A Petition to King Charles II from Kent County, Delaware

A Petition to King Charles II from Kent County, Delaware Jeffrey L. Scheib* TN THE SPRING of 1684, the Three Lower Counties of New 1Castle, Kent, and Sussex upon Delaware, the future state of Delaware, were in a condition of political turmoil as agents of the proprietors of both Pennsylvania and Maryland, respectively William Penn and Charles Calvert, third Lord Baltimore, vied for control of the territory and the allegiance of the settlers. Ultimately William Penn, by an order of the English Privy Council of 13 November 1685, gained control of the region.' Penn also gained at least a qualified support from the inhabitants. One of the byproducts of the contest between the two colonial proprietors is the document presented here, a petition from 42 freeholders of Kent County, Delaware, to King Charles 11.2 Introduction The genesis of the conflict that disturbed the peace of the Lower Counties in 1684 lay in the conflicting colonial grants made by the English government. The territories on the west side of Delaware Bay were included in the 1632 grant of Maryland to the second Lord Baltimore. The first permanent settlers in the region, however, were Swedes who settled at Fort Christina (present Wilmington) in 1638 (a Dutch colony planted on the site of present Lewes, Sussex County, in 1631 having been destroyed by Indians). The Swedish colony fell to the Dutch in 1655, and the Dutch Editor's Note: jekey L Scheib, editor of this journal, 1989-1993, is now consulting editor He is also an editor of the Biographical Dictionary of Early Pennsylvania Legislators Project at Temple University. His editions of several sevent&Pnth-century records of interest to genealogists and historians of early Pennsylvania and Delaware have appeared in previous issues of this journal. 40 Petition to King Charles 71 from Kent County 41 possessions in New York and on the Delaware River were, in turn, conquered by an English expedition sent out by the duke of York under the authority of his brother, King Charles II, in 1664. Thereafter the settlers on the west side of the Delaware River and Delaware Bay were governed by the duke of York's authorities at Manhattan. In the early 1670s the Maryland authorities asserted Lord Baltimore's claim to the Delaware region, particularly to the Whorekill (modern Lewes and its environs), where, at times, open conflict erupted between the settlers who recognized the duke of York's authority and those who accepted the Maryland jurisdiction.5 After a brief reoccupation of the territory by the Dutch in 167344, New York was left in more or less undisputed jurisdiction over Delaware.4 So matters stood in August 1682, when William Penn, who had already received Pennsylvania from King Charles II in 1681, received deeds conveying to him the Three Lower Counties on the Delaware from his friend the king's brother, James, duke of York.5 Penn arrived at New Castle, Delaware, in late October, on his way to Pennsylvania, and took possession of the town in a quaintly medieval ceremony where he received from the duke of York's designated agents a piece of turf holding a twig and a porringer containing soil and water from the Delaware River.6 The Quaker proprietor then acted to gain the allegiance of the settlers of his new territories, inviting them to send representatives to a legislative assembly on equal terms with the representatives of the Pennsylvania colonists.7 The Assembly convened at Chester, Pennsylvania, on 4 December 1682, and the delegates from the Lower Counties responded to Perm's generosity by petitioning for a law uniting their counties with Pennsylvania.8 An Act of Union was duly passed into law on the last day of the legislative session, but, evidently even before the Assembly broke up, the representatives of the Three Lower Counties began to complain of the time, trouble, and expense to which they were put to travel to attend the legislature, a harbinger of future discontents.9 Meanwhile, serious trouble had already begun to brew between William Penn and Lord Baltimore. Penn's grant from Charles II set the southern boundary of Pennsylvania at 40 degrees North latitude, the northern limit of the 1632 Maryland grant. Unfortunately, nobody knew just where the fortieth parallel actually lay. 42 The Pennsylvania Genealogical Magazine Lord Baltimore was understandably angry when, in September 1681, Penn claimed jurisdiction over Cecil and Baltimore counties, Maryland, in the mistaken belief that his grant took in the territory at the head of Chesapeake Bay. When, in 1682, William Markham, deputy governor of Pennsylvania before Penn's arrival, refused to settle the boundary between the two colonies despite orders from the crown and from Penn, the Maryland proprietor countered by claiming title to all the land on the Delaware River up to 40 degrees North. By the summer of 1683 he began offering to settlers in the Lower Counties who accepted his jurisdiction lower annual quitrents on their lands than Penn demanded.° From Penn's perspective, the situation in Kent County had become alarming by the beginning of April 1684, when the Provincial Council of Pennsylvania received reports that numbers of Kent Countians, including John Richardson, John Hilliard, and Francis Whitwell, the county's delegation to the Provincial Council in 1683, had succumbed to the blandishments of Lord Balm timore's agent James Murphy." It was decided to send a delegration from the Provincial Council to quell the incipient revolt. A set of instructions was prepared ordering the delegation, among other things, to arrest John Hilliard, Francis Whitwell, and Peter Baucomb, the sheriff of Kent County, and to bring them to Philadelphia." The delegation's departure was delayed by an armed incursion into New Castle County by another of Lord Baltimore's agents, Colonel George Talbot, who began to build a log blockhouse at Christiana Bridge, west of New Castle town. Then, before the councilors could leave for Kent County, Hilliard and Whitwell returned to their allegiance to Penn and appeared in Philadelphia." Nevertheless, a delegation from the Provincial Council was present at a session of the Kent County court on 18 April 1684. Somehow the councilors managed to "Settle the minds" of the uneasy and disaffected Kent Countians." Quite possibly, the undated petition to Charles II from the Kent freeholders was drawn up and signed at the April session of the Kent County court and taken to Philadelphia by the delegation from the Provincial Council. In view of the probable circumstances of the petition's comp). sition, under the watchful eyes of several provincial councilors, the content of the document is somewhat surprising. Given their Petition to King Charles II from Kent County 43 choice, the signers claimed to prefer to "Continue under the good and gentle Goverment" of William Penn. Nevertheless, the petitioners were not primarily concerned with Penn's right and title to govern the Lower Counties. The signers, many of whom were the most prominent citizens of Kent County at that time, had been made uneasy by the activities of Lord Baltimore's agents. Landholders all, their primary concern was the security of their own land titles if the king decided the dispute between the two proprietors in favor of Lord Baltimore. If the king ruled that Lord Baltimore was entitled to the Lower Counties by the Maryland charter of 1632, then all land grants made under the authority of the duke of York or of William Penn (as the duke's assignee) would be invalid, as neither the duke nor Penn had any right to grant what would then be recognized as Lord Baltimore's property. Thus a decision in favor of the Maryland proprietor would imperil the titles of these farmers and planters to any of their lands held by virtue of grants from the duke or Penn. Therefore they humbly asked the king that, if he should decide in Lord Baltimore's favor, then they might not "bee dispossesed; or any other ways damnified" in their possession and "Injoyemente" of their lands. The petitioners themselves are an interesting lot. Of the 42 signers, 18 at one time or another served in the legislature held jointly for the Lower Counties and Pennsylvania, either as representatives in the Assembly or as members of the Provincial Courtal. Two of the petitioners, John Hilliard (discussed above) and William Southebe, served in the Provincial Council in 1684, and four of the signers, William Berry, jr., John Brigs, John Gloveere [Glover], and James Welles, served in the Assembly that year. Three names are conspicuously absent from the petition, those of Francis Whitwell, (discussed above) the county's third delegate to the Provincial Council for that year, and John Curtis (the most prominent Quaker in Kent County at that time) and William Sherrer, the remaining two of the county's six representatives in the Assembly that year.i5 On the other hand, Whitwell, Curtis, and Sherrer all put their names to a document drawn up on 19 May 1684, at the conclusion of the Assembly session, expressing the "full Content and good Satisfaction" of the Lower Counties' lawmakers with William Penn and his government.16 James Welles, who signed the petition from the county freeholders, was the only 44 The Pennsylvania Genealogical Magazine member of the Kent County legislative delegation who did not sign the Assembly document.17 Probably William Penn himself carried the petition of the Kent freeholders with him when he returned to England in August 1684 to argue his side of the dispute with Lord Baltimore. 'nether Charles II ever actually saw the petition has not been ascertained and is, in fact, doubtful. The petition may have been seen by members of the king's government who were involved in settling the dispute between Penn and Lord Baltimore (that supposition, however, raises a question as to why the petition then remained in Penn's hands instead of becoming the property of the English government). An interesting feature of the document itself is that it was, at some time unknown, incorrectly docketed as "abo[u] t (16)81" (see below). The internal evidence of the document itself makes it impossible for the petition to have originated as early as 1681. As discussed above, William Penn did not receive the Delaware territories from the duke of York until August 1682, yet the petitioners refer to Penn as the incumbent governor of the region. In the transcription of the document presented here, the original spelling, punctuation, and capitalization have been retained, except that all proper nouns have been capitalized in accordance with modem usage. All superscripts have been lowered. Words that were abbreviated with tildes H have been expanded with the supplied letters placed in <angle brackets>. Words, including names, that were otherwise abbreviated have been expanded with the supplied letters placed in [square brackets]. Any added punctuation has been placed in square brackets. Petitioners who signed by making a mark rather than by writing their names are indicated by [mark] placed between their given names and surnames. Each petitioner who at one time or another served as either a representative in the General Assembly or as a member of the Provincial Council is designated by an asterisk (1 following his name.18 In the original document, the signatures appear in three columns, indicated in this transcription by headings in square brackets. The document was transcribed from the original manuscript, folio one of the volume Penn Papers, Autograph Petitions, 1681-1764, in the Penn manuscripts collection of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania. It is published here with the permission of the historical society. Petition to King Charles H from Kent County 45 A Petition to King Charles II from Kent County, Delaware To his most excellent Majesty Charles the 2nd by the Grace of God King of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland and the Do<m>minions and Teritories Theninto belonging; The Petition and adresse of your Loyall and obedient subjects, Humbly sheweth that: Wee the Inhabitants of the County of Sq.] Joneses, alias Kent, on Dallaware Bay, in the Teritories of Pennsilvaina haveing been your Majestyes Faithfull and Loveing subjects under the Goverment of his Royall Highnesse James Duke of Yorke and Albany: &:c: and now of Governour Penn; finding our selves gnerally19 threatned by the agents of the Lord Baltemore; because wee adhere, as in duety wee are bound, to our present Govemour; According to the Grant, letters of Attorney, and Co<m>mand, of his Royall nesse James Duke of Yorke and Albany &:c: Wee most humbly pray that wee may with your Majestyes favour and good likeing; Continue under the good and gentle Goverment of our present Govemour under your Majesty; But if it should bee otherwise determined that wee your Majestyes obedient subjects may not bee dispossesed; or any other ways damnified, for our Fidelity, and obedience to his Royall Highnesse and his Assignes, in our possessions, and Injoymente of our Lands, and planiations; granted unto us by the Authority of his Royall Highnesse; and his Coverflours, and Agents, att New Yorke successively: And your petitioners as In Duey bound shall pray for your Majestyes longe and happy Regne: &:c: Thomas [mark] Bolstock [First column] Samuell Burberey* John Hilliard* Arthur [mark] Allstone William Southebe* Edmund Purkis2I William Berry Junior* Thomas [mark] Hessed*22 John Brincidoe* Thomas Clifford Richard Mitchell Gorge Clifford [oshua] Barkstead24 Gabarill Jones Peter Groenendyk* Peter Louber Georg Martin* Christopher jackeson Daniell [mark] Rutty Thomas Skidmore William [mark] Ridgway Hinrich Jansen Benoni Bishop* 46 The Pennsylvania Genealogical Magazine (Second column] W[illia]m Winsemore* John Brigs* John Gloveere* Thomas Hill James Greenaway Robert Pervish Charles Pickering* Robertt Bedwell* John Everitt Robert Hudson James Welles* William Trippitt Richard Rattliffe Jo[h]n Bradshaw* [Third column] W[illia]rn Darvall* Samuel! Mott Richard Walker Robert [mark] Edmondson John Richards*" Docket "An Address to the king Ch. 2. of County Kent in Pensilv<ania> abo[u]t [16]81." Notes 1. Richard S. Dunn, Mary Maples Dunn, et al., eds., The Papers of William Penn, 5 vols. (Philadelphia, 1981-87), 3:68-69. 2. Penn Papers, Autograph Petitions, 1681-1764, fol. 1, Historical Society of Pennsylvania (hereafter MP). 3. For the conflict between New York and Maryland over Delaware, see, e.g., Percy G. Sidrven, "Durham County: Lord Baltimore's Attempt at Settlement of his Lands on the Delaware Bay, 1670-1685," Maryland Historical Magazitze, 25 (1930):157-67; Somerset County, Maryland, Warrants and Returns of Surveys, AM .443, HSP; Charles T. Gehring, ed., Delaware Pailers (English Period): 1664-168A New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch, Vols. 20-21 (Baltimore, 1977), 48-49, 169-70, 213-17; An:hives of Maryland, 5:106-108, 110-11, 114, 65:51-53. 4. In the summer of 1681, however, two of the magistrates of Kent County (then known as St. Jones County) wrote to their superiors in New York expressing a fear that Maryland was planning to assert jurisdiction over their county by force; they were reassured of the solidity of New York's control over the region; Gehring, ed., Delaware Papers (English Period), 349-50, 356-57. 5. Papers of William Penn, 2:281-84. 6. Ibid., 2:305-8. 7. Ibid., 2:309-11. It should be noted that the colonists on the Delaware had never before had any voice in the making of the laws by which they were governed. 8. Papers of William Penn, 2 :31. 8-20. Petition to King Charles II from Kent County 47 9. The minutes of the Assembly are in Pennsylvania Archives, 8th ser., 1:1-11. The Act of Union is in Staughton George, Benjamin M. Neal, and Thomas McCamant, comps. and eds., Charter to William Penn and Laws of the Province of Pennsylvania Passed Between the Years 1682 and 1700 (Harrisburg, 1879), 104. For a summary discussion of the relationship between the Three Lower Counties and Pennsylvania from 1682 to 1704, see Craig W. Honk, Marianne S. Wokeck, et al., Lawmaking and Legislators in P'entuyivania: A Biographical Diaionary, Volume One, 1682-1709 (Philadelphia, 1991), 33-37. 10. Papers of William Penn, 2:111-14, 256-59, 400-402, 521-23. 11. Minutes of the Provincial Council [Colonial Records), 16 vols. (Philadelphia, 1852-53), 1:101-104. Richardson had a personal grievance against Penn, in that 1800 acres of his land had been included in a manor laid out for Penn at the head of Duck Creek; .Papas of William Penn, 2:521. 12. Minutes of the Provincial Council, 1:103; Papers of William Penn, 2:543-45. 13. Papers of William Penn, 2:547-49; Minutes cf the Provincial Council, 1:103-104. 14. Minutes of the Provincial Council, 1:104; Papers of William Penn, 2:551-53. 15. A list of Kent County's legislative delegation for 1684 can be found in Horle, Wokeck, et al., Lawmaking and Legislators, 1:62. 16. Cadwalader Collection, Thomas Cadwalader Section, Coates List #56, 1-15P. 17. Ibid. 18. Biographies of these petitioners can be found in volume one of Horle, Wokeck, et al., Lawmaking and Legislators, arranged alphabetically. 19. The spelling is as in the original. 20. It can be reasonably assumed that this petitioner's given name should be expanded to 'Joshua" because a Joshua "Backstead" was made surveyor of the highways for the "Lower End of the County" in June 1680, and the name appears elsewhere in the St. Jones/Kent County court records for the early 1680s; Leon deValinger, jr., ed., Court Records of Kent County, Delaware, 1680~1705 (Washington, D.C., 1959), 1-86, passim. 21. The transcription is somewhat uncertain, but note that an Edmund Purkis registered a cattle earmark in the Kent County court on 26/1mo. [26 March] 1684; deValinger, ed., Court Records, 87. 22. This name seems to be in the same hand as Thomas and Gorge Clifford, below. The name is written with a double long as," very similar to the double "f" in "Clifford," and there was a temptation to transcribe it as "Heffed"; however, close inspection of the manuscript yielded sufficient though subtle differences in the formation of the letters to warrant transcription of the name as "Hessed," especially in consideration of the wide variation in spelling of this name in other contemporary records. See Honk, Wokeck, et al., Lawmaking and Legislators, 1:420, s.v., 'Thomas Heatherd." 23. Presumably John Richardson, who was involved in the abortive revolt against William Penn's jurisdiction; see his biography in Honk, Wokeck, et al., Lawmaking and Legislators, 1:628-50.