Review Essay

Review Essay Colonial Delaware Assemblymen, 1682-4776. By Bruce A. Bendier. Family Line Publications, Westminster, Md., 1989. xvii plus 158 pp., index, paper. $10.50. Prosopography, a byword of historiography in the 1980s, is the study of a discrete group of individuals through a period of time. The members of the group might be linked by geography, such as the inhabitants of one particular Tidewater Virginia county studied in Darren B. and Anita H. Rutman's monumental A Place in Time: Middlesex County, Virginia, 1650-1750 (New York, 1984). Members of legislatures are also good subjects for prosopographical studies, their common bond being their service as lawmakers. The compiled information required for a prosopographical study can be very useful to genealogists as well as to historians through its delineation of kinship networks among the group under study. Thus Bruce A. Bendler's Colonial Delaware Assemblymen, 1682-1776 held out the promise of usefulness to both historians and genealogists, two usually distinct and often mutually antagonistic groups of scholars. Unfortunately, the book does not live up to its promise. The introduction to the volume is a brief history of the Assembly of Delaware, known in the colonial period as the Three Lower Counties or the Territories of Pennsylvania, including the years, from 1682 to 1704, when Delaware was united with the Quaker colony in a common legislative assembly. The author provides some interesting comparisons of the assemblymen with their constituents in terms of wealth (as represented by tax assessments) and landholding. He also addresses the religious make-up of the Assembly, the structure of the House, and the meaning of the term "party" in the colonial era. It is in the introduction, however, that the fatal flaw in this volume begins to become apparent: insufficient research. For example (p. vi), the tradition that William Rodney was speaker of the November 1704 Delaware Assembly, the first held separately from Pennsylvania, while plausible, has never to this reviewer's knowledge been definitively proved. Also (p. xvi), contrary to the author's assertion, the names of all the representatives elected in 1702 have been preserved.' 251 252 The Pennsylvania Genealogical Magazine The biographical notes on the assemblymen comprise the core of the volume. Each entry consists of the assemblyman's name and life dates if known; his county or counties and year(s) of service; biographical notes varying in length from a sentence or two (see, for example, Arthur Vankirk, p. 115) to several paragraphs; and a list of sources consulted. The sources are often only general (and therefore minimally useful) references, such as "Sussex County probate records"; they are never proper and complete reference citations. Here, in the heart of the book, the insufficient research becomes appallingly evident. As every genealogist and historian knows, it is theoretically possible to research a person, a family, or a topic forever and never have the research complete; a writer must, however, call a halt to the research process at some point. Because virtually no one has the leisure to research ad infinitum, in most cases it is possible to forgive or overlook a certain small amount of incompleteness. No forgiveness is possible, however, in the case of Colonial Delaware Assemblymen, but not merely because diligent research in sources for Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia can and will yield much more information on many of the early Delaware legislators than is presented in this volume. No forgiveness is possible because so much of the material the author does provide is demonstrably wrong. The author is not invariably incorrect in his assertions, of course, but the volume is nevertheless so riddled with errors that under no circumstances should its statements of "fact" be accepted without independent verification. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the author was careless in his research. Close examination of the biographical notes and their cited sources demonstrates the inaccuracy of so much of the material presented in the volume. Some of the errors are almost laughable; for example, Scituate, the home of Joseph Booth (p. 9) before he settled in Delaware, is in Massachusetts, not Rhode Island.' Others are far more serious. A case in point is the material provided on Luke Watson, Sr. (pp. 118-49). Although the author claims to have consulted Sussex County probate records for his material on Watson, he presents Watson's three wives out of chronological order, as is clearly evident from Watson's will. Again, while the author states that Peter Baynton (pp. 5-6) died in England in 1710, Baynton, in his will of 1 June 1710, describes himself as "now Resident in the City of Philadelphia," where Baynton was buried three days later.' Moreover, in his Baynton Review Essay 253 notes the author incorrectly states (p. 5) that Mary, a daughter of Baynton's stepdaughter Catharine Sandelands and her husband Jasper Yeates, married Robert French. Yet in his notes on French (p. 46), he correctly identifies French's wife as Mary Sandelands, a sister of Catherine (Sandelands) Yeates.5 Again, the author gives a death date of 1694 for Peter Alrichs (p. 1), when in fact Alrichs was still attending the Provincial Council in May 1697. Incidentally, the author consulted C. A. Weslager's monograph on Alrichs but then unwisely rejected Weslager's carefully reasoned and well-supported argument establishing Alrichs's parentage in favor of a much less reliable claim.' The cumulative effect of these and other errors great and small is to destroy the credibility of the volume. While the out-and-out inaccuracies in the book are bad enough, the volume also, at times, evinces an unsophisticated, not to say naive, approach to sources. For example, John Moll (pp. 80-81), one of the most prominent magistrates of New Castle County in the Duke of York period, is described as a clock-maker. This astonishing assertion is based on a description of an old clock with Moll's name on it that "was sent to Holland to have the movements put in.' If, in fact, Moil really had any connection to the construction of the timepiece in question, clearly the source implies that he built the case, not the clock-works, perhaps qualifying him to be considered a cabinets-maker, if only in his spare time. Molt's principal occupation, as noted conectly (p. 81), was as a merchant. Also, in the context of the mid-eighteenth century, the claim that Samuel Johns (p. 64) was an attorney simply because he used the designation "esquire" after his name is dubious. Again, the author has taken the label "C," for "church," applied, in contradistinction to "Q," for "Quaker," to some signers of an Assembly document to equate to Anglican religious affiliation when the original meaning was most likely "non-Quaker." This has betrayed him into claiming that William Houston (p. 62) was an Anglican. Houston, however, was undoubtedly a Presbyterian; he bequeathed a 300-acre plantation as a glebe for the support of a Presbyterian minister in New Castle.' In addition to the multitude of other inaccuracies in the volume, the author frequently had difficulty differentiating between two individuals with the same name. For example, he has confused William Dyer (p. 36), who was elected to the Assembly from Sussex County in 1699, with his father, Major William Dyer (d. 1688), a former customs official, who was denied a seat on the Provincial 254 The Pennsylvania Genealogical Magazine Council in 1687.9 The author seems to have found Kent Countians particularly troublesome to differentiate. He has failed to distinguish between John Hillyard (d. 1726) (p. 57), who represented Kent County in the 1695 Assembly, and his father, also John Hillyard (d. 1684), who served in the Assembly in 1682 and the Provincial Council in 1683-84.10 Similarly, the author has the Richardson family hopelessly confused because of his failure to separate John Richardson (d. 1703), who served with the elder Hillyard in the Provincial Council in 1683, from his son John Richardson (p. 97), a delegate to the 1688 Assembly, who, it seems probable, was executed at New Castle for murder about 1692." That the author would find it difficult to differentiate among three Griffith joneses (pp. 65-66) is perhaps more understandable, but it was Daniel Jones (p. 65), not Griffith Jones, who represented Kent County in the 1682 Assembly.' Furthermore, the author has supplied notes on William Freeman (p. 44), who actually was not an assemblyman; William Freeland (p. 44) represented Kent the year attributed to William Freeman." After a two-page list of frequently cited sources, the volume concludes with an appendix, a collection of sessions lists from 1683 to 1776. Although he has provided partial lists for other years when not all of the representatives are known, the author has not provided a list for 1682, even though he has supplied biographical notes for 15 of the 18 representatives known to have served that year." Apparently he simply forgot to include lists for 1686 and 1716.15 In the end, how does one account for this unfortunate volume? Plainly, the author undertook a task too large for one researcher. Legislative biographical dictionaries, such as those already pubir fished for Maryland' and South Carolina' 7 and the one currently in production for colonial Pennsylvania (which, for the period 1682 1701, will include the representatives for the Delaware counties), are usually produced by teams of researchers. Compilation of accurate and adequate biographies of the legislators of even so small a colony as Delaware was simply too much for one individual. There is no reason to doubt the assertion, made in an ill-advised laudatory preface (p. iii), that Colonial Delaware Assemblymen was a "labor of love" for its author. Good intentions are nevertheless no excuse for shoddy scholarship. Although the inadequate reference notes provided in the volume can suggest avenues for further research, it cannot be overemphasized that, as noted previously, nothing in this book should be taken as "fact" without independent Review Essay 255 verification. The volume deserves to fail on its own demerits. Its publication was a disservice to both history and genealogy. Jeffrey L. Scheib Biographical Dictionary of Early Pennsylvania Legislators Notes 1. The representatives elected were Henry Molleston, Thomas Sharp, John Foster, and Evan Jones, for Kent County; John Hill, Thomas Pemberton, Joseph Booth, and Nicholas Grainger, for Sussex County; and Robert French, Richard Halliwell, Adam Johnson, and Jasper Yeates for New Castle County. Miscellaneous Papers, 1655-1805, Three Lower Counties, fols. 103,105,107, AM 423, Historical Society of Pennsylvania. 2. When Booth lived there, Scituate was actually within the jurisdiction of Plymouth Colony. See, for example, George G. Langdon, Jr., Pilgrim Colony: A History of New Plymouth, 1620-1691 (New Haven, Conn., 1966). 3. Sussex Co. Will Bk. A, 1:52-54. Watson's first wife was probably a Sarah Whitehead; his second wife was Margery (or Margaret) Smith, daughter of Capt. Henry Smith; and his third wife, who survived him, was Sarah, widow of Richard Paynter. 4. The will was proved in Philadelphia in October 1710; Philadelphia Will Bk. C, file #179. For Baynton's burial (as "Peter Bantum") see William Wade Hinshaw, Encyclopedia ofAmerkan Quaker Genealogy (Ann Arbor, Mich., 1938), 2A41 (under "Deaths of Persons Not Friends"). 5. At the time of her marriage to French, Mary Sandelands was the widow of Maurice Trent; Gregory B. Keen, "The Descendants of joran Kyn, the Founder of Upland," Pennsylvania Magazine of history and Biography, 3 (1879):206-23. Mary Yeates, the daughter of Jasper and Catherine (Sandelands) Yeates, married Samuel Carpenter, son of Joshua Carpenter of Philadelphia; John W. Jordan, ed, Colonial and Revolutionary Families of Pennsylvania (New York, 1911; reprint, Baltimore, 1978), 1:400. 6. For Alrichs's attendance in the Provincial Council, see Minutes of the Provincial Council of Pennsylvania [Colonial Records] (Philadelphia, 1852), 1:518-2 L For his parentage, see C. A. Weslager, Peter Alrichs—New Castle Merch-ant, Indian Trader, Plantation Owner and Politician (Radnor, Pa., 1987), 11n . 7. Henry C. Conrad, Old Delaware Clack-Makers, Papers of the Historical Society of Delaware, 20 (1898), 4. Note (p. 81) the inaccurate citation of the title, the paper number, and the year of publication. 8. It is, of course, possible, that whoever labeled the assemblymen "C" or "Q" thought Houston was an Anglican. The document, a letter to William Penn of 9 February 1699/1700, is in Marianne S. Wokeck, Joy Wiltenburg, Alison Duncan Hirsch, and Craig W. Horle, eds., The Papers of William Penn, Volume Three, 1685-1700 (Philadelphia, 1986), 584-87. Houston's will is New Castle Co. Misc, Wills, 1:178-79. That Houston subscribed £2 10s toward the construction of Immanuel Church in New Castle cannot be taken as definitive evidence of his religious affiliation, as Robert Ashton, a Quaker, subscribed £5 toward the construc- 256 The Pennsylvania Genealogical Magazine tion of the church, twice as much as Houston's pledge; Thomas Holcomb, Sketch of Early Ecclesiastical Affairs in New Castle, Delaware, and History of Immanuel Church (Wilmington, 1890), 45. 9, Pennsylvania Archives, 8th ser., 1:214; Minutes of the Provincial Council, 1:197-98. Major Dyer's will is in Wills, Administrations, Births, and Marriages, 1683-1695, Kent and Sussex Counties, Delaware, 95-97, AM 2013, HSP. 10. Richard S. Dunn and Mary Maples Dunn, et al., eds., The Papers of William Penn, Volume Two, 1680-4 684 (Philadelphia, 1982), 318-19; Minutes of the Provincial Council, 1:57; Wills, Administrations, Births, and Marriages, 1683-1695, Kent and Sussex Counties, Delaware, 21-22; Kent County Will Book F, 10--1 II. The author has failed to note that the dates of the younger Hillyard's will and its probate are Old Style; the correct year of his death is 1726. 11. Edward Randolph, the surveyor general of the customs, mentioned the trial, condemnation, and execution of "one Richardson" at New Castle in one of his letters to the English authorities; Edward Randolph to the Board of Trade, 26 April 1697, Board of Trade Transcripts, Plantations General C, fol. 295, bundle B:40, HSP. A bill to reverse Richardson's attainder was introduced in the Provincial Council in November 1700 and then passed on to the Assembly, which tabled it; Minutes of the Provincial Council, 1:619; Pennsylvania Archives, 8th ser., 1:273. 12. Dunn and Dunn, el al., eds., Papers of William Penn, 2:318-19. In 1682 Griffith Jones represented Philadelphia County in the Assembly. The question of which Griffith Jones represented what constituency when is not an easy one to answer because the Kent County freeholders had a habit of electing Philadelphians, including William Frampton and William Markham, to represent them on the Provincial Council. In 1687 they chose Griffith Jones, a prominent and controversial Quaker and later mayor of Philadelphia, to represent them on the Council. See Anthony A. Roth, comp., Mayors of Philadelphia, 1691-1972: Some Genealogical Notes, 4:17-95, Y/Misc. 31:4, GSP. The Kent voters probably felt it made sense to be represented by someone who lived in Philadelphia, where the Council met, who could easily attend meetings and for whom they would not have to pay travel expenses. 13. Although the representative is listed as William Freeman in the 1694 sessions list, he is invariably William Freeland in the text of the minutes for that Assembly; Pennsylvania Archives, 8th ser., 1:154,161-62,166,171-72. For sorting out William Freeman from William Freeland, the reviewer is grateful to Rosalind J. Seiler, assistant editor of the Biographical Dictionary of Early Pennsylvania Legislators, 14. The names of all seven representatives elected from Sussex County in 1682 are known, as well as the names of six elected from Kent and five elected from New Castle; Dunn and Dunn, et at., eds., Papers of William Penn, 2:312-43,318-19. John Vines (p. 116), who was sheriff of Sussex County that year, did not serve in the 1682 Assembly; he served in 1686; Pennsylvania Archives, 8th ser., 1:71. 15. The list for 1686 can be found in Pennsylvania Archives, 8th ser., 1:71; that for 1716 in Josiah Granville Leach, "Members of the Assembly of the 'Three Lower Counties Upon Delaware,' Pennsylvania Genealogical Magazine, 5 (1912-14) :246 . 16. Edward C. Papenftise, et ale, A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789, 2 vols. (Baltimore, 1979, 1985). 17. Joan S. R. Fount, et al., Biographical Directory of the South Carolina House of Representatives, 3 vols. (Columbia, S.C., 1974,1977, l9$1 )