Pelham Once Was Part of Yorkshire in the Province of New York

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."

The period between 1664 and 1683 is a fascinating time in the history of Pelham.  Thomas Pell, who acquired the lands that became the Manor of Pelham from local Native Americans in 1654, did not reside on his lands.  Rather, during the period before his death in late September, 1669, he managed those lands from his home in Fairfield in the Colony of Connecticut.  In 1670, Pell's nephew and principal legatee, John Pell, arrived in New England and proceeded to Connecticut and then to Pelham to claim the lands he had been bequeathed.  

During this time, the region was experiencing great change.  On August 29, 1664, forces loyal to the Proprietor of the Province of New York, the Duke of York, captured New Amsterdam from the Dutch and proceeded to take all of New Netherland.  They renamed New Amsterdam as New York and constituted the Province of New York to include large parts of today's New York (including New York City, Long Island, Westchester County, and Albany) as well as parts of New Jersey, Vermont, and even southeast Pennsylvania and Delaware.

The first English colonial governor of the Province of New York was Richard Nicolls.  Under his guidance, the so-called "Duke's Laws" were prepared and distributed throughout the Province.  This was, in effect, New York's first set of English statutes to govern the conduct of New Yorkers.

The only unit of local government created by the Duke's laws was a unit named "Yorkshire."  Though often referenced as a county, Yorkshire was a slightly different entity that might best be described as a governmental administrative area.  It encompassed parts of the region of today's New York City that included English settlers:  Manhattan, today's Westchester County, Long Island, and Staten Island.  It was named after Yorkshire, England in northern England, an administrative area or "shire" so named-because it encompassed the City of York.  As one scholar has written about Yorkshire in the Province of New York:

"The only unit of local government created by the Duke's Laws was the county of Yorkshire.  It contained the areas of English occupation -- Long Island, Westchester, and Staten Island -- and like its namesake, it was divided into three ridings.  The east riding comprised the towns at the east end of Long Island (now Suffolk County); the west riding, the middle section of Long Island (parts of Suffolk, Nassau, and Queens counties) and Staten Island; and the north riding, the west end of Long Island (Queens and Kings counties) and Westchester.  The focus of administration in the ridings was the court of session.  The officers of the court were justices of the peace and under-sheriffs who were chosen by the governor.  Their duties were to hear appeals from the town courts, supervise the collection of taxes, and entertain petitions from aggrieved individuals or towns.  The high-sheriff of the county supervised the work of the courts of session.  In theory, he was chosen from nominations made by the sessions in a three-year cycle.  In practice, the governor chose his own man and kept him in office as long as he liked.  As the chief liaison with the towns the sheriff had to be someone who had the confidence of the governor."

Source:  Ritchie, Robert C., Duke's Province:  A Study of New York Politics and Society, 1664-1691, p. 35 (Chapel Hill, NC:  The University of North Carolina Press, 1977).

After his arrival in the Manor of Pelham in late 1670, John Pell became a friend of then New York Governor Francis Lovelace.  Pell was appointed a Justice of the Peace to serve in  the north riding of Yorkshire encompassing the west end of Long Island (today's Queens and Kings Counties) and today's Westchester County.

The Dutch briefly recaptured New York from the English in August, 1673.  Within a few weeks the local government structure returned to that which had been in place during the original Dutch reign over New Netherland.  Theoretically, at least, Yorkshire was no more.  

Only weeks later, on February 9, 1674, the Treat of Westminster ended the Anglo-Dutch War and transferred the territory that had been the Province of New York back to British control.  The English colonial authorities promptly re-instituted the governmental structure that previously existed, including Yorkshire that included the Manor of Pelham.  

On November 1, 1683, English colonial authorities eliminated Yorkshire.  The various ridings were converted into counties.  The North Riding that included the Manor of Pelham was converted into Westchester County (including much of the modern Bronx County), Queens County (including much of the modern Nassau County), and New York County.  

Thereafter, the Manor of Pelham no longer was part of the administrative area known as Yorkshire.  Rather, it was part of Westchester County.

Burr, David H., "Map of the County of Westchester" (1829).

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."

Executive Council of Province of New York Urges Settlement of John Pell's Boundary Dispute with John Richbell on January 18, 1671/72

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."

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".  Many of the papers relating to the dispute that formed the basis of that lawsuit were published in 1910 as part of the "Minutes of the Executive Council of the Province of New York Administration of Francis Lovelace 1668 - 1673 Volume II".  The papers are fascinating for a host of reasons. 

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. 

The dispute seems to have simmered, however.  In September, 1671, John Pell arranged the issuance of a Special Warrant demanding that three men affiliated with John Richbell (including one described as Richbell's "servant") appear before the Court of Assizes to answer trespass charges.  Pell claimed that the men harvested hay from the same meadow that had been the center of the dispute between Thomas Pell and John Richbell before Thomas Pell's death.  John Richbell stepped forward and took over the defense of the three men. 

The papers are fascinating.  They recount Richbell's acquisition of lands including the area in dispute from Native Americans in the 1660s.  Significantly for students of Pelham history, close inspection of the materials shows that Richbell joined with a man named John "Ffinch" (also referenced as "Finch") to acquired the lands from Native Americans including one named "Cakoe."  

These same two individuals likely are the "John Ffinch" and the Native American "Cockho" who signed Thomas Pell's "treaty" (actually, a deed) by which he acquired the lands that became the Manor of Pelham on June 27, 1654.  

Francis Lovelace, Governor of the Province of New York, 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, quantity & quality alike".

I have written about this fascinating boundary dispute before and have transcribed many of the records relating to it.  See Tue., Oct. 24, 2006:  Thomas Pell's and John Pell's Land Dispute with John Richbell in the Late 1660s and Early 1670s.  Today's posting to the Historic Pelham Blog transcribes an additional record relating to the boundary dispute that began between Thomas Pell and John Richbell and that was settled by John Pell and Richbell after Thomas Pell's death.  The record consists of the minutes of the Executive Council of the Province of New York held on January 18, 1671/72 where Provincial Governor Lovelace urged that the matter be settled.  [Note, the "double date" results from the leap year correction of the Julian calendar resulting in the transition to the Gregorian calendar by England and British Dominions in 1752; the dual year is due to England and British Dominions beginning their numbered year on March 25 rather than January 1 until the passage of the Calendar Act of 1750 which made the start of the year January 1 and advanced the calendar by eleven days as of Wednesday, September 2, 1752.]

In essence, the dispute that began between Thomas Pell and John Richbell essentially was a dispute over a meadow and uplands that lay between two brooks.  Richbell claimed the entire meadow and uplands, contending that the brook nearest Pell's land marked the boundary between the properties.  Pell, in contrast, claimed the entire meadow and uplands, claiming that the other brook nearest Richbell's land marked the boundary between the properties.  In the end, there was a piece of evidence discovered by Commissioners assigned to mediate the matter that seemed fatal to the claims of both men.  The Commissioners found a tree in the middle of the meadow marked with "T.P." on one side and "J.R." on the other.  If a line were drawn from that tree directly to Long Island Sound, that line split the meadow exactly in half.  The matter was settled consistently with that "line," splitting the meadow and the uplands equally between the Pell and Richbell properties.

17th Century Copy of Pell Deed Signed by Thomas Pell

and Native Americans on June 27, 1654. Believed to be 

In Thomas Pell's Handwriting.  The Whereabouts of the

Original Deed Are Unknown.  This Copy is on Display in

the Thompson-Pell Research Center Located near Fort

Ticonderoga National Historic Landmark in Ticonderoga, New York.

For Another Image of this Copy of the Deed and a

Transcription of the Handwriting, Click Here.

The  Executive Council Minutes for the meeting held on January 18, 1671/72 appear immediately below, followed by a citation to their source.

"At a Councell held at ye Fort
Jan ry 18th 1671.

Present

The Governor
Mr. Delavall
Mr. Steenwijck
The Secretary.

The Matt r under Consideracon was ye difference between Mr Pell & Mr Richbell.  2 [Footnote '2' reads as follows:  '2 Collateral and Illustrative Documents, No. LXVII.  Thomas Pell, of Norfolk, was an Englishman and adherent of the royal cause, who in 1654, purchased a large tract of land, including the town of Pelham, Westchester County.  He died at Fairfield, Conn., in 1669, and made his nephew, John Pell, only son of Dr. John Pell 'of ould England,' his heir.  His plantation or manor in Westchester County was known as 'Anne Hooks Neck,' and he died while the litigation with John Richbell was in progress.  Singularly enough, Richbell was one of those who were appointed to make an official inventory of Thomas Pell's estate, on October 13, 1669. -- Brodhead, Hist. of N. Y., vol. I, p. 593; Collections of N. Y. Hist. Society, 1892, pp. 11, 12; Court of Assizes, vol. 2, p. 423a, 550, 562.  See also Bolton, Hist. of County of Westchester (1881 edition), vol. I, pp. 468-469; vol. 2, pp. 44-49.  Jacob Young, a resident of Pell's manor, was sworn in as constable, February 1, 1670/1.  -- Court of Assizes, vol. 2, pp. 639, 641.  Young later removed to Phillipsburg and was survived by his wife, who was married to John Tanke. -- Pelletreau, Westchester County Wills, p. 388.'] 

The Commission rs Papers delivered, Sealed up, were now opened and read.  

Capt Dudley Lovelace, & Capt Jaques [Cortelyou] in a manner Agree, yet referr to a Tree in the middle of the third Neck, markt on the one side w th J. R Eastward, on ye Westward with R. P. w ch would divide ye Meadow between them.  [Page 119 / Page 120]

Mr Elyas Doughty declares positively of [90] Mr Richbells Bounds by Purchase to bee Stony Brooke.

Mr Ponton saith, That ye Brooke menconed in both Patents is the same; & that hee hath known the afore named Cedar Tree or Gravelly Brooke to bee called by that name for 16 yeares.  And concerning that w ch is now called Stoney Brooke, it was formarly called Chapmens Brooke or Stoney Brooke.

ffrancis Yeates 1 [Footnote '1' reads as follows:  'Francis Yates, of Westchester.  For his will dated November 29, 1682, and proved February 3, 1682/3, see Collections of N.Y. Hist. Socieety, 1892, p. 123.'] saith that in his Judgment Mr Pells Bounds comes to Gravelly or Cedar Brooke.

An Ord r to bee referr d to.-- }

Vpon perusall & Consideracon had hereupon, two of the Commission rs making Report, That between the two Brookes now called Stoney & Gravelly Brookes, there being a Tree markt on the East side with J. R. & on the West wth T. P. from ye which if there were a Line run directly down to the Sound, 2 [Footnote '2' reads as follows:  '2  Long Island Sound.] It would divide the Meadow in difference between both Partyes, & putt an End to ye Matt r in question, & neither of the other three agreeing amongst themselves as to their Opinion of the Bounds, The Governor being very desireous of an Amicable Composure of the Matter between both Partyes, doth recommend the same unto them; However if either Party shall not seem satisfyed herew th, that then they have Liberty to proceed to a Tryall at a Speciall Co rt according to the Ord r of the Last Gen all Co rt of Assizes; of their Resolutions hereupon a speedy Answ r is expected, that Order may bee taken accordingly. 3  [Footnote '3' reads as follows:  '3  Collateral and Illustrative Documents, No. LXVII.']"

Source:  Paltsits, Victor Hugo, ed., Minutes of the Executive Council of the Province of New York Administration of Francis Lovelace 1668-1673 Volume I Minutes -- Collateral and Illustrative Documents I-XIX, pp. 119-20 (Albany, NY:  State of New York, 1910).

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."

17th Century Record Identifies One of the Native Americans Who Signed Pell's 1654 Deed as a Wiechquaeskeck, NOT a Siwanoy

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."

Those who follow the Historic Pelham Blog (hi, Mom!) know that I long have been skeptical of the oft-repeated story that the Native Americans who sold their lands to Thomas Pell on June 27, 1654 were a group of Native Americans who should properly be known as "Siwanoys."  For example, see:  

Wed., Jan. 29, 2014:  There Were No Native Americans Known as Siwanoys.  

The evidence contained in 17th century records (rather than second-hand historical accounts and secondary sources) strongly suggests to me that the Native Americans who sold their lands to Pell were Wiechquaeskecks -- not Siwanoys.  

One Native American whose name appears on the copy of the Pell Deed believed to be in Thomas Pell's handwriting is "Shawanórõckquot" whose signature by his mark appears as the very first of the signatures of the "Saggamores" (i.e., sachems) on the deed.  (I have included an image of the deed and a transcription of its text at the end of this posting.)

I have located a 17th century record that identifies Shawanórõckquot as one of the "Wijckerscreeke" (i.e., Wiechquaeskeck) proprietors.  I have transcribed the record below in its entirety, followed by a citation to its source.  Thereafter I have included a brief commentary on the significance of this record.

"At a Councell &c:  Fort James.

ffebry. 24th. 1670.

Present

The Governor.

Mr Mayor.

Mr. Steenwijck

The Secretary.

The first Busynesse under Consideracon was the Indyans about Wijckerscreeke. . .

The Indyans desire that ye Governor. would bee well satisfyed, who are the reall Proprietotr. of Wijckerscreeke before hee buyes the Land; They say they are the Men, & will bee ready to sell the Land to the Governor.

[45] The Names of ye Proprietor. as they say, are -- present. -- Ramaque -- Janorockets Bro: by ye Mothrs. side.

Pewachtan          Cakensickten

Nondiackwhare  Pemeckenwerecak

Careckonde         Nemandamyn

Coharnes             Perawescamen

Kewechtahem    Shapham

Pethung              Quinonckak

Macmawito        Ermachorne

Amanequun        Peppham

10. Sackapreme. Mawohondt

___________      Tomeackak

                              Tawotene

                              Nanaquene

                      13.  Chusquchaw  [Footnote] 1

[Footnote 1 States as Follows:]  1  The great variation of Indian names in the records, due to phonetic representation, is often appalling.  For example, we find above in the minutes 'Janorocket;' in Deeds, vol. 3, p. 37. 'Jano Rockett;' an Indian deed to Edward Jessup and John Richardson, March 12, 1664/5, in Deeds, vol. 2, pp. 58-59, calls him 'Shawnerockett,' whilst Bolton, History of the County of Westchester (1881 edition), vol. 2, p. 361, names him Shanarocke or Shanrockwell, sagamore of Poningoe.  These are by no means the only forms given for this Indian.

N:  Bene.  Taponque an Indyan pret. saith hee hath Land between Neperan & Wickerscreeke.

They are to consult about ye price they demand altogether; It's in the Paper No. I.

The second to bee granted if consented unto by the major part of the Inhabitants, It being within the Limitts of the Towne.  {  An Ordr. . . . ."

Source:  Paltsits, Victor Hugo, ed., Minutes of the Executive Council of the Province of New York Administration of Francis Lovelace 1668-1673 Volume I Minutes - Collateral and Illustrative Documents I-XIX, pp. 70-72 (Albany, NY:  State of New York, 1910) (reported to the Legislature April 5th, 1909, May 2d, 1910).  

*          *          *          *          *

The above-quoted document reflects minutes of a meeting of the Executive Council of the Province of New York held with the proprietors of Wiechquaeskeck territory on February 24, 1670/1.  Among those present was a Native American named in the minutes as "Ramaque" who is a brother of "Janorockets" on the mother's side.  There is an editor's notation that there are many different spellings of this Native American's name including Janorocket, Jano Rockett, Shawnerockett, Shanarocke, and Shanrockwell.  I, in turn, have found countless other additional spellings of Shawanórõckquot's name in 17th century records.

Important here, however, is the fact that Shawanórõckquot is referenced in the minutes of this February 24, 1670/71 Executive Council meeting as related to the Wiechquaeskeck proprietors -- not "Siwanoy" proprietors.  I submit this as a further piece of evidence that the Native Americans who sold their lands to Thomas Pell on June 27, 1654 most likely were Wiechquaeskecks, not "Siwanoys."

Copy of Thomas Pell's June 27, 1654 Deed

Believed to Be in Thomas Pell's Handwriting.

TEXT OF THOMAS PELL’S DEED

“Know all men by this present y^t we Shawanarockqúot: poquorum: Anhõõke: Wawhãmkus: Mehumõw: Beinge ye true owners & y^eonly Lawffull Heyres & proprietors off a piece of land Bounded by ye Sea to y^e South  w^th y^t  Tract off land Called by ye English Longe Island; to ye west & west & by South w^th y^e bay & River & River Diawockinge Acqueonunge (Chemaqūanaock to ye East) w^th all ye Islands y^t are in ye salt water to ye South South East & South West Against y^t Tract off Land w^ch is Beffore expres^d; w^h all trees medowes & all Land w^h in y^e tract off Land w^ch is Beffore Expressed: doo sell & deliver to Tho^s Pell now inhabitinge in Fayrffield his heyres & assignse to hould injoy improove plant as hee shall see cause to his Best to be improved ffor & to him & his heyres fforever w^h out any molestation on our p^t And doo herby ingage our Selves to make good our selves against all Claymes intayled either by Dutch or Indyans w^t ever & doo deliver it into ye posession off ye sayd Tho^s Pell & his Assignes: markinge ye  bounds to ye mayne Land w^ch is & shalbe y^e present bounds to ye mayne Land: only Liberty is ffreely graunt ffor ffeedinge offe cattle & Cuttinge off timber beyound those Bounds; & wee doo Acknowledge to have Reseved in full for it ye trou valew & just Satisfaction Accordinge to our Estimate to w^ch we sett  our hands beffore these wittnesses off English & Indyans this twenty seaventh off June 1654.

English Wittnesses                                Saggamores (Markes)
     Richard Crabb Magistrate                  +Shawanórõckquot
     Thomas Lawrence                             +Poquõrúm
     John Ffinch                                       +Anhõõke
                                                            +Wawhamkus
                                                            +Mehúmõw

Articles of Agreement

We also as lovinge neighbours & ffriends doo mutually ingage our Selves to send too men off Each y^r one Day in ye Springe every yeare to marke y^e   Bounds of y^e Land y^t a Right Knowledge may be kept w^h out injury to Either side y^t Mutuall peace & love may be mayntayned 2^nd Wee  allso doo promise Each to other if any plotts on either Side y^t may be to hurt off Either y^t we Seasonably Discover y^m as Lovinge Neighbours  & friends y^t peace & love may be mutually preserved

Indyan Wittnesses
+Marke Cockho
+Mark Kamaque
+Marke Cockinsecawa

This wrightinge was signed & wittnessed Beffore A great multitude off Indyans & many English we who are under written do testify

mark
Henry + Accorly                   This is A True Coppy off y^e
William Newman                  originall written Tho^s 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."