecticut, William Newman resided outside the jurisdiction of the New York Court of Assizes.  

Both the dispute involving William Newman and the inventory of Thomas Pell's estate at the time of his death strongly suggest that cattle grazed on the Pell farm overlooking City Island on Pell's Point in the 1660s.  

At the time, there were two small settlements near Pell's Point:  West Chester and Eastchester, both of which stood on lands sold to the settlers by Thomas Pell from his Manor of Pelham lands.  The roadway from West Chester to the edge of Throgg's Neck and Eastchester Bay existed, but likely as little more than a broad pathway.  There also likely was a Native American path parallel to the shore on the opposite side of Eastchester Bay along the route of today's Shore Road.  See Fri., Oct. 14, 2016:  Early History of Pelham's Ancient Shore Road, Long an Important Pelham Thoroughfare Along Long Island Sound.  

At the time, Native American trails crossed the Manor of Pelham.  Native Americans remained in the area and likely visited (and even planted and hunted on) Thomas Pell's lands.  It is not unreasonable to surmise this since many 17th century records indicate that once Thomas Pell's nephew, John Pell, inherited the Manor of Pelham, Native Americans continued to frequent the lands even during King Philip's War.  See Tue., Mar. 25, 2014:  More 17th Century References to Native Americans in the Manor of Pelham.  

Although the Old Boston Post Road (today's Colonial Avenue) did not exist until later when it was laid out through the Manor of Pelham, in part, by Thomas Pell's nephew, John Pell, an Indian trail followed its route through Pelham.  There likely were edible blackshaw shrubs, starved panicgrass, prairie fleabane, blackberries, blueberries, strawberries, and more.

Apart from the foregoing, the Manor of Pelham during the 1660s likely was mostly virgin, old-growth forest with lush salt marshes along the coast and nearby islands.  There likely were vast old-growth groves of various types of oak trees, beech trees, black-cherry trees, and up to another 150 species of trees.  Seventeenth century wildlife in Pelham likely included white tail deer, wolves, turkeys, rabbits, perhaps a few beavers and bears, plovers, squirrels, snapping turtles, eagles, hawks, ospreys, ducks, songbirds,  and even rattlesnakes.

Yes, our region was very, very different in the 1660s.  Our little Town of Pelham was not yet even a gleam in the eye of anyone then alive.  Look, however, at what it has become nearly four centuries later. . . . . 

Detail from 1776 Map by Charles Blaskowitz Showing Portions of Pell's

Point and Eastchester Bay. Source: Blaskowitz, Charles, A survey of Frog's

Neck and the rout[e] of the British Army to the 24th of October 1776,

under the command of His Excellency the Honorable William Howe,

General and Commander in Chief of His Majesty's forces, &ca, &ca, &ca.

(1776) (Library of Congress Geography and Map Division Washington,

D.C. 20540-4650 USA; Digital Id g3802t ar115200; Library of Congress

Catalog Number gm71000648).  NOTE:  Click to Enlarge Image.

*          *          *          *          *

"[162-163]

[CALENDAR:  Sept. 1.  Constable of West-Chester to attach certain cattle found on Anne Hookes Neck and belonging to William Newman of Stamford, Conn., or take security for the appearance of Newman to answer complaint of William Graves.]

[Text:}

[William] Graves Plt.
[William Newm]an Deft.

[. . . several lines lost . . .] being informed that the said Newman hath Cattle within this Government upon Anne Hookes Neck, capable to make satisfaction for the Same; These are in his Majesties name to require you, to attach so many of the Cattle or other Goods, as you Shall find upon the said neck of Land or within the precincts of your Towne belonging unto the said William Newman, to the value of therty pounds good pay, or that you take sufficient security or sec[ ]rityes for the Appearance of him the said William Newman at the next Generall Court of Assizes, to be helden in this City begin[ ]ing on the first day of October next, then [   ] there to make answer unto the complaint [   ] the said William Graves in an Action [   ] Debt and damage:  Whereof you are to [   ] true Returne at the Secretary off [     ] your hand, and for your so doeing th[     ] Speciall warrant.  Given und[     ] Seale this 1st day of [     ]mes in New Yor[     ]

Fra[     ]

[MOULTON:  The first judicial act of Gov. Lovelace on record is a warrant dated 1st Sept. 1668 directed to the Constable of West Chester, commanding him to attach certain cattle belonging to a non resident Debtor in behalf of a resident Creditor to the amount of 30 pounds, or take sufficient security from the owner, for his appearances at the next assize on the 1st Oct. next, to make answer to the complaint of Pltf. in an action of debt and damage, whereof you (the constable) are to make return to the Secretarys office, and for so doing this shall be your 'speciall warrant.']"

Source:  Christoph, Peter R. & Christoph, Florence A., eds., New York Historical Manuscripts: English -- Records of the Court of Assizes for the Colony of New York, 1665-1682, p. 74 (Baltimore, MD: Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc. 1983).

"[178]

[CALENDAR:  William Graves vs. William Newman.  Not tried, because no goods of defendant were found nor does the defendant live within the jurisdiction of the court.  Speciall warrant of attachment never served.]

[TEXT:]

William Graves Plt.
William Newman Deft.

This Cause came not to a hearing or Tryall  The Plt. having not found any goods of the Deft. within this Government And the Deft. living in another Jurisdiction, was not summoned nor was the Speciall Warrant of Attachment ever served."

Source:  Christoph, Peter R. & Christoph, Florence A., eds., New York Historical Manuscripts: English -- Records of the Court of Assizes for the Colony of New York, 1665-1682, p. 82 (Baltimore, MD: Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc. 1983).

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.
Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.
Order a Copy of "The Haunted History of Pelham, New York"
Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."

John Banks, One of Two Executors of the Will of Pelham Founder Thomas Pell

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.
Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.
Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."

Recently I have analyzed the Last Will and Testament of Pelham founder Thomas Pell, executed on September 21, 1669, only days before his death.  I am trying better to understand Thomas Pell, his life, and times through such primary sources.  I have written about Thomas Pell, his will, and an inventory of that portion of his estate located in New York at the time of his death before.  See:  

Tue., Jun. 28, 2016:  Who Was Daniel Burr, an Executor of the Will of Pelham Founder Thomas Pell?

Fri., Jun. 24, 2016:  Archival Record of the Last Will and Testament and Estate Inventory of Pelham Founder Thomas Pell.  

Wed., Mar. 07, 2007: Published Abstract of 1669 Will of Thomas Pell, Followed by Entire Text of Will of Thomas Pell. 

Mon., Mar. 31, 2014:  Inventory of the Estate of Pelham Founder Thomas Pell Taken Shortly After He Died in Late September, 1669.

Today's posting to the Historic Pelham Blog collects information about "John Bankes" (i.e., Banks) who was one of the two men named to serve as "Executors of Trust" of the Last Will and Testament of Thomas Pell.  The principal purpose, of course, is not to document data about John Banks, but to shed light on the life of Pelham founder Thomas Pell.  

John Banks was born about 1619 in England.  He died January 22, 1684/5 in Greenwich, Fairfield County, Colony of Connecticut.  The reliable record seems unclear regarding when John Banks arrived in New England.  Though undocumented, one source claims he came from Yorkshire, England in 1630 in the ship Mary and Jane.  See Mead, Spencer P., Ye Historie of Ye Town of Greenwich, County of Fairfield and State of Connecticut, p. 495 (Knickerbocker Press, 1911).  

Banks seems to have settled first at Windsor in the Colony of Connecticut, though later he moved to Fairfield.  In 1643 he was clerk for weights and measures in Windsor.  

Clearly John Banks was both a respected and beloved citizen of the region.  He served for eighteen sessions in the Legislature of the Colony of Connecticut from Fairfield and Rye (once part of Connecticut, but now part of New York).  He served as deputy in the Legislature from Fairfield in 1651, 1661, 1663, 1664, 1665, 1666, 1673, 1674, 1675, 1676, 1677, 1678, 1679, 1680, 1682, and 1683.  He served as deputy from Rye (now part of New York) in 1673.  

In 1666 Banks served as a Commissioner for Fairfield and a member of the War Council in 1675 and 1676.  Bankes was an attorney who played a prominent role in a witchcraft-related lawsuit in Magistrate's Court.  Banks represented Thomas Staples who claimed that Deputy-Governor of the Colony of Connecticut Roger Ludlow had defamed his wife by repeating what are believed to be allegations of witchcraft that reportedly were made by Goodwife Knapp to Ludlow as she stood at the gallows shortly before she was hanged for witchcraft in 1653.  I have written before about the witchcraft persecution of Goody Knapp and the related defamation lawsuit by Thomas Staples that followed.  See:

Mon., Apr. 18, 2016:  Another Account of the 1653 Witchcraft Trial of Goodwife Knapp In Which Thomas Pell's Wife Testified.

Fri., Jul. 07, 2006:  The Involvement of Thomas Pell's Family in the Witchcraft Persecution of Goody Knapp. 

Thu., Oct. 30, 2014:  Did Thomas Pell Act on Pangs of Remorse After Witchcraft Persecution Involving His Family? 

Bell, Blake A., The Involvement of Thomas Pell's Family in the Witchcraft Persecution of Goody Knapp, The Pelham Weekly, Vol. XIII, No. 4, Jan. 23, 2004, p. 11, col. 1.

According to researchers who have documented the life of John Banks:

"John Banks was a lawyer.  On 12 Jan 1649, he bought the Daniel Frost home and land there.  On 4 Feb 1665, he bought land from Indians on Aspebuck River.  Witnesses were Thomas Lyon, William Ward, Joseph Lumas and Matthew Sherwood. (Fairfield Probate Records, vol 3, 1675-1900)  Between 1651 and 1666, he was several times Fairfield deputy in the Connecticut legislature. He founded the town of Rye, CT and represented the town, 1670-73, and owned land there.  He laid out the town square in Fairfield to which he then returned.  He was called sergeant at his death [However in Power-Banks Ancestry he says this probably refers to his son John]. [Note: the references to Rye, CT apparently refer to today's Rye, NY, which is near to Fairfield, CT.] (Info from the History of Fairfield, Fairfield County, Connecticut, from the Settlement of the Town in 1639 to 1818, by Elizabeth H. Schenck, vol I, 1889, as provided by Anita Jones). . . .

In 1673, John Banks was sent to the Dutch governor of New York to protest against interference with the English colony on Long Island.  Governor Colve put him under restraint for 15 days.  He returned reporting Colve was insolent and unpopular there.  In 1675, John was on a committee to run a boundary line between New York and Connecticut, from Mamoroneck to the Hudson.  He was on another boundary committee in 1684. (Powers-Banks Ancestry, by William H. Powers, 1921, p 99 - no source listed -- Powers suggests that Banks was particularly interested in the boundary because of his propertry in Rye, NY)  Powers also indicates Schenck's history lists Banks as a frequent bearer of dispatches to Gov. Andros in NY & in 1678 was on a committee to hear the claim of Tunstacken.  However, his usual occupation later in life seems to have been as surveyor, where he fixed the boundaries of a number of southwestern Connecticut towns. (In NY State Archives, vol II, is mention that John Bankes, messenger of the Secretary of Connecticut to the Dutch at Ft. William Hendrick -- apparently confirmed by the Dutch. Gov. Winthrop wrote to the Dutch about this, Oct 1673)."

Source:  Compilation Project All Deceased Banks & Bankes Persons of European Origin in the U.S. & Their Immediate Families (visited Jun. 25, 2016).  

Clearly John Banks was a prominent, respected, and successful member of the community.  Thomas Pell likely chose Banks to serve as an executor of his will not only because he was an attorney, but also because his prominence, age, and wisdom might counter-balance the comparative inexperience of Pell's 30-year-old co-executor, Daniel Burr, the husband of a granddaughter of Pell's wife, Lucy Brewster Pell.  

"Thomas Pell" by Thom Lafferty from an Original by

an Unknown Artist Who Imagined Pell as He Would

Look. There Are No Known Images of Thomas Pell.

NOTE: Click on Image to Enlarge.

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.
Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.

Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."  

Who Was Daniel Burr, an Executor of the Will of Pelham Founder Thomas Pell?

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.
Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.
Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."

Daniel Burr served with John Bankes as an Executor of the Last Will and Testament of Pelham Founder Thomas Pell.  Moreover, in his will, Thomas Pell left to Daniel Burr the following:

"all my horses & horse colts wch. I have in New England & in ye Territoryes of ye Duke of Yorke / I except my Mares and Mare Colts wch. I doo not give him. I except my saddle gelding, wch. my heire is to have if he come over otherwise Daniel Burr is to have him. Daniell Burr is to take ye Horse Flesh as they Run wth. out any further delivery."

In addition, Pell bequeathed to Abigail Burr, "ye wife of Daniell Burr" the following:  

"ye best bed in my house in Fairfield & Boulstis, wth. Two Blancoates & a Rug & Dormink suite of curtains six cushions, Two paire of sheets, six chairs, The Brewing Kettle in use, Two new keelers, a brewing Tub, six silver spoons, wth. ye use of all ye plate in the house, if she desire of my Executors of Trust, till my heire or heires come or send his or their order how or wch. way all things shall be disposed of."

In addition to Daniel Burr's designation as trusted executor of Thomas Pell's will, these substantial bequests to Daniel Burr and his wife, Abigail, suggest that Daniel and Abigail were close to Thomas Pell at the time of his death.  But, who were Daniel and Abigail Burr?  Research has revealed the answer.

"Thomas Pell" by Thom Lafferty from an Original by an

Unknown Artist Who Imagined Pell as He Would Look

There Are No Known Images of Thomas Pell.

NOTE: Click on Image to Enlarge.

Jehu Burr, Father of Daniel Burr

Many believe Daniel Burr was a son of Jehu Burr (whose wife is unknown).  Jehu Burr arrived in New England on the John Winthrop Fleet in early 1630.  He settled in Roxbury in Massachusetts Bay Colony and became overseer of bridges in the Boston region of the Colony in about 1635.  In 1636, Jehu Burr, six other men, and their families moved to an area then known as Agawam (now Springfield, Massachusetts). They acquired land from local Native Americans and carved a small settlement out of the wilderness there.  

In about 1644, Jehu Burr and his family moved from Agawam in Massachusetts Bay Colony to Uncowau (today's Fairfield) in the nearby Colony of Connecticut.  He quickly became a prominent citizen in Fairfield and, in 1645, he represented the tiny settlement at the General Court.  

Over the next twenty years, Jehu Burr was a prominent citizen active in the affairs of Fairfield.  He was appointed as one of two commissioners to solicit funds at the order of the General Court of Connecticut to fund improvements to the educational system.  He served as a Grand Juror.  He was appointed a Commissioner for Fairfield and was reappointed to that position in 1664 and 1668.  It appears, based on a deed in the Fairfield Records dated January 12, 1673 referencing a grant of land to his son, John Burr, made "by will of his father," it appears that Jehu Burr died in late 1672 or early 1673.

To learn more about Jehu Burr, see The Burr Family of Fairfield, CT:  Jehu Burr (visited Jun. 19, 2016).

Daniel Burr

Many believe that at the time of his death, Jehu Burr left four sons:  Jehu, Jr., John, Daniel, and Nathaniel.  All four sons lived and died in Fairfield in the Colony of Connecticut.  Daniel Burr was born about 1639, likely in Agawam (now Springfield) in the Massachusetts Bay Colony.  References to Daniel Burr in the records of the Colony of Fairfield are rather sparse.  According to one genealogist, such records reflecting Daniel Burr show that:  

"May 15, 1668, he bought of Andrew Ward one corner lot with all the appurtenances thereto belonging: at the same time he received a grant of 13 acres from the town, and also bought several parcels of land; in 1681 he exchanged with the town 2 parcels of land and bought a large tract; in 1683 he again appears as a large purchaser of land. His long lot was separated from [his brother] Nathaniel's by Burr's highway, and was 24 rods, 23 links in width."  See id.  

At the time Thomas Pell named Daniel Burr an executor of his will, Burr was about thirty years old and, according to Pell's will, was married to "Abigail."  Abigail Brewster Burr was a daughter of Rev. Nathaniel Brewster of Brookhaven, Long Island.  Nathaniel Brewster, in turn, was a stepson of Thomas Pell, who married Nathaniel Brewster's mother, Lucy Brewster, widow of Francis Brewster of Fairfield.  In short, Abigail was a granddaughter of Lucy Brewster Pell, Thomas Pell's wife.  See Jacobus, Donald Lines, History and Genealogy of the Families of Old Fairfield, Vol. I, p. 123 (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1976) (available digitally via Ancestry.com; visited Jun. 17, 2016) (NOTE:  Paid subscription required to access via this link).  Furthermore, there are indications that Daniel Burr and Abigail Brewster Burr were married shortly before Thomas Pell's death, suggesting that the bequests to the two of them at the time of Pell's death were somewhat in the nature of wedding gifts including much needed to begin a home as well as horses for transportation and farming.

One of the apparently more reliable authorities that touches on the life of Daniel Burr seems to be Jacobus, Donald Lines, History and Genealogy of the Families of Old Fairfield, Vol. I (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1976) (available digitally via Ancestry.com; visited Jun. 17, 2016) (NOTE:  Paid subscription required to access via this link).  That book says about Daniel Burr the following:

"Burr, Daniel, s. of Jehu.  Commissary, Fairfield County, May 1690.  

Born abt. 1642; testified 1682 ae. [age] 40; d. in 1695.  He bought a house and homelot from Andrew Ward, 24 Dec. 1668; deed witnessed by William Ward and John Burr.  He bought land from Mr. John Pell [i.e., Thomas Pell's nephew and principal legatee who took over his uncle's real estate including land in Fairfield], 25 July 1672.

Married (1) (rec. Stamford) Feb. 166[9?], Abigail Brewster.  She was dau. of Rev. Nathaniel of Brookhaven, L. I., whose will 16 Mar. 1684/5 named his gr. children Daniel and Abigail Burr.  The will of Dr. Thomas Pell of Fairfield 1669 gave legacies to Daniel Burr and Abigail his wife.  Pell was stepfather of Rev. Nathaniel Brewster.

He m. (2) at New Haven, 11 Dec. 1678, Abigail Glover.  She was dau. of Henry and Helena, b. 31 July 1652, d. abt. 1720/1.

Inv. of Est. of Daniel, Sr., 5 Nov. 1695.

Inv. of Est. of Abigail, 25 Jan. 1721.  Probate names her heirs as:  one son Samuel; children of dec'd dau. Helena wife of John Andrews (viz.:  John, Abigail, Helena, Daniel, Ebeneezer); children of dec'd dau. Deborah wife of Joseph Perry (viz.:  Sarah, Abigail, Joseph, Daniel, Nathaniel); and Mehitabel's one dau. Mehitabel Strong.

Distribution of land that belonged to Daniel Burr 1st, 2 Aug. 1751, to the heirs of Daniel Burr dec'd, to Samuel Burr, to the heirs of Ellen dec'd, to the heirs of Deborah dec'd, and to Abigail.  Another distribution ordered 8 May 1769 to the following:  heirs of Daniel Burr, dec'd, eldest son of the dec'd; heirs of Ellen Andrews, dec'd; heirs of Abigail Sherman, dec'd; heirs of Deborah Perry, dec'd; and Seth Samuel Burr.

Children [by Abigail Brewster], recorded at Fairfield:
Daniel, b. 30 July 1670.
Abigail, b. 14 Mar. 1671 [1671/2], d. at Stratford, 2 Mar 1730/1; m. (1) Daniel Lockwood; m. (2) at Fairfield, 26 June 1700, Elnathan Hanford; m. (3) (rec. Stratford) 26 Nov. 1707, Nathaniel Sherman; had issue by all three.

Children [by Abigail Glover], recorded at Fairfield:
Ellen [also called Helena], b. 26 Oct. 1680; m. Ens. John Andrews.
Deborah, d. abt. 1718; m. (1) Joseph Whelpley; m. (2) Joseph Perry; had issue by both.
Mehitabel, d. before 1713; m. Benajah Strong.
Seth Samuel [often called Samuel], b. 20 June 1694, bapt. 19 Aug. 1694."

Source:  Jacobus, Donald Lines, History and Genealogy of the Families of Old Fairfield, Vol. I, pp. 123-124 (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1976) (available digitally via Ancestry.com; visited Jun. 17, 2016) (NOTE:  Paid subscription required to access via this link).

There are additonal biographical and genealogical entries that shed some light on the lives of Daniel and Abigail Brewster Burr.  Care should be taken, however, given a number of apparent mistakes and questionable assertions in the material that follows:

"DANIEL BURR,   2   [5]   OF FAIRFIELD, CT.,
made freeman in 1668.  General Court of May 8, 1690, appointed him Commissary for Fairfield Co.  There is no record of his holding other public office.

May 15, 1668, he bought of Andrew Ward one corner lot with all the appurtenances thereto belonging : at the same time he received a grant of 13 acres from the town, and also bought several parcels of land; in 1681 he exchanged with the town, 2 parcels of land and bought a large tract; in 1683 he again appears as a large purchaser of land.

His long lot was separated from Nathaniel's by Burr's highway, and was 24 rods, 23 links in width.

H m. Abigail, dau. of Henry Glover of New Haven, Dec. 11, 1678.  Chil.:

31.  DANIEL 3
32.  ABIGAIL, 3 m. Daniel Lockwood.
33  SETH SAMUEL.  3
34.  SAMUEL.  3
35.  ELLEN.  3
36.  DEBORAH, 3 m. Ensign John Andrews and had children:  1, John, 2, Abigail, 3. Hellinah, 4, Daniel, and 5, Ebenezer.
38.  MEHITABLE, 3 m. a Strong, and had 1 child, 1, Mehitable.

Daniel and Abigail contested the will, and the estate was not distributed, and the estate was not distributed until 1751.  Daniel, Ellen and Deborah were then deceased, leaving heirs.  No will is found.  Inv. presented Nov. 5, 1695.  His w. Abigail's estate dis. Jan. 25, 1723."

Source:  Todd, Charles Burr, A General History of the Burr Family in America With a Genealogical Record fromm 1570 to 1878, pp. 145-46 (NY, NY:  E. Wells Sackett & Bro., 1878).  It should be noted that Thomas Pell's will seems to make clear that Daniel Burr and Abigail Glover Burr were married by late September, 1669, well before the December 11, 1678 claimed in the text quoted above.

Great care must be taken when considering the genealogical data referenced above.  It appears that among Jehu Burr's sons were both Daniel Burr and Jehu Burr, Jr.  That Jehu Burr, Jr., in turn, named one of his sons after his brother Daniel.  That Daniel Burr, who died in 1722, typically is confused with his uncle who served as the Executor of Thomas Pell's will.  Recently, one genealogist noted:

"THE BURRS OF FAIRFIELD, CONN.
[Communicated by SYLVESTER JUDD, Esq.]. . . .

The ancestors of those Burrs, in this country, were as follows: --

1.  Jehu Burr, who was in Massachusetts in 1630, and was admitted freeman in 1631.  This christian name in the record can hardly be distinguished from John, and is often copied John.  Jehu Burr belonged to the church at Roxbury, and settled at Springfield with William Pynchon and others, in 1636.  In a few years he removed to Fairfield, where he died before 1650.  He had sons Jehu and John; and probably Nathaniel and Daniel Burr, of Fairfield, were his sons also.

2.  Jehu Burr, son of Jehu, died in Fairfield, 1692.  He left sons Daniel, Peter, Samuel, and five or six daughters.  Peter graduated at Harvard College in 1690, and was a distinguished man in Connecticut.

3.  Daniel Burr, son of the second Jehu, died in Fairfield in 1722, leaving ten children, viz. Jehu, Stephen, Peter, David, Moses, Aaron, Hannah, Mary, Elizabeth, Jane. . . ."

Source:  Roberts, Gary Boyd, ed., Genealogies of Connecticut Families From The New England Historical and Genealogical Register, Vol. I - Adams-Gates, p. 261 (Baltimore, MD:  Reprinted for Clearfield Company, Inc. by Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc., 1998, 2006).

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.

Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.

Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."