Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

line, and blazed trees, as one story goes, is not important, for he persisted in claiming to the parallel, which he knew must lie further north than the mouth of the Schuylkill River. He commissioned George Talbot, under date of Sep. 17, 1683, to go to the Schuylkill at the Delaware River, and demand possession of the land along said river [i.e. Delaware] lying south of the 40th degree, adding the words: "according to an east line run out from two observations one taken 10 June 1682, the other 27 7ber, 1682, in obedience to his Majesty's commands expressed in letter of 2 April, 1681." It may be concluded that if the second of these observations mentioned contradicted the first, Lord Baltimore took the mean, and that the mean located the fortieth parallel a little below the southern point of Philadelphia as then laid out, in other words well above the mouth of the Schuylkill, in the not very precise measurements of those years. The reason for relying on those observations was, doubtless, their having been taken after full notice to Markham, and in default of his attendance. That the line mentioned had actually been run, is not necessarily meant by the words of the commission or by Talbot's remark that he was authorized to go wherever the line took him, Penn making the point that the commission did not authorize Talbot to cross the Schuylkill. Talbot went to the City of Philadelphia, or at least east of the Schuylkill, and, on September 24, in the absence of William Penn, demanded of Nicholas More, treated as Penn's deputy, all land lying on the west side of the Delaware River and south of 40° north latitude. Penn set forth on Oct. 4 the reasons for not complying with the demand, speaking of the observations and line run accordingly as performed by Lord Baltimore and his agents only, and not by the two parties jointly, as required by the King's letter. There may have been an attempt by Talbot at a line. In January, Baltimore sent Capt. James Murfy to in

duce the people of the disputed region to accept tenancy. In further contention for a line which struck the Delaware far north of Naaman's Creek or the latitude of the mouth of the Octorara, Talbot, calling himself his Lordship's Commissioner for Disposal of Lands in New Ireland and the western side of Delaware River, made proclamation dated Feb. 1, 1683-4, "to all persons dwelling on the western side of Delaware Bay and River between the Creeks of Schuylkill and Whorekyll," offering all the privileges of Marylanders to those who, under their hands and seals, promised fidelity, and offering to those of them who had land by any title a confirmation by patent sent without expense at 2s. per 100A, and protection from all arrears to his Lordship or any one else.

It appears to have been after this that Talbot ran or completed the line known as the Octorara line, or Talbot's line, extending from the mouth of the Octorara to the Delaware at about the mouth of Naaman's Creek. Samuel Hollingsworth, who was a boy nine years old, when, in 1682, he was brought to Pennsylvania by his father, Valentine Hollingsworth, and also John Musgrave, whom Valentine at the same time brought as a servant thirteen years old, made affidavit on June 4, 1735, that after they had lived about a year at Valentine's land on Shell-pot Creek about three miles northeast of the present Wilmington (land surveyed Dec. 27, 1683, under warrant of 12mo. 10, 1682), Talbot and George Oldfield and two or three others came to lodge there one cold evening, saying that they had come from the mouth of the Octorara, and had run a line from thence, and intended to continue it to the Delaware by Lord Baltimore's order as the division line between him and Pennsylvania, and the next day they went off to continue the line to the Delaware, and came back that night, reporting that they had done so; furthermore Hollingsworth said that the line was very plain

for years, trees being marked high up by men on horseback. Lord Baltimore, in a commission to Talbot, dated March 19, 1683 [end of year by Old Style], says "we have caused two observations to be taken at two several times and an east and west line accordingly to be run out and marked at great disadvantage to ourself being some miles south of the northern latitude of 40°."

In this later commission, Talbot was required to take as many persons as he should think convenient, and go to the Governor of Pennsylvania, and demand all the land lying on the west side of the Delaware River and Bay and seaboard to the south of the 40th degree, and more particularly that part thereof which lieth to southward of the marked line aforesaid. Talbot took a number of men, and went into New Castle County to within six miles northwest of New Castle town, and at the bridge across the Christiana built a fort on the land of the widow Ogle on the north side of that creek, raising a breastwork of trunks of trees, and palisading it. When the Sheriff and several magistrates of New Castle County demanded Talbot's authority for so doing, Talbot had the guns and muskets of the garrison levelled at them, and read his commission from Lord Baltimore, and refused to evacuate. Talbot wrote a letter to Penn on April 26, 1684, making the demand as specified in the commission of March 19. Penn does not refer to this in his declaration dated 4mo. 4, in which he commanded that no person submit to Talbot's taking possession, and levying war, as he had done and threatened to do, and that no one seat any lands within Penn's limits without his warrant, and that all magistrates, officers, and inhabitants continue as the Duke had placed them, and seize any person seducing the people of the Province and Territories from their obedience, and especially seize the persons engaged in this invasion. The fort was not maintained very long.

The line with which Lord Baltimore had offered to be satisfied, giving him the Lower Counties, except the little piece above the latitude of Naaman's Creek, was never accepted by Penn, but the western fraction of the line was made use of by Penn's representatives to confine Maryland to a part of the Susquehanna far below any approximate location of the true boundary. Baltimore's great mistake of physically marking what was tentative created a misunderstanding when the circumstances were forgotten, and gave the opposite party a fact upon which to set up the legal plea of estoppel. The fight between the two Proprietaries being transferred to London, Penn left America in 6mo. (August), 1684.

[ocr errors]

Already measures had been taken to secure for Penn a better documentary title to what is now Delaware. The bill in equity of the Penns against Lord Baltimore states that the Duke of York obtained a patent from the King dated March 22, 1682 (Old Style, and therefore after the Duke's deeds to Penn), for the town and fort of New Castle and the land within the compass or circle of twelve miles about the said town lying on the Delaware and the islands in the river and also the tract on the river and bay beginning twelve miles south of New Castle and extending to Cape Lopin. The bill also said that the Duke, having obtained this patent for the benefit of William Penn, handed it to the latter, and that it was then (1735) in the complainants' (the Penns' custody. In a list preserved by the Historical Society of Pennsylvania of conveyances affecting the Penns' dominions, this patent seems to be incorrectly noted as a patent to William Penn, but there is noted a surrender dated April 10, 1683, and acknowledged by the Duke of York three days later before William Beversham, a Master in Chancery, whereby the Duke surrendered the said territory to the King. This would

have disposed of any right acquired under the alleged patent, subject, it would seem, to Penn's right as vassal, if such patent was valid, but the surrender may be construed as relinquishing mere possession. It was to clear the way for a valid patent, as to which the bill in equity mentions the application and subsequent proceedings. On April 17, 1683, perhaps while a project for a fresh charter to the Duke was pending, the Committee for Trade, having read a letter from Lord Baltimore, requested his Royal Highness to make no conveyance to Penn until Baltimore's bounds were settled. Early in 1683, a warrant for a patent to the Duke was issued, but Lord Baltimore's agent petitioned that such a patent should not pass the great seal until the King should be satisfied as to the extent of Maryland, because Maryland included the town of New Castle and adjacent country mentioned in the patent proposed. On May 31, the King in Council referred the whole matter to the Committee for Trade and Plantations for examination and report. The Committee, on June 12, called before them the agents of Lord Baltimore and of Penn, and the issue was raised whether in 1632 the Dutch were possessed of the land in question, which fact Penn's agent promised to prove. A year later, the Solicitor for the Duke of York appeared in the matter, and on Sep. 30, 1684, said that the proof depended upon Penn himself coming to England, where he was soon expected. The matter not having been disposed of before Feb. 6, 1684-5, when Charles II died, and the Duke of York became King, the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General in 1717 concluded that no patent to James for the Lower Counties ever passed the great seal. A quo warranto proceeding was begun against Lord Baltimore, inquiring into the validity of the privileges conferred upon him by the charter. While it was pending, William Penn, on account of whom, as tenant, the matter of

« ZurückWeiter »