Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

1674, to the Duke of York, again using the description running only to the east side of Delaware River and Bay. As the Duke, down to his accession to the English throne as James II, received no express grant of the region west of that river and bay, some color of title thereto was sought in the words added, as usual, in the patent: "together with all the lands, islands, soils, with their and every one of their appurtenances." It would seem, on the contrary, that the patent was prepared with care not to conflict with the old grant to Lord Baltimore. However, the officers of the Duke of York assumed authority over the western shore of the Delaware in November, 1674, upon the transfer of New Netherland to the English under the treaty; and not only was this command preserved until 1681, but rents were reserved to the Duke and his heirs.

While the Lords Baltimore were losing land on the Delaware, there was a different state of affairs a few miles west of it, neither the Dutch nor the Swedes dwelling far from that water. Before the English conquest of New Netherland, those deriving title under the patent of 1632 had peopled the eastern shore of the Chesapeake, and supplanted Clayborne's Virginia colony on Palmer's Island, and perhaps elsewhere at the mouth of the Susquehanna, and the government of Maryland, by assisting the Indians in war, had extended the sphere of influence, if not the actual plantation, of its Proprietary, as far north as the limit mentioned in the patent. In 1661, troops of the Province, in accordance with a treaty of alliance with the Susquehannocks, went to Susquehanna Fort to help to defend it, and, although the English garrison stipulated for was not maintained, the Marylanders for a number of years, as appears in the records, had communication with that tribe's stronghold, which the contemporary Jesuit relations and some data collected by Eshleman indicate to have been at one time above the Great Falls of the

river. Marylanders must have been familiar with the fort's location. Augustine Herman (name variously spelt), a native of Bohemia, who had decided to remove from New Amsterdam to Maryland, made a contract with the second Lord Baltimore in 1661 or 1662 to prepare a map of his province in consideration of a large grant of land. The work took long, and was very expensive, and, when finished, gave what was claimed to be a delineation of Maryland as inhabited in the year 1670. The map was published in London in 1673. It marked the boundary line as running through a large circular enclosure called "The present Sasquahana Indian fort" on the west side of the Susquehanna, at or south of "Canoage," and just below "the greatest fall," or, in other words, what is known as the Conewago Falls, at the mouth of the Conewago Creek, which also is depicted on the map. The location is actually about five miles north of the fortieth parallel, a remarkable approximation, but no parallels are shown. In carrying the line, intended to run due east and west, as far as the Delaware, in accordance with Baltimore's claims, it is inaccurately made to strike that river above where Bristol now is. The most accessible reprint of the map is in Clayton Colman Hall's book, The Lords Baltimore and the Maryland Palatinate. Many years afterwards, persons serving the interests of the Penns endeavored to discredit Herman's map as having been prepared and paid for in the prosecution of Lord Baltimore's claims against the Dutch and the Duke of York; and, in the lawsuit of the Penns against the fifth Lord, there was an attempt to prove that the only fort ever reached by the Marylanders was at the mouth of the Octorara, but testimony to that effect was duly contradicted by witnesses brought by the defendant. The impression received from Indians about 1700 that no white man had gone north of the mouth of the Octorara before 1682 is, at most, only additional

evidence that, prior to 1632, there were no Christian colonists dwelling in the valley of the Susquehanna between the fortieth parallel and Clayborne's settlement, except possibly an isolated trader, and that down to 1680 there were none claiming possession adverse to the Baltimore grant.

There were various actions of William Penn, even connected with the boundaries, which may be condemned, but we must not think him guilty, when he applied for land, of seeking to have other people's property taken from them. He had then no intention of encroaching upon the rights of the Calverts. Nobody knew where the fortieth degree lay, but it was supposed that the parallel completing it, and marking the furthest extent northward of the claims of that family, was south, rather than north, of where modern observations have located it. As presented before the eyes of every inquiring Englishman, there was up the Susquehanna and on the western side of the Delaware a large region practically uncultivated, and to which neither Lord Baltimore's patent nor the Duke of York's patent did extend. If the great depth westward which the charter of Connecticut called for had ever been taken seriously, it was probably thought to have been legally curtailed, so that it could not embrace any part of this region.

The founder of Pennsylvania (see Howard M. Jenkins's Family of William Penn) was the son of an English admiral of the same name, who, after serving under the Commonwealth, favored the restoration of Charles II, and was knighted, and was the commanderin-chief under, and chief adviser of, the aforesaid Duke of York, when, in 1665, the Duke had the glory of signally defeating the Dutch; so that the Admiral and his son, both before and after the latter became a Quaker, were in close contact with the royal brothers. Charles II, after the useful Admiral died, felt regard for the self

denying son, very possibly from a similar appreciation of virtue to what that King evinced in insisting upon giving a bishopric to the prebendary, Thomas Ken, "the little black fellow that refused his lodging to poor Nelly," Ken having declined to let the King's mistress occupy the prebendal house at Winchester on the occasion of a royal visit. Admiral Penn was the son of a captain in the navy, who was at one time consul for the Mediterranean trade, and the Admiral's monument, set up by his widow, declared the family to be a branch of the Penns of Penn in Buckinghamshire. The mother of the Founder is called in Pepys's Diary a "Dutchwoman;" and, in Granville Penn's Life of Sir William Penn, her father, John Jasper, is described as a merchant of Rotterdam. This is doubtless correct as to a part of his life, and as to his origin. W. Hepworth Dixon, in A History of William Penn Founder of Pennsylvania, romantically narrates the courtship of the Bristol boy, afterwards Admiral, with the "rosy Margaret," who waited for him until after he received a commission, and he "ran over to Rotterdam, and claimed his bride;" but Dixon would have curbed his imagination if he had seen certain records, which, moreover, Jenkins does not notice. Margaret was a widow, and had been married to the former husband in or before 1631, the year of the date of his will, and, while we do not know about her rosy cheeks, we learn, from compensation paid her after her second marriage, that she had property. A certificate dated August 28, 1643, in the Dutch Reformed Church, Austin Friars, London, from Rev. Andrew Chaplin, who before the Irish Rebellion was minister of the congregation of Six Mile Bridge, County Clare, Ireland, tells that John Jasper of Ballycase, County Clare, lived there with Marie his wife, and that Margaret, daughter of John Jasper of Ballycase, was lawfully married according to the rites of the Church of England unto Nicasias

Vanderscure, some time of the parish of Kilrush in said County, and that said Nicasias and Margaret lived in parish of Killconrie before the Irish Rebellion. On June 6, 1643, Capt. William Penn and Margaret Van der Schuren, widow, were married at St. Martin's, Ludgate. Her former marriage does not appear to have been known to Jenkins when he wrote the genealogy. The Admiral set up a claim for money advanced to the Crown, and this, at his death, September 16, 1670, came to his executor, the Founder, who had been moved by Quaker preaching at various times, and, after engaging in various careers having no connection with Quakerism, had joined the Society of Friends about 1668, in the course of, or between, two sojourns in Ireland. A story published anonymously in London in 1682 of his immorality just before becoming a Quaker was heard by William Byrd in a twisted version, and appears in Byrd's History of the Dividing Line [between Virginia and North Carolina] rather as an explanation of Penn's receiving a royal grant. As such it is utterly silly, particularly when, as in Byrd's version, the mistress of the Duke of Monmouth is made to figure as the woman in the case, which certainly would never have endeared Penn to Monmouth or King Charles II (Monmouth's father) or the Duke of York. A daughter is given to Penn, of whom Byrd says that she "had beauty enough to raise her to be a duchess, and continued to be a toast full thirty years.' This was Monmouth's recognized daughter, Henrietta Crofts, who married Charles, Duke of Bolton, in 1697, and died on February 27, 1729-30. Quakers, with more logic, have viewed Penn's success in obtaining royal favor as a miracle.

[ocr errors]

With the money claim against the Crown, and the general friendliness of the Duke of York, William Penn saw the opportunity to obtain what was deemed Crown land, but was occupied by the Duke rather as

« ZurückWeiter »