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."

Did Pelham Founder Thomas Pell Have a Residence in Pelham?

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."

Yesterday I was asked to address again the question of whether Thomas Pell, who acquired from Native Americans the lands that became the Manor of Pelham, ever had a residence in Pelham.  The evidence strongly suggests that at the time of his death Pell maintained a working farm on today's Rodman's Neck on the mainland adjacent to City Island.  Rodman's Neck also has been known variously as "Pell's Point," "Ann Hook's Neck" (various spellings), and Pelham Neck.  

That Pell would have such a farm on the lands he acquired should come as no surprise.  Thomas Pell was a maritime trader, a physician, and a land speculator who would have had to oversee the vast holdings he acquired that later became the Manor of Pelham (about 50,000 acres -- NOT the widely-reported 9,166 acres).  Pell transferred lands to settlers at what came to be known as the Village of West Chester and also what came to be known as the Village of East Chester in possible efforts to buffer his remaining lands from Dutch (and, perhaps, Native American) incursions.

Today's posting to the Historic Pelham Blog collects prior postings that touch on this topic and assembles additional evidence relevant to this question.

Colonial New York Authorities Repeatedly Referenced "Thomas Pell of Ann Hook's Neck"

Colonial New York authorities repeatedly referenced Thomas Pell as being "of Ann Honok's Neck," suggesting that today's Rodman's Neck was a centerpiece of his holdings where he could be reached, and lending additional credence to other evidence that he had a farm on Ann Hook's Neck.

For example, near the end of Thomas Pell's life, Pell was involved in a boundary dispute with John Richbell of Mamaroneck.  The dispute was unresolved at the time of Pell's death in late September, 1669.  Eventually the dispute with Richbell was settled by mediators working with Richbell and with Thomas Pell's principal legatee (his nephew, John Pell).  However, on September 13, 1669, about two weeks before Thomas Pell died, colonial New York authorities issued a special warrant citing Thomas Pell to appear before the next Court of Assizes to deal with the boundary dispute.  The special warrant was addressed to "Thomas Pell of Ann-hook's-neck, or elsewhere."  See Bolton, Robert, The History of the Several Towns, Manors, and Patents of the County of Westchester From Its First Settlement to the Present Time Carefully Revised by its Author, Vol. I, p. 469 & n.a (NY, NY:  Chas. F. Roper, 1881) (citing "Alb. Assize Rec. p. 204).

Similarly, after Pell died in the last week of September, 1669, the Court of Assizes of the Colony of New York appointed a group of New York residents to inventory only that portion of Pell's estate that existed within the Colony of New York.  Any inventory of his Fairfield and Colony of Connecticut properties was left to the authorities of those jurisdictions.  The Court of Assizes order states that "Mr. Thomas Pell of Ann Hook's Neck, is lately deceased, and having left a considerable estate in this government."  See, generally, Bell, Blake A., Mon., Mar. 31, 2014:  Inventory of the Estate of Pelham Founder Thomas Pell Taken Shortly After He Died in Late September, 1669.

The Inventory of Pell's Estate in the Colony of New York Indicates He Had Housing and "Barnes" in the Area

The inventory of that portion of Thomas Pell's estate located within the Colony of New York contains two pertinent references to housing on the lands that came to be known as the Manor of Pelham:

"The howsing, lands, barnes, islands, adjoyning from Hutchinson River westward, and so far eastward as were Mr. Tho. Pell's inst. and lawful right" (valued at 500 English pounds) and the "House and land in Westchester" (valued at 20 English pounds).  

Care should be taken regarding the second reference.  The reference to "Westchester" is ambiguous.  Westchester County was not created until 1683, some fourteen years later.  Although there are early "pre-county" references to the region as Westchester, this may also be a reference to the village of West Chester first settled on Pell's western-most lands in 1654.  Nor does the separate reference to "howsing" and "barnes" shed any more light on the issues.  It simply suggests that somewhere in the 50,000 acre tract first acquired by Pell there were "howsing" and "barnes" separate from the "House and land in Westchester."  Still, when considered together with the references at about the same time to "Thomas Pell of Ann Hook's Neck," there is at least circumstantial evidence to support an argument that Pell had housing and barns on Pell's Point.  

Moreover, there is no reference to "barnes" in the context of the "House and land in Westchester."  This seems significant when considered in the context of the remainder of the inventory which makes fairly clear that Pell had a substantial working farm in the Colony of New York.  The inventory of Pell's property in New York at the time of his death shows that Pell owned a substantial number of livestock at the time of his death -- livestock that would have required daily care.  This strongly suggests that even if Pell did not live on the farm, someone did, whether they were caretakers or hired hands.  The inventory further reflects that at the time of Pell's death, there were edible foodstuffs among Pell's property, as well as most of the ordinary farm implements and personal effects of day-to-day life as would be expected on a seventeenth century farm.  

As an interesting aside, the inventory also references "In Applebyes keeping, 2 cows and 1 plow chaine" valued at 9 English pounds and 8 Shillings.  The reference to "Applebyes" is intriguing.  Hunter's Island, originally part of Pell's purchase and not far from Ann Hook's Neck, was long known as "Appleby's Island."  As Lockwood Barr noted in his history of the Town of Pelham published in 1946, however, there seems to be no record of who Appleby was.  Barr said: "The first conveyance of the Island [Hunter's Island] found in the office of the County Clerk of Westchester, is a deed dated January 17, 1797, transferring an Island ". . . commonly called Appleby's. . ." from John Blagge to Alexander Henderson."  See Barr, Lockwood, 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. 91-93 (The Dietz Press, Inc. 1946).  Thus, this reference in the inventory supports at least an inference that today's Hunter's Island was occupied at the time of Thomas Pell's death, that Appleby had two cows and one plow chain belonging to Thomas Pell, and that the cows and plow chain originated nearby -- perhaps only a few hundred yards away on Ann Hook's Neck.

Evidence that When Thomas Pell's Principal Legatee Arrived and Settled on the Pelham Lands He Inherited, He Likewise Lived on Ann Hook's Neck

There also is evidence that when Thomas Pell's principal legatee (his nephew, John Pell) arrived in America in the fall of 1670 to accept his inheritance, he first lived on Ann Hook's Neck where his deceased uncle may have had a working farm.  For example, The Records of the Town of Eastchester contain a document dated May 17, 1671 that references "Mr John Pell of ye manor of Annhocks neck".  The document reads, in its entirety:

"Whereas there is a new road laid out for the common highway into New England neare Eastchester the which is sayd to be much more conveniant than ye former as well for strangers and travelers as ye inhabitants But yet by some persons hath been objected against and a right understanding may be had hereupon in having ye sayd wayes viewed by knowing and indifferent persons Mr John Pell of ye manor of Annhocks neck and Mr. John Richbell of Momoroneck are hereby appointed and desired either by themselves or some understanding persons in such affairs who they shall employe to take a view of ye said roads or highways within three weeks after ye date hereof and to make reports unto me which of them they shall judge most conveniant to be maintained the which thereupon shall be confirmed and allowed of accordingly Given thereupon shall be confirmed and allowed of accordingly Given nder [sic] my hand at Forte Jeames in New York this 17th Day of May 1671 

Fran Lovelace 

This presenc testifieth Moses Hoit Snr have several parcels of upland as herein certified which their butts and bounds one pec [piece] of land by the second meado" 

Source: Records of the Town of Eastchester, Book Two, p. 24 1/2 (Typewritten manuscript of records transcribed by Eastchester Historical Society 1964) (copy in author's collection). See also Paltsits, Victor Hugo, ed., Minutes of the Executive Counicl of the Province of New York Administration of Francis Lovelace 1668-1673 Volume II - Collateral and Illustrative Documents XX-XCVIII, pp. 656-57 (Albany, NY: State of New York, 1910).  See, generally Bell, Blake A., Tue., Sep. 12, 2006:  Evidence Sheds Light on Location of An Early Home of John Pell, 2d Lord of the Manor of Pelham.

Another such reference from a document prepared in 1671 describes John Pell as "Mr John Pell of ye Mannor of Anne-Hooks Neck."  It states:

"A Speciall Warr t for Jeremy Cannon, ais Dorman, James Mott, Roger Pedley to appeare at ye Assizes to answer Mr Pell in a Case of Trespass. 

Whereas Mr John Pell of ye Mannor of Anne-Hooks Neck hath made Complaint unto mee that Jeremy Cannons ais Dorman, James Mott, Roger Pedley, & James [blank] a Serv t belonging to Mr John Richbell of Momoronock, have together or apart at severall times comitted a Great Trespass, in carrying away severall parcells of Hay made up in Stack upon his Land, & there being one Stack of Hay lately burnt upon ye said Land, of w ch there is great suspition one or more of the persons aforementioned are guilty; These are in his Ma ties Name to require ye said Jeremy Cannon ais Dorman, James Mott, Roger Pedley and James [blank] Mr Richbells Servant as aforesaid, That they make their Appearance at ye next Gen ll Court of Assizes to be held in this City beginning on ye first Wednesday in October next, wch will be on ye fourth day of ye said Month, then and there to make Answer to ye Complaint of Mr John Pell in ye Matters aforesaid, & that they forbeare ye giveing ye said Mr Pell any Molestacon by carrying away any more Hay from ye said Land untill ye difference between him & Mr about their Title be decided. Hereof They nor any of them are not to faile as they will Answer the Contrary at their Perills. Given under my Hand & Seale at Forte James in New Yorke [Page 657 / Page 658] this 22th day of September in ye 23d yeare of his Ma ties Reigne, Annoq Dni 1671. 

Fran: Lovelace 

To Jacob Young of Ann-Hooks Neck, or any other person whom Mr Pell shall Employ upon this Occasion to see this Speciall Warrant served, & returne made thereof at ye Assizes."

Source:  Paltsits, Victor Hugo, ed., Minutes of the Executive Counicl of the Province of New York Administration of Francis Lovelace 1668-1673 Volume II - Collateral and Illustrative Documents XX-XCVIII, pp. 657-58 (Albany, NY: State of New York, 1910).

Similarly, a record four years later suggests that John Pell still resided on Ann Hook's Neck where his uncle may have had a working farm. The record references John Pell as the "Manor of Ann Hook's Neck" and states:

 'A true copy of a deed of sale between John Pell unto Ralph Warner, recorded this 10th of May, 1675.' 

'TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN, that I, John Pell, proprietor of the Manor of Ann Hook's Neck, have sold unto Ralph Warner, Blacksmith, all those my horses, mares, colts and horse kinds that are now being or belonging to Norwalk bounds, in the County of Fairfield and the colony of Connecticut, he, the said Warner, paying all charges that have been out recordings and markings the said horses, and does hereby acknowledge the satisfaction received, and does hereby acquitt, discharge and quit-claim all my right and the interest I might or ought to have unto the said horses of Norwalk aforesaid.' 

'IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand, this fifth day of March, 1675.' 

JOHN PELL' 

'Signed and delivered in presence of SWESSELL SWESSELL, 
CHARLES RAVEN.' 

Source: Selleck, Charles M., Norwalk, Vol. I, p. 103 (Norwalk, CT: Harry M. Gardner, Printer 1896).

These various references clearly associate John Pell with Ann Hook's Neck.  Although this strongly suggests that when he first arrived in America, John Pell resided on Ann Hook's Neck where his uncle may have had a working farm, these references do not establish such a proposition with certainty.  The 1675 record quoted above, for example, references John Pell as "proprietor of the Manor of Ann Hook's Neck" which may be an effort to reference a broader region of today's Pelham than merely Pell's Point.  Still, taken as a whole, together with references to Thomas Pell "of Ann Hook's Neck" and the inventory of Thomas Pell's estate in New York, such references suggest to this author that Thomas Pell had a working farm on today's Rodman's Neck and that his nephew lived there for at least a few years after first arriving in America to acceptance the inheritance of his uncle's estate in 1670.

Tradition Says Thomas Pell Had a Farmhouse Where the Bowne House Was Built on Ann Hook's Neck in 1730

Apart from the fact that the Neck of land at issue 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.  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  p. 71 (NY, NY:  Chas. F. Roper, 1881).

Conclusion

Absent definitive archaeological or 17th century documentary evidence, we are left to speculate regarding whether Thomas Pell ever had a "house" that stood on the lands later known as the Manor of Pelham.  Although the matter is far from certain, this author believes that when the entire extant context is considered including not only 17th century references such as those listed above as well longstanding tradition including the tradition since the 18th century of referring to the area as "Pell's Point," it is likely that Thomas Pell had a working farm and a farmhouse on today's Rodman's Neck.  It seems clear, however, that Thomas Pell maintained his residence in Fairfield until he died there in late September 1669.  Admittedly, however, it is not now possible to pinpoint precisely where Pell's farmhouse stood on today's Rodman's Neck.

"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.

*          *          *          *          *

I have posted to the Historic Pelham Blog on numerous occasions articles that touch on the subject matter of today's posting.  Below are links to some of those previous materials.

Mon., Nov. 03, 2014:  More on the 17th Century Location of the Manor Home of John Pell of the Manor of Pelham.

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

Mon., Oct. 23, 2006:  More Early Evidence That Thomas Pell Had a House Later Used by His Nephew, John Pell, on Rodman's Neck.

Tue., Sep. 12, 2006:  Evidence Sheds Light on Location of An Early Home of John Pell, 2d Lord of the Manor of Pelham.

Bell, Blake A., The Manor House of John Pell, Second Lord of the Manor of Pelham, The Pelham Weekly, Vol. XIII, No. 51, Dec. 24, 2004.

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."

John Pell and John Richbell Selected in 1671 to Assess Best Roadway to New England -- The Beginnings of Old Boston Post Road

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."

In the early fall of 1670, about a year after the death of his uncle, Thomas Pell, John Pell, Jr. sailed into the harbor of Boston in the Massachusetts Bay Colony on his way to Fairfield.  There he planned to claim his inheritance of properties that included what later became the Manor of Pelham from the executors of his uncle’s estate.

Extensive research of seventeenth century records suggests that John Pell moved into a house built during his uncle's lifetime on "Ann Hooks Neck" (later known as Pelham Neck and, today, as Rodman's Neck).  He seems later to have built his own Manor Home near today's nearby Bartow-Pell Mansion.  

Given his large inheritance, John Pell immediately assumed the mantle of "gentleman" and used letters of introduction from English notables to gain prompt access to Francis Lovelace, an English Royalist who served as second governor of the colony of New York from 1668 until 1673.

"PORTRAIT OF GOVERNOR FRANCIS LOVELACE.

Courtesy of Pennsylvania-German Society."

Only months after John Pell's arrival in the Colony of New York, Governor Lovelace designated him to work with John Richbell of Mamaroneck on an important roadway project.  A new roadway recently had been laid out as a common highway near the settlement of Eastchester adjacent to the Manor of Pelham to facilitate travel from New York to New England.  

The new road was said to be "much more convenient" than the former roadway that led into New England, but some people objected to the route of the new roadway.  Governor Lovelace sought a study to determine which of the two roads would be the "most convenient to be maintained" so that the Governor could resolve the objections and designate the roadway to New England that would continue to be maintained -- likely the beginnings of the Old Boston Post Road, a portion of which still passes through the Town of Pelham where it is named Colonial Avenue.

The records of the Town of Eastchester contain an entry reflecting instructions from Governor Lovelace issued on May 17, 1670 appointing "Mr. John Pell of the Manor of Ann Hooks Neck and Mr. John Rickbell of the Moroneck [i.e., John Richbell of Mamaroneck]" either to prepare the study the Governor sought or to hire other "understanding persons" to prepare such a study.  The entry is quoted below in its entirety, followed by a citation to its source.

Portrait of John Pell.

"Whereas there is a new road laid out for the common highway into New England near Eastchester the which is said to be much more convenient than ye former as well for strangers and travellers as the inhabitants, but yet by some persons it hath been objected against.  That a right understanding may be had here upon in having ye said way viewed by knowing and in different persons, Mr. John Pell of the Manor of Ann Hooks Neck and Mr. John Rickbell [sic] of the Moroneck [i.e., Mamaroneck] are hereby appointed either by themselves or some understanding persons in such affairs who they shall employ to take a view of ye said roads or highways within three weeks after the date hereof and make report unto me which of them they shall judge most convenient to be maintained the which thereupon shall be confirmed and allowed of accordingly.

Given under my hand in New York, 17 May 1671, Francis Lovelace."

Source:  Haacker, Fred C., Records of the Town of Eastchester, Westchester-County, New-York, p. 111 (typewritten manuscript citing p. 24-1/2 of the Eastchester Records) (Ancestry.com subscription required to access electronic version of this record).

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."

More 17th Century References to Native Americans in the Manor of Pelham

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."

I recently purchased another in the "New York Historical Manuscripts Series" -- a copy of  "THE ANDROS PAPERS 1674-1676."  (I also acquired copies of the Provincial Governors papers for the periods 1677-78, and 1679-80.)  There are a large number of references to John Pell in Governor Andros's papers including many during the three-year period beginning in 1674 -- only four years after John Pell arrived in the Manor of Pelham and took control of the lands he inherited from his uncle, Thomas Pell.  

Among the John Pell references in the Andros Papers 1674-1676 are a few that shed light on the Native Americans who continued to live on, or frequent, Manor of Pelham lands twenty-two years after Thomas Pell acquired those lands from Native Americans on June 27, 1654.  These 17th Century references say nothing of "Siwanoys" on those lands.  Rather, once again, these references indicate that Wiechquaeskecks were there.  (I have written before and have questioned whether a Native American group properly known as "Siwanoys" actually lived on Pell's lands or even existed.  See, e.g., Wed. Jan. 29, 2014:  There Were No Native Americans Known as Siwanoys.)  

Dr. Paul Otto in in his book "The Dutch-Munsee Encounter in America:  The Struggle for Sovereignty" (Berghahn Books, 2006) notes that Munsee-speaking Native Americans to whom experts refer today as "Munsees" did not group themselves as a nation, a tribe or even on the basis of small-scale villages.  Rather, “their sociopolitical groups can be defined in a number of levels including villages, districts and maximal groups.”  Id. at p. 4.  

The Munsees, according to Dr. Otto, organized themselves most commonly in villages and related territories.  He notes, however, that villages or even groups of villages also “claimed sovereignty over larger territories such as tracts and districts.”  Id., p. 21, n.7.   Such local associations could form into what Otto labels as “maximal groups” when the need for “broad cooperation or consultation” arose.  Id., p. 4.  Significantly for present purposes, the Munsees “used unique names to identify these various groupings (usually at the village level or close to it) by which the Dutch knew them and recorded in their observations.” These included a host of groupings among which were the Wiechqueaskecks.  Id., pp. 4-5.  Early Dutch and English records indicate that the Munsee band or group known as Wiechquaeskecks ranged in an area on the mainland north of Manhattan from the Hudson River to the Long Island Sound, well north toward today’s Connecticut border and, perhaps, a little beyond.  See id., p. 5.   The area included most, if not all, of the lands acquired by Thomas Pell in 1654.

The Andros Papers contain two important references to Native Americans living on, or using, the land owned by John Pell (much of which later became the Town of Pelham).  The only Native Americans identified in those papers as associated in any way with Pell's lands were "Wickers Creek" Indians, a corruption of the term Wiechquaeskecks widely recognized as one of the more than fifty known spellings intended to refer to this group of Native Americans.  

Below are transcriptions of several of the John Pell references included within "THE ANDROS PAPERS 1674-1676,"  together with a couple of related entries (as well as my commentary addressing the significance of each).  

Minutes of a March 29, 1676 Meeting with Native Americans

On March 27, 1676, New York Provincial authorities at the foot of Manhattan sent word to a group of "Indyans of Wickerscreeke" likely located north of Manhattan on the mainland near hell Gate and demanded a meeting.  

At the time, King Philip's War, known variously as the First Indian War, Metacom's War, Metacomet's War, or Metacomet's Rebellion, was raging in New England.  In the space of little more than a year during King Philip's War, twelve English settlements were destroyed and others were badly damaged.  The New York Provincial authorities were distrustful of the local Native Americans and any hint that they might be gathering to conspire against the New York region or planning to join with Native Americans to the north in support of Metacomet and his bands.  Governor Andros had received a letter " intimating a mistrust of" the local Wiechquaeskecks.  Due, in part, to fears and distrust, on March 27, 1676, the authorities sent word to the Wiechquaeskecks demanding an audience with their representatives.  

Portrait of King Philip by Paul Revere,

Illustration from the 1772 Edition of Benjamin Church's

"The Entertaining History of King Philip's War."

Source:  Wikimedia Commons.

Two days later on March 29, 1676, a pair of representatives ('Sachems") of the Wiechquaeskecks named Wissakano and Ammone arrived for the requested meeting with four representatives of the Provincial Government and an interpreter.  Governor Andros was not present for the meeting.  

As the minutes make clear, the New York Provincial authorities, through the interpreter, conveyed to the two Sachems their concerns that the Wiechquaeskecks might join forces with Native Americans to the north allied with the Native American named Metacomet who was known to the English as "King Philip" (i.e., the "North Indyans") or others "not friends to this Government under whose protection they desire to live."  

The Wiechquaeskeck Sachems denied the accusations and promised their best behavior.  They further insisted on having a pass (a "Note") to allow them to move about freely as long as they behaved themselves "as they ought."  The New York authorities promised such a Note to the Wiechquaeskecks.  Significantly, the Sachems also told the authorities that half of their corn remained on John Pell's land and they wished permission to send some young men in canoes to retrieve the corn.  Given that it was March, this seems to have been a stock of stored corn that the Native Americans wished freedom to travel to the northeast to retrieve from Pell's land.  The Sachems also told the authorities that had left a half dozen "old men, women, and boyes" in Greenwich whom they wished to "fetch."  The authorities told them that they would raise these issues with Governor Andros whose return was expected at any time.  

The Sachems replied that they would stay until Andros's return to get answers.  The authorities granted them permission to travel to the baker, "Thomas Laurens," on Pearl Street to stay overnight to await the return of Governor Andros for answers to their requests.  [NOTE:  I find this reference particularly fascinating and need to follow up on it.  Among the English witnesses who signed Thomas Pell's June 27, 1654 deed entered into with Native Americans -- whom I long have suspected were Wiechquaeskecks -- was Thomas Lawrence, who could be this "Thomas Laurens" with whom the Native Americans stayed overnight on March 29, 1676.  There were, however, at least two men in the region at the time known by similar names.]  

As the meeting ended, the New York authorities presented each of the Sachems with a coat because the Sachems had been so "friendly" and had come so willingly and so soon after the New York authorities had sent for them.  Though the Sachems professed that no such gifts were necessary, they happily accepted the gifts, according to the minutes.  

Below is a complete transcription of the minutes of the March 29, 1676 meeting.

"[25:92]

[MINUTES OF A MEETING WITH TWO WICKERS CREEK INDIANS ABOUT TO JOIN THE NORTH INDIANS]

Mar:  29:  1676.

Present
C. Brockholes
Mr. Mayor
Mr. Philips.
The Secr.

The Indyans of Wickerscreeke having beene sent to the 27th Inst. came now this day here.  Their names are Wissakano and Ammone the 2 Sachems sent for to come.  The occasion of their sending for was Upon a Letter from the Go:  intimating a mistrust of them by reports above.

Mr. Sam:  Edsall Interpreter.

The matter being told them by the Interpreter They deny to have had any thoughts of joyning or treating with North Indyans or others not friends to this Government, under whose protection they desire to live, according to their Engagements to the Go.

They desire as before from Mr. Philips, to have leave to come upon this Island and hereabout 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 Canooes to Mr. Pell's for the Remainder of their Corne, (having had but one half from thence already) and to fetch about half a dozen old men, women, and boyes, from Greenwich that they left behind there.  [Page 348 / Page 349]

They are told, wee shall speake to the Governor about it, but referre it to the Go, who was daily expect.

They say they shall stay till then, when they will come againe.

Upon their friendly Comport and for that they came so willingly being sent for, they are presented with 2 Coats for the 2 sachems.

They pretend not to expect or deserve 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 in Pearl street to stay all night.

[ENDORSED:]  Wickerscreeke Indyans at Mr. Philips.

Mar. 29, 1676."

Source:  Christoph, Peter R. & Christoph, Florence A., eds., The Andros Papers 1674-1676 - Files of the Provincial Secretary of New York During the Administration of Governor Sir Edmund Andros 1674-1680, pp. 348-49 (Syracuse, NY:  Syracuse University Press, 1989) (The New York Historical Manuscript Series Volumes XXIV-XXV; with translations from the Dutch by Charles T. Gehring).

Minutes of What Possibly May be the Follow-up Meeting After the Meeting of the Representatives of Governor Edmund Andros with the Two Wiechquaeskeck Sachems

The records among the Andros Papers 1674-1676 suggest that the follow-up meeting with the two Wiechquaeskeck Sachems named Wissakano and Ammone did not occur the next day or so as originally suggested.  Rather, it seems that the two Sachems had to return sixteen days later on April 14, 1676 to meet with Provincial Governor Andros.  

The minutes of that meeting indicate that the Wiechquaeskeck Sachems asked the Governor for news of the "Indyans" to the north as far as Albany (given the events of King Philip's War underway at the time).  In effect, the Governor responded that when he left Albany, all was "well there."  

This time the Sachems complained that if the Wiechquaeskecks were barred from ranging freely from upper Manhattan to Stamford and, instead, were ordered to remain near their winter grounds at Hell Gate, they would be so near the "Christian plantacions" that the cattle and horses of those settlers would always be trespassing on their planting lands.  

The Governor answered that their complaint was not an issue because if they experienced such a circumstance and "receive[d] injury" as a result, they need only complain to authorities and then "bee relieved."  The Governor further offered to help the Wiechquaeskecks find their own peninsula (i.e., "Necke") on the mainland or on Long Island on which to reside and plant their crops.  

The minutes suggest that the Sachems neither accepted nor rejected the offer ("They pause upon it").  Instead they expressed a desire for the Wiechquaeskecks to travel to Stamford and join with other Native Americans and also to be permitted "to plant upon a Neck at Wickerscreeke together" -- likely Pelham Neck on John Pell's land where numerous records indicate the Wiechquaeskecks had a corn planting ground.  

Additionally, the Sachems asked for permission for their group to travel to Stamford "to fetch some Corne from Stamford that they left."  Although the minutes are ambiguous, they suggest that this request was denied on the grounds that the corn in Stamford did not belong to the Wiechquaeskecks.  Paradoxically, however, the Governor and his aides offered to "buy" the corn stored in Stamford in what appears to be an effort to throw a little money at the "problem."  Governor Andros and his aides also offered the Sachems the freedom to harvest oysters and to fish "any where here about."  

The minutes of the meeting end with a notation that the two Wiechquaeskeck Sachems "will come againe 12 days hence."

A transcription of the minutes of the April 14, 1676 meeting appears immediately below.

"[25:97]

[MINUTES OF A MEETING WITH WICKERS CREEK SACHEMS]

Apr. 14, 1676

There appeared the two Sachems of the Wicerscreeke Indyans that were here last in the Go:  absence.

They desire to know of the Go:  how matters above at Alb:  are with the Indyans, for that they have had no Newes of it.

The Go:  tells them that when hee came up hee found the Maques returned from following the North Indyans, that the Mahicanders were fled, but hee sent to them to come backe, and that one of the Mahicanders prisoners being taken by the Maques hee demanded him and being delivered sett him free, that some of them were come backe upon the Go:  promising the protection if they should come, and if any of them wanted land that hee would supply them.

That hee left all well there.  

That the Go:  comming at the Sopez, the Sachemacks were with him and all things were well there also.  And that some of them desiring land by the redout Creek, the Go:  consented to it.  

They pretend they would come upon this Island or any where neare, but being neare the Christian plantacions their Cattle and horses would allwayes bee trespassing upon them.  

Its answered if they receive Injury they may complaine and then bee relieved.  They are offered to find out some Necke easy to serve either upon this or Long Island.  [Page 352 / Page 353]

They pause upon it; After desire to joyne with the Stamford Indyans and to plant upon a Neck at Wickerscreeke together, and that they may have liberty to fetch some Corne from Stamford that they lett.  

Its a fallacy, and no way belongs to them.  They are offred all freedome of fishing or Oystering any where here about.  

Their Corne at Stamford is offer'd to be bought.  They will come againe 12 days hence.

[ENDORSED]  April 14, 1676.
                           Some Wickerscreeke Indyans
                           appear before the Go:"

Source:  Christoph, Peter R. & Christoph, Florence A., eds., The Andros Papers 1674-1676 - Files of the Provincial Secretary of New York During the Administration of Governor Sir Edmund Andros 1674-1680, pp. 352-53 (Syracuse, NY:  Syracuse University Press, 1989) (The New York Historical Manuscript Series Volumes XXIV-XXV; with translations from the Dutch by Charles T. Gehring).

Minutes of What Seems to Have Been the Second Follow-up Meeting After the March 29 Meeting of the Representatives of Governor Edmund Andros with the Two Wiechquaeskeck Sachems

The meeting that was supposed to happen "12 days hence" following the April 14, 1676 meeting with the Wiechquaeskeck Sachems seems to have occurred on April 27, 1676.  That meeting, however, was a bigger regional meeting with Native American representatives from the Wiechquaeskeck region as well as from Connecticut and Long Island.  

The Native Americans brought gifts of deer skins, beaver pelts and a bear skin.  They declared themselves to be "good friends" and professed an intent to continue the friendship.  Governor Andros accepted the gifts, and responded by giving coats to the Sachem representing the Wiechquaeskecks named Wessecanoe as well as two other Native American "cheifes" from "Stratford River."  The Governor further promised protection to the Native Americans within his jurisdiction, but not outside it.  He further confirmed that he had found the Wiechquaeskecks to be "good Indyans" and declared that "they may have all friendship and freedome here, so long as they behave themselves well."  

A transcription of the minutes of the April 27, 1676 meeting appears immediately below.

"[25:103]

[MINUTES OF A MEETING WITH CONNECTICUT AND LONG ISLAND INDIANS]

Apr. 27, 1676.

Present.

All of the Councell.
The Mayor and some of the Aldermen
and others of which 2 Justices.

About 50)

Severall Indyans appeared before the Governor in the Fort;

They say they belong to a place called Wayattano, at the head of Stratford River, with them were some of Wickerscreeke and some Stamford Indyans.  The sagamore of Wickerscreeke (Wessecanoe) came with them.

They declare themselves to bee good friends and desire to continue so and make a present of about ten deerskins, a beareskin and 4 small beavers, given at three times repeating their desire of friendship; 

The Governor accepts of it, and promises protection to them within within this Government but will not undertake anything without; 

That hee had heard from the wickerscreeke Indyans that they are good Indyans, and now findes them so, and they may have all friendship and freedome here, so long as they behave themselves well.

The Governor presents them with three Duffells Coates, one to the Wickerscreek sachem, the other two to the two cheife from Stratford river.

[ENDORSED:]

Apr. 27. 1676.
At a Meeting of Indyans in the Fort.
Stratford River and Wickerscreeke."

Source:  Christoph, Peter R. & Christoph, Florence A., eds., The Andros Papers 1674-1676 - Files of the Provincial Secretary of New York During the Administration of Governor Sir Edmund Andros 1674-1680, p. 358 (Syracuse, NY:  Syracuse University Press, 1989) (The New York Historical Manuscript Series Volumes XXIV-XXV; with translations from the Dutch by Charles T. Gehring).

Undated (But Roughly November 1675) Petition Referencing Native Americans on John Pell's Lands

There is a reference to the "Indians at Mr. Pells Plantation" in what might, at first blush, seem to be an unrelated petition filed on behalf of whalers operating out of Easthampton on Long Island.   Once again, the reference is to efforts, this time in the autumn of 1675, to restrict the movement of Native Americans north of Manhattan out of fears that they might conspire with other Native Americans during King Philip's War which was raging at the time.  

Here is a little background.  In the spring of 1675, a group of Easthampton sailors put together a company of men and two whaling vessels to engage in the whaling trade.  While assembling the crews for the vessels, they contracted with twelve Native Americans to serve on their crews and paid them a modest upfront payment to seal the agreements.  

In the meantime, King Philip's War began.  The rumor mill churned as settlements in the region and in parts of New England were destroyed.  As distrust of local Native Americans grew and fear of Native American conspiracies to join with King Philip in the slaughter of settlers grew, at least one order was entered directing the Wiechquaeskecks on John Pell's land in Pelham to remove to their usual winter quarters near Hell Gate.  See Hough, Franklin B., ed., A NARRATIVE OF THE CAUSES WHICH LED TO PHILIP'S INDIAN WAR, OF 1675 AND 1676, BY JOHN EASTON, OF RHODE ISLAND. WITH OTHER DOCUMENTS CONCERNING THIS EVEN IN THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF NEW YORK. PREPARED FROM THE ORIGINALS, WITH AN INTRODUCTION AND NOTES, pp. 165-66, 169-70 (Albany, NY: J. Munsell 1858) (1676 references to the “Application of Mr. John Pell . . . concerning the Indyans living upon his Land at Anne Hookes Neck” and “The Wyckerscreeke Indyans having made Suite to the Governor that the Restraint of their going into and passing to and fro in ye Sound in Canooes may be taken off, in regard to their planting on Mr. Pells Land at Anne Hoockes Neck or ye Islands adjacent”). See also id., pp. 77-78 (“and the next Morning went myselfe in my Pinnace as farre as Mr. Pells, to the Indyans there”).  Id., pp. 169-70.  See id., pp. 92-95. 

According to the Easthampton whalers, although the order seemed to be limited to Native Americans on John Pell's plantation, some of the Native Americans with whom they had contracted to serve on their whaling crews, were using the order and a "pretence of zeale in fulfilling" the order as an excuse to claim that they could not serve on the whaling vessels -- in effect, to back out of their contracts.  The petitioners noted that the whaling season was about to begin and that they would go "broke" without full crews to man their vessels.  They sought clarification that the Native Americans with whom they had contracted could serve.

As might be expected, the authorities granted the petition.  That petition is transcribed in full immediately below.

"[25:41c]

[PETITION OF EASTHAMPTON WHALERS FOR PERMISSION TO EMPLOY INDIANS]

To the Honorable Edmond Andross Esquire Generall of all his Royall Highnes his Teritories in America:  And Governor at New Yorke:  

The Humble Peticion of Jacob Schallenger, Stephen Hand, and James Soper, and others adjoyned with them in the whale Designe at Easthampton.  [Page 278 / Page 279]

Humbly Shewing to your honor that the last Spring your Peticioners appoynted or agreed to Joyne together in one entire Company for whaleing:  For the carrying on of which theire Designe they agreed together to Indent with 12 Indians to man=forth Your Peticioners two boats they prepared with all suitable Craft thereunto:  According whereunto, your Peticioners seeing the Indians Yearely imployed by other men both of theire own Towne, Southamption and elcewhere:  And knowing Nothing but that they might assume like liberty, and doe therein as themselves and others used to doe in former yeares, They hired, and Covenenated with 12 Indians, about June last, to goe to Sea in theire said boats with Craft this whale season soe Nigh at hand, upon terms which your Peticioners and the said Indians agreed on:  But it fell out soe that fowre of the said Indians (competent and experienced men) belonged to Shelter Island, whoe with the rest received of your Peticioners in part of theire hire or wages 25s a peece in hand at the time of the contract, as the Indians Custome is, and without which they would not engage themselves to goe to sea as aforesaid for your Peticioners:  After all which premises had passed your honors Order come downe to Eashampton quarters for winter though your peticioners understand it relates onely to the Indians at Mr. Pells Plantation:  And some of the Town of Easthampton wanting Indians to make up theire Crue for whaleing they take advantage of your honors said Order thereby to hinder your Peticioners of the said fower Shelter Island Indians, One of the Overseers being of the Company that would Soe hinder your Peticioners:  And Mr. Barker warned your Peticioners Not to entertaine the said fowre Indians without licence from your honor:  And although some of your Peticioners opposites in this matter of great weight to them seek to prevent your Peticioners from haveing those said fowre Indians under pretence of zeale in fulfilling your honors order, yet it is more than apparent that they endeavour to break your Peticioners Company in that maner that soe they themselves may have opertunity out of the other eight Easthampton Indians to supply theire owne wants.

The premises Considered, And for that your supplicants designe is utterly broke for this whale season if they cannot enjoy the help of the said fowre Indians, which will bee to theire great loss and disappoyntment:  Alsoe for that there is now noe hope of supply by home Indians, because all capable are by others already hired:  Alsoe It is hopefull in reason, that fowre poore knowne Indians belonging to a place soe  neere adjacent will not, nor can they doe much harme to the Towne if reall trouble should come, which is [Page 279 / Page 280] hopefull may not come, however not this winter season:  And alsoe for that your Supplicants are like to bee deprived of the pay before mentioned which they were necessarily exposed to imparte to the said Indians upon Indentment with them.  

Your Supplicants most humbly and Earnestly beseech hour honor to take this theire address and weighty concerne into your Serious Consideration, And of your goodnes grant liberty unto your Supplicants of the help of the said fowre Indians this Imediate ensueing whale=Season according to theire honest contract with them, And alsoe bee pleased to voutsafe your Supplicants an Order from you to that effect:  And your Most humbly devoted Supplicants as Duty bindes them shall ever pray for your honors happines etc.

[ENDORSED:]  1676
                             A peticon
                             From Easthmapton.

[IN PENCIL:]      Granted 18 Nov. 1675*  *It is not known when this note was added.

[NOTE:]              Granted
                            EAS *   *Note and initials are in the governor's hand."

Source:  Christoph, Peter R. & Christoph, Florence A., eds., The Andros Papers 1674-1676 - Files of the Provincial Secretary of New York During the Administration of Governor Sir Edmund Andros 1674-1680, pp. 278-80 (Syracuse, NY:  Syracuse University Press, 1989) (The New York Historical Manuscript Series Volumes XXIV-XXV; with translations from the Dutch by Charles T. Gehring).

*     *     *     *    *

I have written before of the many steps that were taken by New York authorities against local Native Americans at the time of King Philip's War.  For a few such examples, see:  

Thu., Apr. 26, 2007:  John Pell Obtains Permission to Allow Native Americans On His Land to Use Canoes in 1676.

Wed., Apr. 25, 2007:  1675 Order by Court of Assizes and Consequent Proclamation Ordering Native Americans to Remove from the Manor of Pelham.

Tue., Apr. 24, 2007:  John Pell Ordered Not To Sell Powder and Shot to Native Americans For a Time in 1675.

Mon., Apr. 23, 2007:  An Armed English Sloop Patrolled the Sound Near Native Americans Settled in the Manor of Pelham in 1675.

Fri., Apr. 20, 2007:  1675 Order by Governor's Council Directing John Pell to Take Daily Account of Indians on His Land.

Fri., Dec. 29, 2006:  Native Americans Ordered to Remove from the Manor of Pelham in 1675.

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."