_,

 

.

  

.

 

 

2:3: .

 

THE MANOR 9;; cam-1mm“ mm mTENANTs
115974733 * ' ‘ '

H {Thesis'ufonthelDagree ofv'Ph.‘D,i ~
7 MICHIGAN STATE. UNIVERSITY-T. ' \
Sung Bo’kk‘im ’ M 1
f . TQHE-_ v "

 

I

 

       

«V. UIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

3 12930

 

IIIIIIIIIII I . LIBRARY

 

Michigan State
”WW

 

This is to certifg that the

thesis entitled

The Manor of Cortlandt and Its Tenants,

1697-1783

presented by

Sung Bok Kim

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degree in History

WQW

Major professor

 

Date4¢nnzs§ MM

 

0-169

 

 

ItIuI... @7619” 3

mnnfim

‘ SEfi (I) 14 @0377
[(5 [$113 J—OOY
, od’w‘“

Ha MW

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

THE MANOR OF CORTLANDT AND ITS TENANTS, 1697-1783

by Sung Bok Kim

The purpose of this study was to examine the lord-
ship of the Manor of Cortlandt, the relationship of the
tenants and proprietors, the economic and social welfare
of the tenants, and their reactions to important social
and political events. Most of the source materials exten—
sively used for my research were wills, deeds, leases,
rent accounts, court minutes, letters, newspapers, and
others. They are scattered at various manuscript deposi-
tories, private and public, all over New York State.

In the course of the study of the manor lordship
and the tenant-proprietary relationship, an emphasis was
placed on their gperational aSpects rather than on the
letters of manor patent and leases. This approach yielded
one important conclusion: that the lordship and leases
have been given by some historians “feudal" or "quasi-
feudal" attributes that they really did not possess. Con-
trary to the traditional views, the lordship was dead as a
working institution from the moment it was granted and the
tenant-proprietary relationship was that of a business con-

tract. Thus, most tenants, unbridled by feudal encumbrances

 

 

Sung Bok Kim
and assisted by abundant economic opportunities that the
colony provided, were able to advance their economic and
social lot, and maintain a living standard much higher
than generally described. In view of their possession of
large personal estates, they seem to have been entrepre-
neurs working for profit, rather than poor tenants
barely eking out their existence.

The business relationship of the tenants and land-
lords and the proSperity of the tenants precluded possible
class conflict. After all, they both were bourgeois—
minded. This situation largely eXplains why most of the
tenants refused to join the manor riot of 1766, initiated
by a few discontented tenants who had been personally mis-
treated by the arrogant landlord, John Van Cortlandt. It
also explains why the majority of tenants onthe manor,
if they took an active part in the contest between the
mother country and her colonies, chose to take the side
their landlords were on, not the opposite side, as some
historians have argued. In this sense, the American
Revolution was not, as far as the manor tenants were con-
cerned, a vehicle to overthrow "feudal“ institutions,
which in fact had never existed, but rather an occasion

to eXpress their solidarity with their landlords.

 

 

 

 

THE MANOR OF CORTLANDT AND ITS TENANTS
1697-1783

By

Sung Bok Kim

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of History

1966

 

 

Chapter

II

III
IV

VI

VII
VIII

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface

Stephanus Van Cortlandt and the
Establishment of the Manor

of Cortlandt

Economic Opportunity in
Colonial New York

The Lordship of the Manor: A Farce
Settlement and Disintegration

The Lease Structure and Its
Operation

Economic and Social Status
‘of the Tenant

The Tenant Uprising of 1766
The Manor in the Revolution
Conclusion

Bibliographical Essay

Appendix

ii

Page

29
47
76

112

155
208
233
268
272
283

 

 

 

 

Tables

1

10
ll
12

13

LIST OF TABLES

Geneology of Stephen Van Cortlandt
and Related Families

Land Transations between the Original
PrOprietors and Settlers
in the Manor, 1733-1776

The Beekmans' Tenants: Rent and
the Size of Lease, 1752-1769

The Schuylers' Tenants: Rent and
the Size of Lease, 1768

The Warrens' Tenants: Rent and the
Size of Lease, 1749 and 1769

The Skinners' Tenants: the Size
of Lease, 1768

Tenants of Philip and Stephen Van
Cortlandt of New York: the
Size of Lease, 1757

The Ver Plancks’ Tenants: the Size
of Lease, 1767

The Size of the Leases in the Manor
by Groups or Classes

Prices of Farm Produce, 1739 and 1765
Property Holdings of Tenants, 1775

Personal Property Holdings of the
Tenants by Class and Occupation

List of Tenants not on the Tax List

of 1779 but their Pr0perty
Holdings Identifiable

iii

Page

48

98

128

129

130

131

132

133

134
139
161

186

187

 

 

Table

Page
14 Sale of Improvements or Lease in

the Manor, 1749-1791 200
15 Loyalists in the Manor 252
16 Whigs in the Manor 255

iv

 

 

 

 

 

MCNY

NYPL
NYSL
OSS

SHRL
WCCO
WCSO

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Museum of the City of New York

New York Historical Society

New York Public Library

New York State Library

Office of the Secretary of State of New York
Sleepy Hollow Restorations Library
Westchester County Clerk's Office

Westchester County Surrogate Office

 

 

 

 

 

 

PREFACE

This is a study of the structure and operation of
the Manor of Cortlandt (1697—1783) in New York, with a
particular emphasis on the status of its tenantry. The
principal questions that have guided the study are these:
How feudal were the manor patent and lease terms? Did the
letters of the patent and lease coincide with their actual
operations? How well off were the tenants? Was their
chance for economic and social advancement blocked by
feudal or "quasi-feudal" oppression on the part of the man—
orial proprietors?

This kind of research, of course, necessitated per-
son by person analysis of all the people, proprietors as
well as tenants, involved in the manor affairs. It must be
confessed that this writer had a difficult time tracing the
lineage of the people because there were so many identical
names. Even the landlords suffered a great deal from this
situation in dealing with rent accounts and other problems
relating to the tenants. Very often, three or four genera—
tions had exactly the same surnames without even attaching
"Sr." or "Jr."

One might argue that what was true for the Manor
of Cortlandt may not be true for the other manors in col-
onial New York. But it turned out that there were more

1

 

 

 

 

 

2
similarities than dissimilarities among them. Conse-
quently, some efforts were made to compare and relate
the Manor of Cortlandt to the other manors and to the
nature of the colony in general.

The paucity of material, particularly diaries
and letters, on the County of Westchester in which the
manor was located, forced this writer to rely very much
on such material as wills, leases, deeds, and court
records. Fortunately, this writer was privileged to
have access to the precious Van Cortlandt collections at
the Sleepy Hollow Restorations in Irvington, New York.
For this, I am indeed grateful to the staff of the
Restorations.

Countless numbers of people were willing to ren—
der their assistance in various ways to my search for
material. Among them, I am especially indebted to Mro
Joseph Thayer, the chief of the Miscellaneous Record sec-
tion, the Office of the Secretary of State of New York
in Albany; Mr. Joseph Anthony of the Manuscript section
of the New York State Library; Mr. Arthur Bretton of the
Manuscript section of the New York Historical Society;
and the staff of the Westchester County Clerk’s Office.

I also wish to exPress my thanks to my colleagues Prof-
essors Frederick A. Palmer and Michael C. Reynolds, both
of the History Department, American International College,
and to my friend, Dr. Roger Parks, for their warm en-

couragement, valuable suggestions, and criticism :

 

 

 

 

 

3

in the preparation of this thesis. Above all, my deep
appreciation must go to my adviser, Professor Robert E.
Brown, and to his wife, B. Katherine Brown, who inter-
ested me in this project, gave me the courage to handle
the monstrous jumbles of statistics, offered insight in-
to numerous problems, and taught me how to procure
historical meaning out of seemingly unrelated material.
There is another human being whom I omitted, but my wife

Leda knows what I mean.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER I

STEPHANUS VAN CORTLANDT AND THE ESTABLISHMENT
OF THE MANOR OF CORTLANDT
On June 17, 1697, Governor Benjamin Fletcher of
New York granted Stephanus Van Cortlandt the lordship of

and the Manor of Cortlandt.1

The grant was the crowning
episode of Van Cortlandt's remarkable political and bus-
iness career that stretched over two decades. It was
also a clear recognition of his political ingenuity in
an age of vehement partisan politics following the abor-
tive Leislerian Revolution. In this sense, a discussion
of Van Cortlandt as a politician and businessman is of
vital importance.

Records of Stephanus Van Cortlandt's earlier life
are so scarce and fragmentary that they do not tell us
more than the date of his birth and his parental back-
ground. He was born on July 30, 1645, as the eldest son
of Oloff Stevenson Van Cortlandt and Anneke, his wife.

Oloff Stevenson, a native of South Holland, came to New

Amsterdam in 1637 with William Kieft, Director-General

.___

lPatent Book 7, p. 165, at the Office of the
Secretary of the State of New York. Hereafter the Office
will be cited as 088.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5

of the Dutch colony. He served in various offices un—
der Kieft until 1648 when he gave up the office of the
Public Stores to engage in brewing.2 By 1674, we find
that he accumulated property of 45,000 florins, the
fourth wealthiest person in New Amsterdam, with Frede—
rick Philipse (who had 80,000 florins) at the top,3

Meanwhile, Oloff Stevenson Van Cortlandt's wealth
and his intimacy with New Amsterdam politics made him a
prominent figure in the towne Accordingly, he held such
offices as the president of "Nine Men" representative
board, "Schepen," "Paymaster," and "Burgomaster." During
the English conquest of New Netherland, he was one of the
commissioners appointed by the Dutch Governor, Peter
Stuyvesant, to negotiate the terms of surrendero Records
indicate that he took the oath of allegiance to the King
of Great Britain after the surrender and held the of-
fices of sheriff and alderman under the English govern-
ment.4 His appointment to the office of sheriff was a

measure of confidence that the first English Governor,

Richard Nicolls, had in Oloff Stevenson.

_.____1

2Van Cortlandt Genealogy, the Museum of the City
of New York. Hereafter the Museum will be cited as MCNY.
See also New York Geneologica1,and Biographical Record,
V, No. 1 (New York, 1874), pp. 70-72.

3"Valuation of PrOperty in New York in 1674:"

Hugh Hastings, ed., Ecclesiastical Records of the State
of New York, 7 vols. (Albany, 1901-16), I, pp. 641-43.

4The Rev. Silas Constant, Journal (Philadelphia,

 

 

 

 

 

 

6

Henceforth, we may reasonably guess that Oloff
Stevenson's political and business successes and the
accompanying prestige paved the way for his son
Stephanus“s rather early rise to political distinction
under the English administration. Like many of the in-
habitants of New York, he seems to have engaged in a
business. There is evidence that he, with Jacobus Van
de Water, bought the confiscated sloop "Dolphin" from the
provincial government on April 23, 1674.5 His corre—
spondence with his sister Maria Van Rensselaer from 1669
to 1689 suggests that he traded with Albany and its ad—
jacent areas° In fact, he, as the bookkeeper of Rens-
selaerswyk with an annual salary of 225 bushels of wheat,
helped his sister to take care of her vast estates after
the death of her husband, Killian Van Rensselaer.6 In
1674, Stephanus Van Cortlandt is listed as having accumu—
lated some 5,000 florin in his own right.7

The appointment of Van Cortlandt at the age of
thirty—four to the mayorship of New York was only the be-

ginning of political preferment for him,8 Governor

 

5Calender of Historical Manuscripts, XXIII, p.
433, New York State Library. The Library will be cited
as NYSL.

6Arnold Johan Ferdinant, ed. and tr., Corres—
pondence of Mrs. Maria Van Rensselaer, 1669-1689 (Albany,
Univ. of State of New York, 1935), pp. 30-35.

 

7Hastings, Eccl. Rec. of the State of N. Y., 1,

P0 659

8Patent Book 7, p. 228, 033.

 

 

 

7

Edmund Andros showered upon him so much of his patron-
age that he became an object of envy and jealousy of the
merchants of English extraction. He was successively
appointed the First Judge of the Admiralty, Commissioner
of the Revenue, Customs Collector of New York, and Deputy

9 Most important of all, in

Secretary of the Province.
1680, he was appointed to the influential Governor's
Council of the Province, on which he was to serve, with
two years of interruption during the Leislerian ascen-
dancy, until his death.

Van Cortlandt returned these favors by his un—
wavering loyalty to the governors under whom he served.
When Captain John Lewin was sent to New York in 1681 by
the Duke of York to inquire into the conditions of
revenue and trade, and whether "anyone has any complaints
against Governor Andros," Stephanus strongly advised his
sister "to admonish Mr. Marten Gerrits. . . not to say
anything to the detriment of Sir Edmund (Andros), but to
say that all he did was for the best interest of the

 

9Calendar of Hist. Mss., XXXIV, p. 12, XXXV, pp.
10, 37, XXXVIII, po 50, NYSL, See also Constant,
Journal, pp. 426-28. Secretaryship of the Province
was created by Sir Edmund Andros on April 25, 1688. Van
Cortlandt's appointment to the Deputy Secretary was
dated October 13, 1688, ed., Typescript copy of his ap-
pointment, VX 1995 at Sleepy Hollow Restorations Libraryo
Hereafter the Library will be referred to as SHRLo

 

 

 

 

 

8
."10

entire province. . . As this letter illustrates,
Stephanus fulfilled what Governor Andros had expected of
113 retinue. In fact, Stephanus was appointed as mayor
3f New York in 1679 by no other than Governor Andros,
Dhe reciprocity of favors between them cemented their
political partnership that later weathered the storm of
leislerian Revolution, despite their different religious
Jeliefs.ll

The Revolution of 1688 in England that dethroned
pro-Catholic King James II had repercussions on this side
1f the ocean. In Boston, the restless Puritans, upon re-
:eiving the news of the Revolution, quickly arrested and
jailed Sir Edmund Andros, then Governor of the Dominion
of New England. In New York, Captain Jacob Leisler and
115 clique raised the banner to overthrow the existing

-overnment, which was dominated by the followers of the

nglican governor. Stephanus's principle of governmental

 

 

10Stephanus Van Cortlandt to his siter Maria,
ril, (n.d.), 1681, Correspondence of Mrs. Mpria Van
nsselaer, p. 48.

11Stephanus was a member of the Dutch Reformed

urch. His following letter to his sister Maria Van

nsselaer clearly shows his Calvinistic piety and his

ar of Catholic violence. "We hourly expect a new gov-

nor, called Col. Dongan, an Irish gentleman and a

tholic. We hope that he will be a good man and he will

t us practice our religion in peace, which may God grant,

whose protection I Commend you." February, (n.d.), 1683,

id., p. 91. See also a certificate, dated June 11, 1689,
Stephanus Van Cortlandt's Protestant faith by the synod

the Dutch Reformed Church in New York, E. B. O'Callaghan f
Berthold Fernow, eds., Documents Relati e to the Colon- y
History of thg State of New York, 15 vols. ZAlbany, ;
6—87), III, p. 590. Hereafter these Documents will be 1
erred to as N. Y. Col. Doc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

9

orthodoxy and his sense of personal loyalty to Sir Edmund
Andros caused him to resist Captain Leisler. Besides,

his position as the mayor of New York, Customs Collector,
and a member of the Governor‘s Council was a great re-
sponsibility that he could not easily forfeit at the call
of the faction. Anti—Leislerian councillors were at first
"resolved to . . . defend the City and Fort against all

attempts whatsoever. ."12

But the tide was running
against them. Lieutenant Governor Francis Nicholson,
taking counsel from his fears, fled to England. Nicholas
Bayard, a most staunch anti-Leislerian councillor, was ar-
rested and subjected to excruciating torture by what he

called the "Grand Robber Jacob Leisler."13

Another coun-
cillor, Frederick Philipse, succumbed to the pressures of
the time and compromised with the Leislerians. But Van

Cortlandt, falsely accused of being a Papist, doggedly re—

fused to surrender to the Leislerians. His house in New

York became the anti-Leislerian headquarters where he

 

12Council report to the Earl of Shrewsbury, May
10, 1689, British Transcripts, Public Record Office, Col-
onial Office 5, 1081, p. 180, on microfilm, SHRL. Here—
after cited as PRO COS.

13Nicholas Bayard to Sir Edmund Andros, October
8, 1689, PRO C05, 1081, p. 218. Also Stephanus Van
Cortlandt to ? , May 19, 1690, PRO 005, 1081, p. 234.

 

 

 

10
onducted government business,14 Finally, after suffer-
ng all kinds of abuses at the hands of his opponents, he
ad to take flight to Albany, New England, and New Jersey
ith a price on his head.15 In exile, he kept himself
breast of conditions in New York, and faithfully reported
) anti-Leislerians about them.
On the downfall of Leisler in 1691 Van Cortlandt's

)yalty to the old regime was amply rewarded by new gov-
'nors; in addition to recovering his old place in the
.uncil he was made one of the justices of the Supreme
ourt and first judge of the Common Pleas of Kings County}6

one of the leaders of the anti-Leislerian faction, he
came the most trusted adviser of Governor Benjamin
etcher° It was during the administration of Fletcher

at Van Cortlandt was appointed Deputy Auditor of the

venue of New York and offered a lucrative governmental

E

14Stephanus Van Cortlandt to Governor Andros,
1e 22, 1689 and July 9’ 1689, N. Y. 0012 DOCo, Ppo 595-
. 593. Also "Journal of Nicholas Bayard," Ibid,, III,
599-604.

15Lieut. Governor Leisler to Col. Coode, Commander-
»Chief at Maryland, May 17, 1690. Cal. of Hist. Mss.,
LIV, po 138, XXXVI, p. 142; Stephanus Van Cortlandt to
"ard Randolph at Boston, December 13, 1689, PRO COS,
1, Po 227.

16PRO cos, 1038, p. 5; NYHS. 0011., for the year

29 P0 410

 

 

ll

contract for victualling provincial soldiers.17

Here it
is to be noted that Van Cortlandt was not just an office
seeker or a ruthless pursuer of profit. He was much con—
cerned about the public interest and the welfare of the
government. He, with others, frequently advanced money

to the government to meet frontier defense. For this act

of public service, Stephanus was officially thanked by

his colleagues,18

Again Van Cortlandt's loyalty to Governor Fletcher,
his business interests, and his anti-Leislerian stand made
him a supporter of Fletcher in the latter's difficulties
with Van Cortlandt's brother-in—law, Robert Livingston,
who turned from anti-Leislerian to Leislerian. At this
time, Livingston was deSperate to salvage his royal ap—
pointment to the Secretaryship for Indian Affairs and Sub-
Iollectorship from Fletcher's violent obstruction.19

.ivingston attacked Fletcher in letters to politically

nfluential friends in London in the hape that Fletcher

E

17Livingston—Redmond Manuscripts, Livingston
amily Papers, on microfilm, Roll. II, SHRL. As for his vic-
daILidgy“business, sed PRO COS, 1042, p. 139; Calendar
f Council Minutes, Mss., VI, pp. 138, 175, 192; VII, pp.
5, 80, 111, 138, 171, 178; VIII, pt. 1, p. 4, NYSL.

18Calendar of Council Minutes, VI, pp. 193, 209;
El, pp. 220, 224, NYSL.

121219., VII, pp. 201-02, 218; Council to the

12
luld be recalled, or, at least, would back down. But,
Letcher, confident of the loyalty of his councillors, par—
.cularly of Van Cortlandt, persisted in his opposition of
.vingston's appointment. It is no wonder, then, that he
luld write to William Blathwayt, a member of the Board
Trade, that Livingston's "brother—in-law Coll: Cortlandt
ready to testify" to his innocence.20 Van Cortlandt's
rm committment to Fletcher even at the expense of the
nod tie deserved a reward. It was this act of loyalty
the part of Van Cortlandt that caused Fletcher to
tnt the former the manorial patent and lordship.
Tracts of land comprising the Manor consisted

:tly of a series of purchases Van Cortlandt had made from
.ian proprietors and others. As the law prescribed,
Cortlandt in 1677 acquired a license or an authori-
ion from Governor Andros to purchase "lands at Wyckers
eks or adjacent parts on the east side of Hudson's

er In the license, there is no Specific deline-

an or extent of lands to be bought, but this omission
not exceptional during this period. Records indicate

; on June 13, 1683, Van Cortlandt made his first

2°Fleteher to William Blathwayt, July 13, 1696,

'2 col, Doc., IV, p. 165.

21The license is dated November 16, 1677. Deed
Aber A, p. 128, Westchester County Clerk's Office.
after the Office will be cited as WCCO.

 

13
)urchase of Indian lands lying on the west side of the
[udson. No evidence exists to indicate whether or not
he purchase was licensed. However, the lands included
pproximately Haverstraw in the so—called "High Land"
nd Salisbury Island. According to the deed, Sakagh-
eineik, sachem of Haverstraw, and others conveyed the
ands "for consideration of 6 shillings and for Diverse
bher Valuable Gauses."22 This purchase was followed,
month and a half later, by another purchase from Indian
'oprietors, Pewemind and others, of lands on the east
de of the Hudson. The lands included in the deed
re known by the Indians as "Appamaghpogh and Meahagh”
resently the areas around and including Verplanck‘s

int).23 The above two purchases were confirmed and

22A copy of the Indian deed, V1694, SHRL. The
Ids, however, were not included in the manor patent.

23The Indian deed, August 24, 1683, Patent Book
pp. 177—90, 088. The following is the list of goods
.d by Van Cortlandt for the land.

8 Guns 3O barrs of lead
9 Blankoats 12 Hatchetts
5 Coats l8 Howes'
14 fatham of Dusfeilds l4 Knives
l4 Ketles a small Coat
40 fatham of Black Wanpan 6 fathan Stand-
80 fatham of White Wampan water cloth
2 anchers of Rum ' 6 paire of Stock-
5 half vatts of Strange beer ings
12 Shirts 6 Earthen juggs
50 pounds of powder 6 Tobacco Boxes

(Source: Deed Book Aber I, p. 129, WCCO.)

 

 

 

 

 

l4

granted by Governor Thomas Dongan on March 16, 1685, with
a yearly quitrent of 2 bushels of good winter wheat.24

To expand his domain further along the east side
of the Hudson, Van Cortlandt in July 1695 bought from Major
Hugh MacGregor of New York the lands in the vicinity of
Peekskill on the southwest side of the lands belonging to
Iacob Dekay and Company.25 The deed does not show the
Lmount of money paid by Van Cortlandt on the lands except
'a certain same of money," nor the extent of its acreage,

Apparently, sometime before the manor patent was
‘ranted, Van Cortlandt acquired tracts of land "in the
ear" (east side) of his domain on the Kightawonck
Croton) River, for his application for the manor patent
xplains that an Indian by the name of Quiettau mortgaged
1e land in question to him for "several merchandise: to

26 In addition, the manor

1e value of Sixty five Beaver."
Ltent, which recites the previous "sundry grants," shows

Lat Van Cortlandt also obtained in 1689 a tract of land

 

zlpatent Book 5, pp° 306-09, 033.

25The deed is dated July 13, 1695, Patent Book
p. 351, OSS° Originally, the land was bought by Major
gh MacGregor, on July 12, 1688, from Pewemind, Indian
:hem, and others. Cortlandt Manor Papers, NYHS.

26June 17, 1697, Calendar of Land Papers, Mss.,
PO 245, NISLg

 

 

 

 

15

south of the Croton River from Governor Dongan as a
private deal.27

One is at a loss to locate and identify the
quantity of lands involved in Van Cortlandt's above pur-
chases. However assiduous one might be it is beyond hu-
man skill to describe the boundaries of the lands by
following the Indian names of brooks, creeks, hills,
trees, ponds, falls, rivulets, and waters. Names arbite
rarily given to certain natural objects by particular
Indians were unintelligible to different Indians. The
Indians often described many places by the same name. To
confuse the situation further, they changed the names of
the objects as they moved around.28 The primary reason
for these irregularities was that the Indians had no re-
cord, no concept of figures or measurement, except memory
which, of course, could hardly be depended upon for any
regularity.29 In no small part did the government also
contribute to the uncertainty of boundaries of the grant.

Since the government, until the beginning of the eighteenth

 

27Patent Book 7, pp. 165-69, oss.

28Report of Surveyor General of New York on "State
of the Lands in the Province of New York, in 1732," (n.d.),
E. B. O'Callaghan, ed., Documentary History of the State
of New York, 4 vols. (Albany, 1849-51), I, p. 254. Here—
after the edition is referred to as Doc. Hist. N. Y.

29Governor Tryon to the Earl of Dartmouth, June
2, 1772’ O'Callaghan, N. Y. C01. DOCa’ VIII, PO 374‘.

 

 

 

 

 

16
century, never made it an official policy to make a survey

before a grant, it had no alternative but to follow for

its patent the letters of an ambiguous Indian deed.30

Thus, the ambiguity of boundaries proved to be a perpetual
source of jealousy, discontent, and law~suits.

The manor patent clarifies to some degree the prob—
lem of the boundaries. According to the patent, the manor
line runs as follows:

. . Beginning on the North Line of the Manor
of Phillipsburge, and to the South side of
Kightewanck (Croton) Creek, and from thence by
a due East line running into the woods Twenty
English Miles, and from the said North Line of
the Manor of Phillipsburge upon the South Side
of the Said Kightewanck Creek, Running along
the said Hudson River; northerly as the Said
River runs unto the North Side of a High Hill,
in the name of Anthony Nose; to a Cedar Tree
which makes the Southern most Bounds of the
Land in the Tenor and Occupation of Mr. Adolph
Phillips, . . . and from the said red Cedar
Tree another due East Line running into the woods
Twenty English miles; and from thence along the
pertition Line Between the Collony of Connecticut
and the Province of New York until you come unto
the Place where the first Easterly Line of Twenty
miles doth come . . . , and also certain parcell
of Meadow, lying. . . upon the west side of the
. . . Hudson River, within the said high Lands
over against the aforesaid Hill called Anthony
Nose; Beginning on the South side of a Creek
called by the Indians Imkapogh, and so along the
said Creek to the head thereof, and then North-
erly along the high hills as the River runneth to
another Creek called Apimnapink and from thence 31
along the Said Creek to the Hudsons River. . . .

 

30See Chapter II.

31

See the manor patent in Patent Book 7, pp. 165—
69, 0380 '

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

17
One may notice in the patent that the manor domain not
only covers the areas Van Cortlandt had already bought,
but also lands that do not appear in his original pur—
chases. The latter, extending 20 miles eastward to the
"supposed" Connecticut eastern boundary, were applied for
in Van Cortlandt's petition for the manor patent. The
above description of the manor boundary still leaves us
in doubt as to the exact quantity of the manor domain, for
it does not give the figures of land acreage. It seems
that Van Cortlandt had never made a survey before he ap-
plied for the patent. It took almost sixty years after
the patent was granted for the heirs of Stephanus Van
Cortlandt to know approximately how much land was comprised
under their manor title when they finally completed, though
still inconclusively, the division among themselves in
1753.32 A series of surveys made later indicates that the

manor had approximately 85,700 acres.33

 

32The 1753 division of the manor land was-incon-
clusive, because there remained the undivided lands em-
bracing Sarah’s Point and a tract east of Bedford Patent.
This matter will be discussed later. The deed dated Dec—
ember 14, 1753, Deed Book 16, pp. 289-98, 033.

33This figure is based on calculations of the

quantity of the land made sometime after the Revolution
for the purpose of collecting quit rent from several towns
in the Manor of Cortlandt° Included in this figure is the
recovered land of Stony Hill. But the so—called Rykes
Patent of 1800 acres, which was within the manor jurisdic-
tion until 1770, but belonged to different people, is ex—
cluded from our tabulation. See "Calculations of Quit
Rent for the Several Towns in the Manor of Cortlandt," Van
Cortlandt Papers, New York State Historical Association,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

18'

Stephanus, van Cortlandt must have felt uncertain
of his title cutting across the vast tracts of land 20-
miles east of the supposed Connecticut boundary, which
had been already occupied by settlers with Indian deeds
or with title issued by the governments of Connecticut
and New York. For example, there was the town of Bedford
with a Connecticut town patent dated May 11, 1682, perch-
ing on the manor's southern line.34

Political developments after the dismissal in 1697
of Governor Fletcher for his corrupt administration made
von Cortlandt, Fletcher's confidential aid, very uneasy
about his political fortunes. The Earl of hellomont, a
Whig politician, who succeeded Governor Flatecher in April,

1698, was pro-Leislerian. Bellomont became increasingly

incensed at the influence wielded by what he called

 

on microfilm, at SHRL. Nevertheless, there is a reason
for serious reservation about the authenticity of the fi-
gure. To be noted is the inaccuracy of land measurement.
For example, the William Skinners, one of the heirs of
Stephanus veu Cortlandt, upon the manor partition in 1732,
were recorded to have received South Great Lot No. 4 with
3,712 acres and the same lot No. 10 with 2,565 acres;
whereas in 1766 when the lots were for sale, the acreage
for South Great Lot No. 4 was 3,968 and South Great Lot
No. 10 was 2,826. Therefore, the above calculations based
on the initial suryey of 1732 cannot be depended upon for
accuracy., See the advertisement of land for sale in The
New York Mercury, December 22, 1766; Warren Papers, Uni—
versity of London, on microfilm, SHRL.

34ZachariahRoberts to Governor and Assembly at
Hartford, May 1697, Robert C. Winthrop Collections,
Connecticut State Library, on photostat, PXllOl, SHRL.

 

 

 

 

 

l9
"corrupt" anti-Leislerians in the provincial government.35
His first bold political act was to purge his own Council
of those who were closely associated with Governor
Fletcher. By the end of September, 1698, he suspended
Nicholas Bayard, Gabriel Minvielle, Thomas Willet, Richard
Townly, and John Lawrence from the Council, all die-hard
anti—Leislerians.36 In the following month, four more
councillors, Chidley Brooke, William Pinhorn, William
Nicholls, and Frederick Philipse, were likewise removed.37

This means that there remained only four out of Fletcher‘s

thirteen appointees. In their stead, Bellomont appointed

 

five Leislerians thus insuring a Leislerian majority in

the Council.38

 

35Bellomont to the Lords of Trade, May 8, 1698,
N. Y. Col. Doc., IV, p. 308.

 

36Bellomont to the Lords of Trade, October 21,
1698, Ibido, IV, p. 398.

37PRO, Privy Council (PC), on microfilm, 77, p.
124, SHRL. Their removal was approved by the Lords
Justices in the Privy Council on October 25, 1699. Cal-
endar of Hist. Msso, XLIII, p. 139

p 38The five Leislerian Councillors were Abraham
DePeyster, James Graham, Samuel Staats, Robert
Livingston, and John Corbile. PRO, PCS, I, p. 146,
SHRL. Thus, Bellomont regarded the Leislerites as
"more sober and virtuous people and better affected to
His Majesty‘s government than the other party" (the
anti-Leislerians)o Bellomont to the Board of Trade,
September 21, 1698, N. Y. Col. Doc., IV, Po 375°

 

 

 

 

 

20

Strangely enough, Van Cortlandt, though a staunch
anti-Leislerian and father-in-law of Nicholas Bayard's
son, was not only spared, but also given in June 1698 a
highly remunerative office as a co—Collector and Receiver
General which he retained until his death.39 What, then,
caused Bellomont not only to retain Van Cortlandt but also
to bestow such a patronage upon a man whose politics were
affiliated with the anti-Leislerian faction? It was prob-
ably owing either to opportunism and agility on the part
of Van Cortlandt, who felt he had too much to lose by not
cooperating with the duly constituted governor, or to
Bellomont's political strategy of crushing the anti—
Leislerians by detaching Van Cortlandt from their ranks,
or to both. At any rate, before Bayard was suspended
from the council, Van Cortlandt, at the behest of Bello-
mont and accompanied by Leislerian James Graham, went
back and forth to Nicholas Bayard, a bitter enemy of the
Leislerians, to persuade the latter to come to terms with

40

Bellomont. It seems that Van Cortlandt was also on

good terms with Leislerian councillors, one of whom praised

 

39Van Cortlandt was appointed in the place of
Chidley Brooks. Lewis Graham, Attorney General of New
York, to Mr. Blaithwayt, September 19, 1698, Ibid., IV,
1). 375.

40Bellomont to the Lords of Trade, November 12,
1698, Ibid., IV, pp. 427-28.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

21
for his "diligence and care" in discharging assigned
duties.41

Despite this harmonious personal relationship
with Bellomont and his cohorts, Van Cortlandt had suffi-
cient reason to be apprehensive about the integrity of
his Manor title. The source of his apprehension was
Bellomont's vigorous effort to vacate what Bellomont
called "extravagant" and "illegal" grants of land, includ-
ing Van Cortlandt's, made by his predecessor Governor
Fletcher. Bellomont's reasons for the effort were that
those lands were granted by the former governor in viola-
tion of rules, that is, without consulting the Attorney
General, and that the grants were so "extravagant" that
no land was left to be disposed of by any succeeding gov-
ernor "to reward the services of subject,"42 To his en—
couragement, his effort received wholehearted endorsement
from the Lords Justices in England.43

As a test case,44 he singled out several grants

 

41Lewis Graham to Mr. Blaithwayt, September 19,
1698’ Ibido, IV, PD 3750

 

42Bellomont to the Lords of Trade, July 1, 1698
and also to Secretary Pepple, July 7, 1698, Ibid., IV,
pp. 345-35, 327.

43The Lords Justices to Bellomont, November 10,
1698. Ibid., IV, D. 375.

44In his report to the Lords of Trade, Bellomont
specifically laid out steps to be taken in revoking these
grants. He said he would first vacate several of them,
and then "try to breake the rest the next." April 17,
1699’ Ibid., IV, Pp“ 506—070

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

22
of such leading anti-Leisleriansas Nicholas Bayard,
Godfrey Dellius, John Evans, Caleb Heathcote, William
Pinhorne, Evert Bancker, and Peter Schuyler.45 Although
he drew strong objections from three of his councillors,
he managed to have a bill vacating these grants passed
in May, 1699, by his casting vote through the Council.
Then, he wryly reported that those three councillors who

voted against the bill had "the largest grant in the

 

45The Colggial Laws of New York from the Year
1664 to the Revolution, 5 volso (Albany, 1894;, I, p .
412-17. The grants to be revoked were:

Grantee Date of Grant Location Quantity
Dellius Sept. 1, 1696 Albany, Saratoga 70 miles in
length, 12
miles in
breadth
Dellius July 30, 1697 In Mohaques 50 miles in
Schuyler County length
Wessels 2 miles in
Bancker breadth
Pinhorne
Bayard Dec. 2, 1695/6 Kingsfield Man- '2
or in Albany
Evans Sept. 20, 1694 Fletcher Manor 300,000 acres
in Ulster
County
Aug° 9, 1694 Near King's 70 acres of
Farm on the swamp and
Manhattan fresh pond
Heathcote April 2, 1696 Part of King's ?

Garden on the

Manhattan
Trinity Aug. 19, 1697 Lease of King‘s
Church of Garden for 7
New York years

 

 

 

 

 

 

23
province next to Mr. Dellius."46 Van Cortlandt was prob—
ably one of them, besides Peter Schuyler and William
Smith, councillors carried over from Governor Fletcher's

47 However, the bill "met with a cheerful concur-

time.
rence" in the General Assembly, in which the Leislerites
had an overwhelming majority of 16 out of 21 members,
Not satisfied with vacating the grants, the Partisan
Assembly even added a clause for depriving Dellius of his
ministerial benefice (Dutch Reformed Church) at Albany.48
While the bill was pending for approval by the

home government, Bellomont, armed with the authorization

 

46Bellomont to the Lords of Trade, May 12, 1699,
N. Y. 001. Does, IV, P0 5100

47There was one other Fletcher appointee, John
Young, but he did not have any great landed estate. The
grants of both Schuyler and Smith were comparable to Van
Cortlandt's and, accordingly, earmarked by Bellomont to
be revoked. Smith's grants were St. George's Manor
which ran 50 miles in length on Nassau Island and large
tracts of land in Suffolk County. "A List of New Grants
of land by Coll. ffletcher, late governour of New York,"
PRO, COS, 1049, p. 439.

48"An Act for ye Vacateing° . . several Extra—
vagant Grants of Land made by Coll. Fletcher the late
Govr of this Provinceo . .,," passed on May 16, 1699,
The Colonial Laws, I, pp. 412-17; Bellomont to the Lords
of Trade, May 12, 1699, No Yo Col. Doc., IV, p. 510;
PRO; COS, 1042, p. 1390 As for party alignments, see
Bellomont to the Lords of Trade, April 27, 1699, Ibid.,
IV, p. 509.

 

 

 

 

 

 

7|
.
t
e ,
e
o
. e
t n\ R
. a
2
l V\ n
c
q
. .
.
. .
. «x
t .
.
x
c
.
a
n
.
e

 

 

24
from the Lords Justices and elated with the Assembly's
favorable response to his first try, proceeded in May 1699
to break the remaining "extravagant" grants of over 2,000
acres. This time, he did not intend to make any exceptions,
whether the grantee was Leislerian or not, in his whole—
sale attack on those grants.49 But soon he began to
doubt whether the General Assembly would come along all
the way with his reformist but "extravagant" plan. Now
the members of the Assembly, recovered a bit from a vio—
lent partisan temper, became increasingly reluctant to

support Bellomont's overly ambitious design.

 

What happened to the Leislerian Assembly which had
once exhibited such a partisan zeal for Bellomont's first
vacating bill? For one thing, the members of the Assembly
were, as Bellomont aptly pointed out, "landed men, and
when their own interest comes to be touched, 'tis more

"50

than probable they will flinch° However different poli—

tical creeds between Leislerians and anti—Leislerians

 

49The attack included his Leislerian councillor
Livingston, Henry Beekman (one time Leislerian), Frederick
and Philip Philipse, Stephanus Van Cortlandt, and others.
Bellomont to the Lords of Trade, May 3, 1699, PRO, 005,
1042, P. 1390

50Bellomont to the Lords of Trade, August 24,
1699, N. Y. COL. Doc., IV, pp. 549, 553—54. In the same
letter he finally confessed that he did not have "strength
enough in the Assembly" to break the grants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

25

might have been, they were in the same camp as far as
their landed property interests were concerned; a threat
to common economic interests diSpelled an animosity born
of their political struggle. Despite this setback,
Bellomont persisted. He appealed to the home government
to give him a complete mandate, "a peremptory order from
the King," that would sanction his endeavor. For he
feared that the mere authorization from the Lord Justices
was not forcible enough "to deal with both in the Council

and Assemblyo"51

Later he suggested, however, that Parl—
iament should take upon itself the business of breaking
the grants,52 He also requested the Lords of Trade to
send able lawyers for the offices of Attorney General and
Chief Justice, without whom he said he could promise
nothing.53
It is not so hard,then, to visualize why
Bellomont's stubborn effort to revoke the rest of the
"extravagant" grants rapidly cooled off the relationship
of Van Cortlandt and Bellomont. Van Cortlandt's opposi—

tion to the reform touching land grants infuriated

 

SlBellomont to the Lords of Trade, June 22,
1699, N. Y. Col. Doco, IV, pc 535.

52Bellomont to the Lords of Trade, August 24,
1699’ Ibid. , IV, P. 549.

 

53PR0 005, 1042, p. 139; Bellomont to Bridge-
water, March 12, 1699, Ellsmore Collections, No. 9764,
Henry E. Huntington Library, on photostat, SHRL;
Bellomont to Lords of Trade, May 25, 1700, N. Y. Col.
222., IV, pp. 644, 647°

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

26

Bellomont. A letter written by Bellomont the day after
the Council cast its vote on the first vacating bill
vividly shows his bitterness and frustration at Van
Cortlandt whom he had put in his trust. Bellomont said
in the letter that Van Cortlandt as a customs collector
was acting like a person who expected to be dismissed
any day, and that he, with Fletcher's other men, opposed
him, privately or openly, on every occasion, even though
Van Cortlandt and his friends pretended to be Leislerians?4
As his relationship with Bellomont became
strained and as the threat to his manorial title mounted,

Van Cortlandt must have felt the urgent need for consol—

 

idating and strengthening his title. It is no wonder,
then, that Van Cortlandt under these circumstances took
an unusual step to contract a new deed with the Indians
living on his manor. This Indian deed was dated August
8, 1699, four months after the first vacating bill was
passed and two years after the manor patent was granted.

The boundary of land in the new deed is in these words:55

 

54Bellomont to the Lords of Trade, May 13, 1699,
‘ 0., IV, pp. 515—18.

55The Indian deed, V1694, SHRL. It is quite
likely that Van Cortlandt was one of those who contri—
buted for Godfrey Dellius‘ trip to England in order to
dissuade the King from approving the first vacating act.
fiThe angry people (the holders of "extravagant grant")
of New York," Bellomont reported, "contributed $500 for
his trip & those of Albany ‘£200°" Bellomont to the
Egrds of Trade, June 22, 1699, N. Y. Col. Doc., IV, po

3o

 

 

 

 

 

 

27

. . 0 all that tract and parcell of land

Scituate lying. . . in the Mannour of

Cortlandt in Westchester begun on the South-

side off Kightawonck (Croton) Creek and so

along the sd Creek to a place called Kewighte-

cook (near Bluetown) and from thence along a

creek called Poppeneghik to the head thereof

and then due East to the limitts of Connecticut

being the Eastermost bounds of said manner and

from thence northerly along the limitts of

Connecticut aforesaid to the River Mattegtecos

(Titicus) tenn miles and from thence due west

to Hudsons River.

As the boundary line shows, the lands bought by Van
Cortlandt this time were squarely within the limits of
the manor patent, but not included in his previous pur—
chases. The deed was unusual in the sense that Van
Cortlandt bought the same tracts of lands that the gov—
ernment had already granted to him. In this respect, his
action was obviously designed to ward off a challenge,
which was quite likely in view of Bellomont‘s policy, to
his manor title in the future.

Van Cortlandt had no reason to be overly optimis-
tic about the integrity of his manor title even with the
new Indian deedo For despite the landowners’ mounting
chorus of counter-attack, in which even the merchant group

joined, Bellomont did not show any sign of retreat.56

 

S6Nicholos Bayard to Bridgewater, June 23, 1699
and October 16, 1699, Ellesmore Coll° No. 9765 and No. 9775,
Huntington Lib., on photostat, SHRL; Bayard to William
Blathwayt, June 23, 1699, Blathwayt Papers, Colonial Wil—
liamsburgh Library, on photostat, SHRL; "Heads of Accuda-
tions against the Earl of Bellomont," March 10, 1700 and
"Petition of Sundry Merchants (31) of New York to the King,“
March, 1700, N. Y. Col. Doc., IV, pp. 620-24; Bellomont to
the Lords of Trade, May 29, 1699 and October 17, 1700,
Ibid., pp. 528-29, 725.

 

 

28
His determination to vacate the rest of the "extravagant"
grants by whatever means became almost an obsession al-
though he was disappointed to know that the first vacating
act had not been approved "by the King in all this time"
and the King's Solicitor General was strongly opposed to
the act. Van Cortlandt, however, in the cross—currents
of the good and bad news, grew "crazy and infirm," and
died on November 25, 1700.57 So did Bellomont four months
later. With the passing of Bellomont, his campaign to
vacate the manor title died also. Thus, the Manor of
Cortlandt survived the political storm and became inheri—

table for the heirs of Stephanus Van Cortlandt.

 

57Bellomont to the Lords of Trade, October 17,
1700, Ibid., IV, p, 7250 There are two conflicting ac-
counts of the date of Van Cortlandt's death. His wife
Gertruyd dated his death on October 16, 1700. Gertruyd
Van Cortlandt to William Blaythwayt, November 26, 1700.
Van Cortlandt Papers, NYHSo But Bellomont reported that
Van Cortlandt died on November 25, 1700° Bellomont to
the Lords of Trade, November 28, 1700, N. Y. Col. Doc.,
Ivy Po 7960

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER II
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY IN COLONIAL NEW YORK

The Manor of Cortlandt was not a closed society
completely isolated and impenetrable from the outside; it
was an integral part of the matrix of society in the
American Colonies. Unlike a medieval manor, the people
on the Manor of Cortlandt were guaranteed freedom of
movement from one place to another for commercial and
other purposes. It is, therefore, not too much to say
that the nature, growth, and development of the manor was
closely entwined with the over-all nature and development
of the American Colonies in general and the New York Pro—
vince in particular. It would be futile to describe the
economic status of the tenants on the manor without tak-
ing into account the general economic opportunities that
were available for the settlers in the colony of New York,
in which the manor was situated. For these considerations,
it seems vitally important to discuss economic conditions
as they existed before the American Revolution.

One cannot fail to come across constant references
in the home—bound letters of the government officials at-
testing to the abundance of economic opportunities on
this side of the Atlantic throughout the eighteenth century.

29

 

 

30
In the letters, two themes are most noticeable: the
cheapness of land and the dearness of labor. In fact,
the cheapness of land and dearness of labor were the
basic underpinnings of the great economic opportunities
in colonial New York.

Lewis Graham, attorney general of New York in
the 17005 and a resident in Westchester County, often
humorously repeated a popular saying, “who will be such
a fool to become a base tenant. . . when man can for a

1 Governor Robert Hunter

song purchase a good freehold."
seemed to support Graham's a bit exaggerated version of
the cheapness of land by pointing out in 1710 that
"property may be had at so easy rates" in the colony.2
As late as 1768, Governor Sir Henry Moore echoed the
above observations when he reported to the home govern—
ment that "invincible obstructions" to the development
of manufacturing in New York were the scarcity of labor
and the cheapness of land. In a country where "everyone
can have land to work upon," remarked the Governor, no-
body was willing to work for others. To substantiate his
point, he quoted an interesting instance in which an own-

er of a glass manufacturing plant went into bankruptcyo

 

1The Earl of Bellomont to the Lords of Trade,
November 28, 1700, N. Y. Col. Doc., V, p. 791.

2Governor Hunter to the Lords of Trade, November
14, 1710, Ibid., pp. 179-800 See also his report to the
same, November 12, 1715, Ibid., pc 459.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.\
o
l
o
.\
o
s .k
e
.
-

 

 

 

31

The owner told the Governor that "his ruin was owing to
no other cause than being deserted. . .by his servants"
whom he had imported at a great expense; and that "many
hthers had suffered and been reduced as he was, by the
same kind of misfortune."3

The unwillingness on the part of a settler to
work for others but only for himself was also illustrated
by the difficulty of securing tenants on the patented
lands° Since big proprietors were not capable of im—
proving their lands by themselves, they exPected to find
tenants to work for them. However, the proprietors were
often disappointed in their efforts to recruit the ten—
ants. Bitterly complaining of the "profuse practice of
granting lands," Oliver DeLancey, a landed magnate in New
York, declared that it was "very difficult to settle ten—
ants as every person can be at an easy rate a freeholder."4

After all, a great many people left their native
countries and ventured a perilous voyage for the new con-
tinent, as Cadwallader Golden, Surveyor General of New

York, said in 1732, to "avoid the dependence on landlords,

 

3Governor Moore to the Earl of Hillsborough, Jan—
uary 12, 1767, Ibid., VII, pp. 888-89.

 

4Oliver DeLancey to Col. William Skinner in Lon—
don, June 10, 1772, Sir Peter Warren Papers, G/Am, the
University of London Library, on film, at SHRL. Hereaf-
ter, the Papers will be cited as Warren Papers, University
of London.

 

 

32

and to enjoy lands in fee to descend to their posterity."5
The spirit of yeomanry that motivated the pioneers was
certainly one stumbling block, along with the cheapness
of land, to any design to transplant the fetters of
feudal tenures in the land of plenty.

The cheapness of land and consequent reluctance
of the settlers to become tenants unquestionably account,
in no small part, for the delay in the settlement of the
various manors and large grants along the Hudson. In 1700,
the Manor of Philipsburgh in the neighborhood of the Manor
of Cortlandt had only twenty families, deSpite the fact
that the Manor was granted in early 1692. We have to ad-
mit that the Manor was still fortunate to recruit so many
tenants at that time, for big landowners like Colonel
Peter Schuyler, Philip Philipse, Colonel Henry Beekman,
and Colonel William Smith, Sr., did not seem to have
"any tenants on their grants."6 Stephen Van Rensselaer
had, as late as 1734, only three families on his land of
3,115 acres on the east side of the Wappinger River in

Dutchess County.7

 

5Colden‘s report on "State of the Lands in the
Province of New York, in 1732," Doc. Hist. N. Y., I, p.
253.

6The Earl of Bellomont to the Lords of Trade, Jan-
uary 2, l700/Ol, N. Y. 001. Doc., IV, p. 820.

7See the advertisement of his land for sale in
The New York ngette, November 11, 1734.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

33

All in all, contemporary observers, official and
unofficial, were in complete agreement in resPect to the
great economic opportunities in colonial New York.8
These abundant economic opportunities throughout the
eighteenth century are partly attributable to the enor-
mous disparity between the number of inhabitants and the
vast tracts of land still to be cultivated. As late as
1774, Governor William Tryon could report that the ratio
between the improved and unimproved parts of the colony
was one to four; one fifth only improved.9 This situa—
tion, remarked William Smith, a contemporary historian of
New York, was responsible for the colonial farmers' lack
of incentive to learn "the art of manuring."10

The cheapness of land, to which many observers
made reference, was further buttressed by the easiness of
obtaining the land. There were several ways to obtain it;

a grant from the provincial government, private purchase

 

8One may not accept the views of those observers
as biased and partisan. However, as the Browns suggested
in their study of Colonial Virginia, what the people
thought to be true is an element that no historian can
ignore. See Robert E. Brown and B. Katherine Brown,

Vir inia 1705—1786: Democracy or Aristocracv? (East
Lansing, Michigan, 19645, P' 7. .

9Report of Governor Tryon on the Province of New
York," June 11, 1774, N. Y. Col. Doc., VIII, p. 441.

 

10William Smith, H___istorv of New York from the
First “Discovery to 1762, 2 vols. (New York, 18305, I,
p. 328.

 

 

34

either from speculators or other individuals, and acqui-

sition through marriage or inheritance. The present

study, however, will deal only with the former two, the

most common means of land acquisition.

The practice of land granting in New York under—

went several stages of development in the seventeenth

and eighteenth centuries. Up until the end of Governor

Richard Nicolls' administration (1667), lands were grant-

ed for a trivial fee to anyone who wanted to settle and

improve them without limitations

on the extent of land.

The only pre-condition for the grant was an Indian deed

certifying the conveyance of the
During this period, there was no
quit rent. A grant was made, on
a reservation of such Quit Rents

thereafter be established by the

and sometimes without any reservation of it.

land to the applicant.11

fixed rule as to the
some occasions, "with

as then were or should

laws" of the Colony,12

13 It was

not until the appointment of Colonel Robert Hunter as

governor of New York in 1709 that the yearly quit rent

 

11Cadawallader Colden, Surveyor General of New
York, "On the State of the Lands in the Province of New

York, in 1732," Doc. Hist. N.Y.,
12

Patent Book 4, p. 102,

I, p. 250.

088. See also Governor

Hunter to the Lords of Trade, November 14, 1710, N. Y.

Col. Doc., V, pp. 179—80.

13
BOOk 4, Ppo 55, 57, OSSO

Patent Book 3, pp. 23,

 

43, 52, and Patent

 

 

35
was, upon a strict instruction from the home government,
fixed "at half a crown or 25, 6d. sterling——in New York
money 35, 7d.--for every 100 acres.14 This rate of quit
rent amounted to less than one day's wages for a skilled
worker.
From late 1698, a new rule was introduced into

the land grant requiring a patentee to improve at least

three acres of land for every 100 acres in three years

 

14Governor Hunter to the Lords of Trade, Nov-
ember 14, 1710, N. Y. Colo Doc., V, pp. 179—80.
Actually, Governor Andros, for the first time, upon
instruction from home, instituted the imposition of the
fixed rate of 25, 6d. sterling for the yearly quit rent
for every 100 acres. But, after the Andros administra—
tion, no instruction with regard to the quit rent was
given either to Governor Slaughter or to Governor
Fletcher so that they were left at liberty to grant
lands at every trivial quit rent. "Report of the Board
of Trade on the Affairs of the Province of New York to
the Lords Justices, October 19, 1698, N. Y. Col. Doc.,
IV, p. 392. See also Colden's Report in 1732, 23g.
Hist. N. Y., I, p. 251. As for the exchange rate be—
tween the New York currency, which was first issued in
1709, and sterling, £1 sterling in 1710 amounted to
about .£1, 105 of New York money. Hunter's Report to
the Lords of Trade, October 3, 1710, N. Y. Col. Doc., V,
p. 171. See also The Colqnial Laws, 1, p. 666. This
exchange rate seems to have continued to the end of the
colonial period. See Memorandum Book of Philip Van
Cortlandt, 1775, Van Cortlandt Papers, Mss., NYHS.

 

[Pu‘r
\
«

7

 

 

 

36
"under the Penalty of forfeiture."15 This rule was ap—
parently designed to facilitate transforming the wilder—
ness into a habitable place and to prevent land specula—
tion and concentration. Along with this rule, a new
directive from the home government limiting the quantity
of land grants to 1,000 acres for any person greatly pro—
moted the diffusion of land ownership among the common
people.16 Nevertheless, there were occasional irregular—
ities in that an applicant used the solicitations and
names of his friends with the latter‘s consent in his
application for a grant and eventually obtained a greater
share in the grant than 1,000 acres. If this was an evil,

it could hardly be prevented in the land where soil itself

 

15Instructions from the Lords Justice to the Earl
of Bellomont, November 10, 1698, N. Y. Col. Doc., IV,
p. 425. Governor Hunter to the Lords of Trade, June
24, 1710, Ibid., V, po 168. As for the actual applica—
tion of this rule, see patent to John Horton and others,
January 12, 1705, Patent Book 7, p. 283; patent to
Andries Gardiner, October 22, 1708, Patent Book 7, p.
367; patent to James Gardiner and others, August 18,
1741, Patent Book 12, pa 101; patent to August Van
Cortlandt, February 19, 1753, Patent Book 12, p. 463;
patent to John M. Goetshinus and others, April 22, 1761,
Patent Book 13, p. 359, all at 083°

16Lords of Trade to Governor Charles Hardy in
1775 (n.dJ" Calendar of Hist. Mss., LXXXI, p. 91,
NYSL. The new policy was first proposed by Governor
Bellomont to the government in London to reduce the in-
fluence of the big landowners against him. Bellomont
to the Lords of Trade, August 24, 1699, N. Y. Col. Doc.,
Iv, PPO 549’ 5537540

 

 

 

37
was "of little value."17
At this point, it is proper to note that land

Speculation was not a phenomenon peculiar to a handful

of rich people; many tenants also engaged in this easy
and popular business. The case of Seth Whitney, a tenant
of the heirs of William Skinner on the Manor of Cortlandt,
was typical of the tenants‘ interests in land speculation.
He hired James Avery to procure a grant of large tracts

of land from the government of New Hampshire. For the
"charge and trouble" of Avery, the tenant, on September
21, 1764, paid is to him.18 Besides Avery, at least
twenty—one tenants from the Manor of Cortlandt Specu—
lated in Vermont inwl7603.19

The patentees were usually eager to sell or lease

their grants as soon as possible, not only because of the

 

17John Jay to Henry Outhoudt and others, Commis—
sioners of Forfeiture, September 5, 1784, Mss., Depart-
ment of Public Works, New York State, Book 7, p. 190°
Also Governor Tryon to the Earl of Dartmouth, June 2, 1773,
N. Yo Col. Doc., VIII, pp. 374—75.

18Deed Book 18, p. 148, 088; Stephen Skinner‘s
rent receipts, Whitney Papers, NYHS; Deed Book Aber G,
pp. 602-04. WCCO.

19As for the land Speculation of the tenants, see
Robert Stillman Batchellor, ed., State Papers, The New
Ham shire Grants Bein Transcri ts of the Charters of
Townships. . . 1749-1764, 40 vols. (Concord, 18955,
XXVI, pp. 461—64, 514-18; XXV, pp° 234—37. The Papers
will be hereafter cited as N.H. State Papers. See also
Town Records of Stowe, Vermont, 2 vols., passim; Mans-
field Proprietors Book, 2 vols., passim, all at the town
hall of Stowe, Vermont. For further information on the
subject, see Chapter VI.

 

 

 

38
penalty of forfeiture as provided by the new rule of
1698, but also because of their desire to secure a quick
profit. Otherwise, they would suffer from paying the
quit rent while their grants were left idle and useless.
This situation prompted very acute competition among the
patentees concerning the terms for the prospective buyer
as well as for the lessee. As a result, the price of
land was kept low, the terms for purchase payment were
made easy, and the terms for lease were generous.

AS might well be expected, the price of land var—
ied depending on the quality and location of the land
concerned, and it was also affected by given political
and economic conditions. Nevertheless, it is possible
to glean clues from the corre5pondences of contemporary
observers and land Speculators as to the general price
index of patented lands. One hundred acres of the best
quality land close to a well—settled community with min—
isterial service was sold for not more than £20 in the
17405 because of the competition for sale among the specu—

20

lators. The pattern of the land price does not seem to

 

20The above observation was confirmed by the ur—
gent appeal of Nicholas Bayard, John Groubeck, and Adoniah
Schuyler of New York to Johann Frederick Ries, a Lutheran
minister in Pennsylvania, to provide purchasers or ten—
ants. They put their land on sale at £20 for 100 acres.
The letter was dated October 17, 1749, Nicholas Bayard
Papers, NYHS.

 

 

39
have changed since. As late as 1772, Governor Tryon re—
ported that one acre of land could be purchased at "half
a crown to 18d sterling. . .and some at less value."21
This means that one could buy 100 acres of land at £12,
105 to .i7, 105 sterling and less; in New York money,
they would respectively be about £18, 15s and .fill, 2s
or less.

,Furthermore, the wide-spread practice of install—
ment payment for purchase, coupled with the cheapness of
land, enabled even a poor man to buy land without any
great difficulty. In general, a proprietor conveyed the
tract of land in question to a buyer in fee taking his
bond and mortgage without receiving any advance payment;
and the buyer paid out the installments, which ran for 3
or 4 year periods, "as he rais'd it (them) out of the
profits of land." This ingenious arrangement of land
transactions, Governor Moore reported in 17689was most

responsible for the rapid settlement of the colony.22

 

21Tryon to the Earl of Hillsborough, April 11,
1772, N. Y. Col. Doc., VIII, p. 293.

22Governor Moore to the Earl of Hillsborough, May
14, 1768. N. Y. 001. Doc., VIII, p. 72. There were some
exceptions to this. Philip Schuyler and Stephen Skin-
ner,, in the neWSpaper advertisement for the sale of
their lands, demanded advance payment of one third of the
"purchase money" upon the conveyance of the premises.
The rest with interest were to be paid for the Span of
three or four years. The New York Gazette and the Weekly
Mercury, April 4, 1768 and May 22, 1769. William Bayard
and Hicholas Bayard, proprietors of the Manor of Cortlandt,
did not charge interest on the mortgage. See letter of

 

40

Economic opportunity was not only evident in the
availability of land but also was reflected in labor con—
ditions. The scarcity of labor in the colony was such
that an urgent need for a constant supply of manpower
consistently boosted the value of labor. Lord Clarendon,
who came to New York to settle the Palatines in 1710,
observing the labor situation at the time, said that,
because of the shortage of labor, anyone who had "limbs
and fa] will to work" would not starve in the colony.
According to the same observer, every man or woman above
fifteen years of age earned 2s, 3d. of New York money
every day except Sunday. It is needless to say this
wage scale was not applied to Skilled laborers. Handi-
crafts men, such aS blacksmiths, joiners, carpenters,
masons, saddlers, bricklayers, millwrights, cordwainders,
wheelwrights, tillers, weavers, and thatchers earned "at
least five shilling New York money" a day.23 In the sub-
sequent periods, the wage scale for the common and skilled
'workers seems to have gone up steadily, although, as
might be expected, there were some deviations from it.

Cadwallader Colden reported in 1723 that a common laborer

 

the Bayards to Pierre Van Cortlandt, June 7, 1771, Cort—
landt Manor Papers, NYHS.

23Lord Clarendon to Lord Dartmouth, March 8,
1700/01, Doc. Hist. N. Y., III, p. 393.

>1

 

 

41
usually earned 3s. a day.24 Elias Pelletreau paid a man

35. for a day's moving in 1765 and 45. for a day's sow-

5 John Lloyd occasionally paid 45. for a

6

ing in 1772.2
day's farm work in 1765.2 Be that as it may, the ac—
count and ledger books of Pierre Van Cortlandt after 1750,
and of other traders like Philip Van Cortlandt, Pierre's
father,and John Van Cortlandt, Pierre‘s cousin, strongly
indicate that wages for a common workingman ran from 35.
to 65. a day.27
The wage scale of the New York workers was fav-
orably contrasted with that of the English counterpart.
John Woolman, Quaker preacher visiting England in the
early 17705, reported that laborers near London earned
10d. (in sterling) or 15., 3d., in New York money a

8

day.2 Compared with the lowest wage of 3s. a day for

the colonial worker, the colonist still received nearly

 

24lbid., I, p. 489.

 

25Account Book of Elias Pelletreau, Mss., NYPL.

26Papers of the Lloyd Family of the Manor of
Queens Village, Lloyd's Neck, Long Island, New York,
1654—1826, 2 vols. NYHS. 0011., 1927, II, p. 531.

 

27The Van Cortlandt Papers, V1661, V1689, SHRL;
Journal (C) of John Van Cortlandt, 1764—1772, NYPL.

28John Woolman, The Journal and Essa S of John
Woolman, ed. by Amelia N. Cummere {New York, 1922;,

PP. 305‘060

 

 

42

three times the wage for the English worker. This rela—
tively good lot of the colonial workingmen in wages was
further enhanced by the lower cost of living in the col-
ony than in England. For instance, whereas the price for
one bushel of wheat in England during the same period,
according to Woolman, was 85. (in sterling) or 123. in
New York money, it was on the average of only 65. on this
Side of the Atlantic.29

The shortage of labor was so acute and the price
of labor became so high that the New Yorkers were "con-
strained to import Negroes from Africa," who were em—
ployed in all kinds of services.30 A bill for facilitat—

ing the conversion of Indians and Negroes to Christianity

 

29Ibid., p. 306. As for the New York price for
wheat, see "Receipt Book of Pierre Van Cortlandt," V1689,
SHRL; The Remarkable Case of Peter Hasenclever, Merchant
. . . (London, 1773), in photostat, pp. 89—90, NYPL.

30William Smith, History of New York from the
First Discovery to 1762 , 2 vols. (New York, 1830), I, p.
327. In this connection, his following remarks on the
failure of iron manufacturing is worth quoting as throw—
ing light on the labor situation in the Colony: "If any
American attempts inriron works have been proved abortive,
and disappointed their undertakers, it is not to be im—
puted either to the ore, or a defect of conveniences.
The want of more workmen, and the villany of those we gen—
erally have, are the only causes to which we must attri-
bute such miscarriages. . . . Our success, therefore, in
the iron manufactory is obstructed and discouraged by the
want of workman, and the high price of labour, its neces-
sary consequence, and by these alone. . . ." Ibid., 1,
p. 334. See also Governor Moore to the Lords of Trade,
January 12, 1767, N. Y. Col. Doc., VII, p. 88. The views
of Smith and Moore were confirmed by Peter Hasenclever‘s
unfortunate troubles with his workmen in his iron and
other industrial enterprises, one of which was located

 

 

 

43

introduced by Governor Bellomont was violently opposed
by the members of the Assembly on the grounds that the
Negroes, once converted, would emancipate themselves
from slavery and consequently from menial service, thus
depriving the Whites of the only available servants.
Bellomont's other ambitious project to build public work-
houses to employ "the poor and also vagabonds" only eli—
cited ridicule from the Assemblyman when he introduced a
bill for that purpose. After the repeated failures in
his legislative endeavor, he finally confessed in his
report to the home government that he was at first ignor-
ant of the economic conditions in the colony and that
"indeed there is not a richer populace anywhere in the
King's dominion than is in this Town."31

Desertion of men from the Royal fleet and from
the provincial army was frequently attributed to the
availability of generous wages in all parts of America.
Commanders of the fleet had exerted the utmost caution

to prevent the desertion of their seamen. One commander,

 

on Lot No. 4 (1570 3/4 acres) in the Manor of Cortlandt°
His bankruptcy had very much to do with "exorbitant
wages" for laboro Deed Book 17, pp. 287, 346, OSS° Also
The Remarkable Case of Peter Hasenclever, pp. 1—110

31The Earl of Bellomont to the Lords of Trade,
May 12, 1699, N. Y. Colo Doc., VII, po 88.

 

 

 

 

44

William Polhampton, recommended that men—of—war should
be ordered to cruise to the West Indies, the Bahamas, or
"such other places as may be thought most convenient for
the hinderance of desertion" in the winter when deser—
tion was most frequent.32 Robert Livingston, a promi-
nent New Yorker with a long record of victualling a pro~
vincial army, was not the only one who voiced concern
over the wanton desertion of the provincial soldiers be—
cause of the poor allowances for their subsistence°
Such concern was justified, for a soldier‘s weekly al-
lowance was 35. 6d, while a common laborer could easily
earn 35. a gay. Livingston described the situation in a
pathetic tone: ". . o to keep the soldiers from working
and to duty (with submission) is a hardship next to
starving, and to let them work (hiring their duty) Spoils
their discipline and manners."33

The reasons assigned by Governor Tryon for the
rapid increase in the population in the Colony were "high
price of labour and the plenty and cheapness of land fit
for cultivation." It was estimated that New York, like
the other Colonies, doubled its inhabitants "by natural

increase" every twenty years. According to the same

 

32William Polhampton to the Lords of Trade, March
6, 1711, Ibid., v, p. 194.

33Robert Livingston to the Lords of Trade, May
13, 1701. Ibid., IV, pp. 871, 588-89.

 

 

45
observer, the population in New York increased from
96,775 in l754—-the 13,542 Negroes included—~to 182,251

By today's standards, the evidences of econ—
omic opportunity may not constitute an inducement for a
bigger family unless they are coupled with the prolific
temperament of the people concerned. But, during the
Colonial period, this was certainly the case. As the
means of subsistence increased, the incentive to mar-
riage became stronger. In fact, the people in the
colony married "at an earlier period of life than in
Europe."35
Of immediate relevance of the abundant economic
opportunity to this study was its benevolent effect up—
on the welfare of the poor and the tenants. No contem-
porary account is more reflective of the economic oppor—
tunity for the social groups than that of Oliver Be—
Lanceyo He was a landed magnate in his own right and,
at the same time, the agent of Sir Peter and Susanna
Warren's estates in New York and other areas for almost
two decadeso He reported on many occasions to the heirs

of the Warrens in England how difficult it had been to

settle and keep the tenants on their lands. He often

 

34Tryon's report on the Province of New York,
June 11, 1774, Ibid., VIII, p. 450.

351n this connection, it is to be noted that
Peter Kalm, a Swedish traveller, had the same opinion
on the population increase in the Colonies in general°
Adolph Benson, ed., Peter Kalm’s Travels in North
America, 2 volso (New York, 1937), I, p. 35.

 

 

 

 

46

found himself losing the tenants simply because there
was too much land and competition among the proprietors
for tenants to their grants. He said that the "estate
of Sir Peter (Warren) has suffered already and will more"
from this situation, and summarized his apprehension by
saying: "I sometimes fear many of them (tenants—to—be)
will Move as they can have much Easier Terms from many
adjacent patents."36

The prevailing economic opportunity in the forms
of the cheapness of land and the scarcity of labor was
bound to have a great impact upon the nature and struc—
ture of the Manor of Cortlandto As we shall see later,
it quickened the process of the liberalization and the
early demise of the Manor as a potential "undemocratic"

element in colonial New York society.

 

36Oliver DeLancey to Colonel Fitz Roy, Colonel
William Skinner and Lord Abington in London, April 10,
1772, and Oliver DeLancey to Colonel William Skinner,
June 10, 1772, Warren Papers, Univo of London.

CHAPTER III
THE LORDSHIP OF THE MANOR: A FARCE

Stephanus Van Cortlandt on April 14, 1700 left a
quite detailed and Specific will regarding the disposition
of his real and personal estates.1 Firstly, he ordered
that a tract of land called Meanagh (presently Verplanck‘s
Point) be separated from his estates and given to his eld-
est son, Johannes, after the death of his wife Gertruyd.
Secondly, he willed that all of his real and personal es—
tates either be equally divided among his eleven children,
male and female, or be held in common among them after his
wife‘s death. The decision as to when it should be divid—
ed after his wife's death was left to several guardians
whom he had appointed. He also stipulated that in case of
the death of any one of his sons before attaining the age
of 21, or the death of any one of his daughters before
reaching the age of 21 unmarried, it should devolve upon
the surviving children.

The striking thing about the will of Stephanus
Van Cortlandt is that he did not attach much weight to
the right of heirship. Verplanck‘s Point, a tract of
915 acres and given to Johannes for his heirship, was

very tnconsiderable in view of the vast estates

 

lThe will of Stephanus Van Cortlandt, MCNY.

47

 

 

 

Table lo—-Geneology of Stephanus Van Cortlandt and
Related Families

Stephanus(1)

be 1645

d. 1700

m. Gertrude
Schuyler

Johannes &
Anna Van
Cortlandt(2)

Samuel &
Margaret
Bayard(2)

-—Johannus(2) -—
-—Margaret(2) -—
——Anne(2) ——————
—-01iver(2) -——-

—-Maria(2) —————

——Gertrude(2)—--
——Philip(2) ———-

——Gertrude(2) ——
——Gysbert(2) ---

—-Elizabeth(2) -
——E1izabeth(2) -

-—Stephen(2) —--
——Catherine(2) -
—-Corne1ia(2) ——

——Gertruyd(3) -—

~—Wi11iam(3)
--Nicholas(3§
—-Gertruyd(3 ——

b. 172, do ? m. Anna

Maria Van Schaick in 1695
b. 1674, d. ? m. Col. Sam-
uel Bayard in 1696

ba 1676, m. Stephen De-
Lancey in 1700

b. 1678, do 1708, unmar-
ried

1)0 1680, m. first Col.
Killian Van Rensselaer

who died in 1719, second
John Miln, physician

b. 1681

b. 1683, d. 1746, m. Cath-
erine DePeyster whose fath—
er was treasurer of the
provinces of New York and
New Jersey

b. 1688, d. 1777, m. Col.
Henry Beekman in 1726

ha 1689, unmarried

ba 1691, died young

b. 1694, 1110 the Rev° Will-
iam Skinner, the first
rector of St. Peter's
Episcopal Church at Perth
Amboy, N. J.

be 1695, d. 1756, m. Cata-
lina Staats

b. 1696, m. Andrew John—
son of Perth Amboy, N. J.
Speaker of the N. J. As-
sembly

b° 1698, d. 1760, m. Col.
John Schuyler

m. Philip Ver Planck

mo Peter Kemble of Mount
Kemble, N. J.

48

n a o
L
.
a o o c c l a a I I Q I 0 Oh I l
'x
t n, n 0\ . r x n, n\ F,
. u
a o I e u a n a a a
O
u
r
4
nx O ax. n\ xix '\
0 a n I o r

 

 

 

Stephen &
Anne De-
Lancey(2)

John and

Maria Mi1n(2)

Philip &
Catherine
Van Cort-
1andt(2)

Henry &
Gertruyd
Beekman(2)

William &
Elizabeth
Skinner(2)

Stephen &
Catalina
Van Cort-
1andt(2)

Andrew &
Catherine
Johnston(2)

John &
Cornelia
Schuyler(2)

—James§3g
—Peter 3
—Stephen(3)
-Oliver(3)
—Susannah(3) —-
-Ann(3)

-Stephen(3) ——-

“Abraham(3) ———
—Philip(3) -———
—John(3) ------
—Pierre(3) --——

—Catherine(3)--

~no issue

-Cort1andt(3)
—William(3;
-Stephen(3
—John(3)
-Gertruyd(3) --

—Joanna(3) —--—
-Gertrude(3) --

-Stephanus(3)-—
-Samue1(3)
—John(3) ——————

—Phi1ip(3) ———-
~Sarah(3) —————

-John(3)
—Stephen(3)
—Mary(3)
—Catherine(3)
—E1izabeth(3)
~Anne(3) ------
-Gertruyd(3) ~—

-Gertru d(3) -—
—John(3
-Philip(3)
~Cortlandt(3)
—Stephen(3)

49

mo

b. 1711, d. 1756,
Walton Ricketts

be 1713, d. 1746,
b. 1715, d. 1745,
b. 1718, d° 1745,
b. 1721, d. 1814,

Sir Peter Warren

m. Mary

unmarried
unmarried
unmarried
m. Joanna

Livingston, daughter of
Gilbert Livingston, Esqo

b. 1725, d. 1735

a. James Parker

be 1714, died without issue
b. 1715, m. Johannes Van

Rensselaer

b. 1716, died without issue
b. 1717, died without issue

b. 1721, d. 1786,

ter Bayard

m. Hes-

b. 1725, d. 1800 without

issue

died without issue

m. William Terri11

m John Barberie

m. John Cochran

 

 

50
Stephanus Van Cortlandt "died seized." Before he died,
Stephanus held, besides his manor and personal estates,
one third of the Rumbout Patent of sixteen square miles
in Dutchess County, 1500 acres in Orange County, 40 acres
with grist and saw mill on the Rahway River in East New
Jersey (valued £345 in 1730), the Bowman's Farm of 1200
acres in Sussex County, Pennsylvania, and 19 lots and 2
houses (valued $3770) in New York City.2 The other con-
sideration he gave to Johannes as the eldest son was the
right of first choice in the division of the estates.
Nevertheless, this supposedly discriminating and impor—
tant privilege for the eldest son was rendered meaning-
less by a provision in the will that the division must
be made "equall in worth one to another."

The fact that the testator granted in fee simple
the real estate, including the manor, to all of Van
Cortlandt‘s children had great consequences for the fu—
ture of the manor. Had Stephanus Van Cortlandt been
keenly interested in the perpetuation of his manorial

lordship and integrity, he would have excluded his other

 

2A5 for the Rumbout Patent of May 12, 1686, see
Patent Book 5, pp. 206—10, 088; "Writ of Partition of
Roumbout Patent in 1707," V1974, SHRL° As for his es—
tates in E. New Jersey, New York City, and others see
Van Cortlandt Family Papers, case for oversized Mss.,
NYHS; "Real Estate of Stephanus Van Cortlandt, Apprais—
mnt of ye lott houses at York & Mils at raway," Van
Cortlandt and Van Wyck Papers, Letters, etc., 1716—1819,
NYPL:.Yafihfiortlandtefiapéns, V1784, SHRL.

 

 

 

51
children and have given at least all of his manor estates
to his eldest son according to the common law custom of
primogeniture. But his will touching the disposition of
the manor did not leave room for any possible pretensions
to the lordship of the Manor on the part of his eldest
son. The inheritance of 915 acres along with his equal
share of the manor with his brothers and sisters was not
sufficient to make Johannes the lord over a vast domain
in the way his father had allegedly been. Furthermore,
nowhere in the will of Stephanus Van Cortlandt was there
any reference to the lordship of the manor. Therefore
we cannot avoid concluding that Stephanus Van Cortlandt, \
the testator, had no intention of having his eldest son \
succeed to the lordship.

The above conclusion perforce raises a question:
why did Van Cortlandt easily surrender the manorial lord-
ship? The only possible answer we can give for the ques-
tion is that the maintenance of the lordship was not
worthwhile. Van Cortlandt was a man of business acumen
and political agility; and, as his career eloquently
demonstrates, he was well acquainted with political and
judicial matters in the province. It is inconceivable
that he would have surrendered the lordship for posterity
if he had valued it very highly° In fact, from the begin—
ning, the lordship of the manor was a farce, completely

devoid of substance worthy of its name°

 

 

52

A lordship acquires stature and significance only
if certain power goes with it. If this is the case, an
examination of powers reserved to the lord is of impor—
tance in understanding the Manor of Cortlandt.

According to the manorial patent of Cortlandt,
the lord of the manor, his heirs, and assignees were em—
powered to hold and keep in the manor "one court baron
and one court leet" so often as he or they shall see fit.
In the old English usage, the court leet enacted the man—
' orial ordinance, and presented offenders against manor—
ial regulations; the court baron was to try the civil
actions between tenants and the lord, and handled matters
relating to land tenure.3 More specifically, the courts
baron and leet were authorized to settle "all fines,
issues, and amercements," "issue out the accustomary
writs," and distrain for the rents, services, treSpass,
debt, goods, and all and a part of the premises in ques—
tion. Besides this judicial power the lord, his heirs,
and assignees were granted "advowson," right of patronage
within the manor and of sending a representative of the
manor to the colonial Assembly.4 Indeed, these powers
were the very essence of the feudal system, and served

as the most vital engine of feudal oppression throughout

 

3Patent Book 7, p. 165, 088.

41bid., p. 165.

 

53

the Middle Ages. But the important question is whether
the manor lord, his heirs, and assignees actually
availed themselves of these feudal powers granted by
the patent.5

One author, writing of the Van Cortlandt family,
argued that "as the court baron was not a court of re—
cord it may have been held."6 Another author, discreetly
admitting the difficulty of making a definite judgement
for want of evidence on the matter, asserted that the
lords of manors in New York held their courts. The basis
of his assertion is that he saw "the original of a notice

of appeal from the manor court of Fordham" in February,

Stephen L. Mershon's following statement on the
Manor Courts in New York deserves quoting as it illus-
trates a typical example of gross distortion and exag—
geration of the powers of a manorial lord. "The Kings,
in their absolutism set up a manorial machine in the
province of New York that in itself was in fact almost
absolute in its power over human life, liberty and
property within the little kingdoms of the resPective
Manors. . . . Serfdom did to a large degree disappear in
England with the Tudors but the lordships and Manors,
set up by Imperial authority and power in the vast for-
ests of the Province of New York, represented the same
Spirit and possessed cruel powers. The law provided
imprisonment for debt. The manorial courts were in
the absolute control of the Lords of the Manors; land
titles were in the power of the Lords with quit rents
payable to 'his lordship.‘ All processes of the manor-
ial courts were at the whim, will, and temper of the
Lords and their servants." Mershon, The Power of the
Crown in the Valley of the Hudson (Montclair, N. Y.,
1925), p. 88. _“

 

6L. E. DeForest, The Van Cortlandt Familv,
(New York, 1930), p. 6.

 

54
1676.7 Unfortunately, the author failed to document what
he saw.

Evidence that Stephanus Van Cortlandt, his heirs,
and his assignees had ever exercised the judicial powers
is singularly lacking. If there were cases arising in
their manor concerning rent, debt, tresPass, and land ten—
ure, the lord was supposed to hold the court baron in
accordance with the tenor of the manor patent. But we
find these cases were being handled, not by the lord
and his heirs, but by a duly constituted county court of
Common Pleas and the provincial Supreme Court. The case
of William Brown, a tenant of the manor, illustrates the
point. He was sued in 1759 by Stephen Van Cortlandt, the

so-called "third lord" of the manor on a trespassing

 

7Julius Goebel, Jr., "Some Legal and Political
ASpects of the Manor in New York," Order of Colonial
Lords of Manors in America, Publications (Baltimore,
1928), No. 19, p. 8. Dixon Ryan Fox cites some of the
writers on the subject, but he seems satisfied not to
pursue it beyond the statement that Scarsdale Manor
never held a court because he could find no evidence that
it was held. Fox, Caleb Heathcote (New York, 1926), p.
120, n. 29. E. Wilder Spaulding wrote that, including
the Manor of Cortlandt, "all the true manors enjoyed some
kind of jurisdiction in the form of courtSAMbaron for
civil and courts-leet for criminal cases;. . ." see his
New York in the Critical Period 1783-1789 (New York,

1932;, pp. 61, 65. A bit modified view while admitting

that the manors exercised the rights, see, Carl L. Becker,
The Histor of Political Parties in the Province of New
York, 1760-1776 (Madison, Wis., 19095, p. 10; E. Marie
Becker, "The 801 Westchester County Freeholders of 1763
and the Cortlandt Manor Land-Case which occasioned Their

Listing," New York Historical Society Quarterly, XXXV,
July 1951, No. 3, p. 297.

 

 

 

55

charge in the Supreme Court.8 Dennis Hicks, a manor
resident and a former tenant, was also tried in 1768 by
the Supreme Court for his debt of g£3oo to Gilbert Drake
who had an interest in a tract of land on the manor.
Hicks' land in the manor was distrained by a county
sheriff upon the court order.9 Again, a trespass and
damage suit involving two tenants on the manor, namely
Lawrence Huff and Moses Knap, was tried in 1759—60 by
Joseph Sherwood, a justice of the peace for the manor,
with the assistance of a jury.10

For that matter, the case of Frederick Philipse,
the so—called third "lord" of the Philipsburgh Manor, is
helpful in throwing supplementary light on the general
problems of the judicial power of the manorial lords in
colonial New York. His case is particularly relevant to
the present study for two reasons: firstly, the Manor of
Philipsburgh was situated in the same county as the Manor
of Cortlandt; and secondly, the manor was so firmly built

on primogeniture and entail that it had not suffered the

 

8A Writ of the Supreme Court to the Sheriff of
Westchester County, November 10, 1759, WCCO, on photo-
stat, VX1617, SHRLo

9Deed Book Aber H, pp. 186-87, wcco.

loCalendar of Hist. Mss., LXXXVIII, p. 12,
NYSL.

 

 

 

 

56

faterof disintegration as the Cortlandt Manor did.11

Philipse's case involved his tenant, Uriah Travis, whose
rent had been in arrears for two years. Philipse in
May, 1769, sued Travis in the Court of Common Pleas

for Westchester County in order to recover the rent. 0f
utmost importance is the fact that Philipse specifically
acknowledged that his manor was "within the jurisdiction

12 If the

of the court" in his letter filing the suit.
court had jurisdiction over the manor for rent and land
tenure, then what was the function of the court baron?
Why didn't the lord hold a handy court for his advan—
tage? This evidence is a direct contradiction to the
fact that the manor lord exercised judicial power. If
this was the case for the Manor of Philipsburgh, the lord
of which had been granted the same right of court baron,
then there is every reason to assume that the same con-
ditions prevailed in the Manor of Cortlandt.

That rent and debt cases were tried in the pro—
vincial and County courts rather than the manorial court

is hardly irregular in view of the judicial system set

 

11The Journal of the Assegply, began 21st of Nov—
ember 1769; and ended by Prorogatigp, the 27th of January,
1770 (New York, 1770), II, p. 49.

12Westchester Court of Common Pleas, Frederick
Philipse against U. Travis for arrears of rent. Philipse
Papers, Huguenot Historical Association, New Rochelle,
New Yorko

57
up by the province. The law establishing courts of judi-
cature for the province in 1692 provided in detail the
respective jurisdictions of various courts. According
to the law, a justice of the peace was empowered to handle,
without a jury, cases of debt and trespass to the value
of 405. If either plaintiff or defendent wanted a jury,
it should be allowed.13 However, later in 1754, a min-
or change was made by a new act with regard to the pow—
er of the justice whereby he was authorized to try

14 The law of 1692 also

causes ranging from 405 to £5.
set up in every county a Court of Common Pleas to try all
causes to the value of £20 "tryable at the Common Law of
whatever nature . . . except [anfl thing relating to title

of land." The Supreme Court was to try causes valued at

over £20, and it also was to sit on appeals from the

 

13"An Act for the Establishing Courts of Judi—
cature for the Ease and benefit of each Respective city,
town and county within the Province" passed on November
11, 1692. The Colgpial Laws, 1, pp. 303-08.

l4"An Act to impower Justices of the Peace to
Try Causes from Forty Shillings to Five Pound," passed
on December 7, 1754. The Colgnial Laws, 111, 1011—
016; Governor James DeLancey to the Lords of Trade,
December 15, 1754, N. Y. Col. Doc., V1, p. 929. The
law was originally enacted to be effective only for
three years, but it was continued until the outbreak
of the Revolution.

 

58

lower courts.15

The legislative records pertaining to the
structure of the colonial judiciary contain no refer~
ence whatever to the manorial court baron. No provi—
sion was enacted as to the causes and the amounts with
which the court baron was to deal. The lack of recog—
nition of the court baron in the judicial structure of
New York, however, should not be construed as tacit
connivance on the part of the legislators at the exis—
tence of the feudal court because the letter and tenor
of the legislation concerning the judiciary make it
clear that the laws were to be applicable to every
"town, manor, precinct,‘&.county3 in the province.16
Therefore, the conclusion that the Manor of Cortlandt
never enjoyed judicial autonomy—-inc1uding the court
leet as well as the court baron——is logical.

Manorial lordship, thus deprived of its vital
judicial power, came to represent more the shadow than

the substance of feudal privilege within the structure

 

_15This lower court also included the Court of
GeneralSessibnlwhich handled criminal and administra—
tive matters. See The Colonial Laws, 1, p. 304.

16The Colonial Laws,'lll, p. 1011. As for the
power of the Justice of the Peace over the diSputes con—
cerning land tenure, see "An Act to prevent abuses com—
mitted by Tenants, by other persons entering and keeping
possession of Messuages Lands and Tenements before a
legal Title to the same is obtained,“ passed on February
16, 1771, The Colonial Laws, V, pp. 204—06°

 

 

59
of the manor. This aspect of the lordship's impotency
also characterized the administrative side of the manor.
Up until 1712, the Manor of Cortlandt presented a pic—
ture of complete administrative anarchy. It neglected

17

to choose an assessor, collector, and supervisor, al-
though a provision in the manor patent specifically re—
quired the lord and his tenants to elect the assessors
for the manor according to rules as were prescribed Pfor
cities, towns and counties. . . by the acts of General

Assembly."18

During the period between the establish—
ment of the manor in 1697 and 1712, the court of General
Sessions of the Peace of Westchester County, which was
held twice a year, probably appointed, as it did for the

Philipsburgh Manor in 1692, an assessor, collector, and

constable for the manor.19

 

17The records of the County Court of General Ses-
sions covering the period from 1697 to 1712 do not show
attendance of either constable, assessor, or collector
from the manor. Deed Book Aber D, passim, WCCO.

18Patent Book 7, ppo 165-166, 033.

19The Colonial Laws, I, pp. 303—08. The court of

General Sessions, on June 7, 1692, appointed Barnt DeWitt
as assessor and Matthias Buout as constable for Philips-
burg Manor on the grounds that the manor residence had
neglected to choose the officers in order to avoid taxes.
Dixon Ryan Fox, ed., The Minutes of the Court Sessions,
1657—1697 (White Plains, N. Y., 1924), p. 64.

PI\

 

 

 

 

60
The first entry in the court minutes by a repre-
sentative from the manor occurred when Francis Besley,
constable of the manor, attended the court in 1712. It
was not until 1714 that the manor, for the first time,
sent its assessor and collector to the court held at the

borough of Westchester.20

It is quite possible that the
choice of these officials on the part of the manor resi—
dents was prompted by a punitive measure of the General
Assembly in late 1711 that empowered the assessors and
collectors of a town adjacent to any manor delinquent in
the choice of the officials to assess and collect public
taxes in the manor.21 The delinquency in electing these
officials at this time was apparently because of the un—
willingness on the part of the manor residents to pay
taxes.22 In this connection, it is interesting to ob-
serve a complaint registered in 1710 by John Clapp, a
sheriff of the county, against Dutch settlers on the

Manor of Cortlandt who refused to make a return on the

 

2OThe manor assessors were Abraham Amburgh and
William Van Tassel; and the collector was John Lent.
Deed Book, Aber D, p, 37, WCCO.

21"An Act to oblige the Mannors in the County
of Westchester to pay their Arrears of Taxes," passed
on November 24, 1711. The Colgpial Laws, I, p. 752.

22Governor Hunter to the Lords of Trade, Jan—
uary 1, 171172, N. Y. Col. Doc., V, p. 299.

 

 

 

61
names and number of its population from 16 to 60 years
of age. In the words of the sheriff, the people gave for
their refusal "no other reason but a dread of ye Conse-
quences yt might Insue: Like David's numbering of ye

people. . . ."23

It is more than likely that the bibli-
cal allusion was a sheer cloak for their fear that the
consequences of a census return would be detestable tax—
ation° Only in this context can we understand the above
legislative action taken against the various manors in
Westchester County in 1711.

As far as the Manor of Cortlandt was concerned,
the manor was more or less of an appendage to the coun-
try‘s administrative system until 1722. The law of 1691
prescribed that a manor which had not chosen its super—
visor was allowed to join with "the next adjacent town"
in electing an administrative head for both towns.24
However, there is no record that shows that the manor
ever elected or shared a supervisor with the town. This
fact does not mean that the manor lord or his assignee
had played any public function as an administrative head
of the manor. Indeed the manor lord or his assignees had

no place in the provincial government until 1722 when a

law was enacted to increase the number of supervisors in

 

23John Clapp to the Secretary of the Province,
October 10, 1710, Calendar of Hist. Mss., LIV, p. 77.
NYSL; Governor Hunter to the Lords of Trade, June 12,
1712, N. Y. Col. Doc., V, po 339.

24The Colonial Laws, I, p. 65.

 

 

 

 

62
the county of Westchester. Under this law, a manor with
more than twenty inhabitants might choose its supervisor
annually. But, in case the inhabitants of the manor neg-
lected to choose him, the "owner" or his deputy of the
manor would be regarded as its supervisor with the same
powers as those elected by virtue of the law° It also
provided that "the supervisor of the manor shall meet
with the other supervisors once a year to perform" their
business.25 The last provision of the law clearly indi—
cates that a lord-—a word that was never used in the laws
of colonial New York——was directly under the jurisdiction
of the county government and reSponsible to it.

The absence of records makes it impossible to as—
certain whether or not the residents of the Manor of Cort-
landt elected a supervisor. Stephanus Van Cortlandt, and
possibly Philip Van Cortlandt, would have been designated
as supervisor as the above law prescribed. The reason
for assigning the supervisbrship to Philip Van Cortlandt
would have been that he became the head of the Van

Cortlandt family after the deaths of his two brothers

 

ZSThe Colgpial Laws, 11, pp. 130-31. According
to the law, the owner or his deputy of a manor with
fewer than twenty inhabitants would automatically be-
come the supervisor of the manor. The provision was
probably designed for the Scarsdale Manor, for it was
perhaps the only manor which had fewer than twenty inhab—
tants. In the census for Westchester County taken in
1712, the Scarsdale Manor had four persons except slaves
while the Manor of Cortlandt had eighty-seven. Doc. Hist.
N. Y., IV, p. 9490

 

 

 

63

26 and Oliver,27 re5pectively in 1702 and 1708,

Johannes
and of his mother, Gertruyd in 1718.28 It is, however,
doubtful if he, residing since 1729 as a member of the
Governor's Council in New York City, with extensive
business, trade, and political engagements, could take
care of administrative problems of the manor.29

Equally difficult to explain is the sudden ele—
vation of the Manor of Cortlandt to the status of a
county by a new act of the General Assembly in 1737.
The law provided that the freeholders of Cortlandt Manor
were to be allowed to elect yearly:

one Supervisor, one Treasurer, Two AsseSSOrs

& one Collector for the Said Mannor who

Shall have the Same Power, authority, office,

& Function, & do perform Execute and Serve

and be Liable to the Same pains & penalties
as the Supervisors, Treasurers, Assessor and

 

26Johannes was born on October 24, 1672, and mar—
ried Anna Mary Van Schaick on June 20, 1695 and died int—
estate in December 1702, leaving one daughter, Gertrude
who later married Philip Ver Planck. N. Y. G32! & Bio.
ReCo, V, Ndlo l, pPo70-7~2;!v, N0. 2, P. 92; NYHS, C011.,
ier‘the year 1892, p. 359; lhido. for the year 1893. pp.
10—110

27Oliver or Oloff was born on October 26, 1678,
and died unmarried. N. Y° Gen. & Bio. Rec., V, No. 1,
pp. 70-72; his will, Van Cortlandt Papers, NYHS.

28NYHS, Co11., XXVI, pp. 288-89.

29Besides, he ran coffee houses and taverns in
the City. V1837, SHRL; Letter Book of Philip Van
Cortlandt, NYHS; Calendar of Hist. Mss., LXVIII, p. 145,
LXII, pp. 116, 134, NYSL.

 

 

64

Collectors of the Several & Respective
Counties within this Colony.

This seemingly independent status of the manor on the
level with the county was drastically modified by a pro-
vision that nothing in the law would exempt the manor
freeholders from paying equal proportions of all the
public charges of the county. According to the law,
then, the officers of the manor were to be equal to their
counterparts of the county in terms of their authority
and function, but the manor itself was still a part, as

a tax tributary, of the county government. Thus the man-
or residents had to suffer double taxation from the County
and the manor for enjoying a semi-county privilege.

An important aspect of the above legislation is
not that the manor became a semi—county administrative
unit, but that various powers were given to the freehold-
ggg of the manor, not the lord or his deputy, In this
re8pect, the law was a direct refuss to the power of pat-
ronage that had been granted to the manor lord or his
deputy. The law alone is sufficient evidence that the
manor was not a feudal nor a quasi-feudal entity domin—
ated by a powerful lord, independent of provincial and

county regulations, judicial, and administrative.

 

30"An Act for Defraying the Common & Necessary
Charge of the Mannor of Cortland in the County of West-
chester," passed on December 16, 1737, The Colgpial Laws,
11, pp. 960—62. As for the discussion on the act in the
Assembly, see Journal of Assembly, I, pp. 683-84, 687,
688, 695, 719, 720, 721, 723.

 

65

The other remaining privilege of the manor lord
was the power to send a manor representative to the col—
onial Assembly. The patent of 1697 said that "do do, by
these presents. . . grant unto° . . Stephanus Van
Cortlandt, and to his heirs and assignees forever, that. .
. Stephanus Van Cortlandt, his heirs and his assignees,
shall and mayo . . return and send a discreet inhabitant
in and of the said manor, to be representative of the o .
. manor in every Assembly" twenty years after the patent
was granted.31 It is perfectly clear from the quotation
that the right to send a representative was exclusively
reserved to the lord, his heirs, and his assignees, not to.
the manor freeholders or inhabitants qualified to vote.
There is no provision in the patent stipulating the 3133:
3123 of a representative. However, until 1733, Stephanus
Van Cortlandt's heirs neglected to assert the privilege
because the manor had not been partitioned among the
heirs.32 Then, while the second partition of the manor
was in progress, Philip Van Cortlandt, the surviving
eldest son of Stephanus Van Cortlandt and thus the head
of the Van Cortlandt family, petitioned on May 17, 1733,

the Governor's Council "to issue a writ electing one of

 

31Patent Book 7, pp. 166—68, 033.

32The Colonial Laws, II, p. 835.

 

 

 

 

66

the freeholders of the manor" to the General Assembly.33
To be noticed in the petition is the reference to 3133:
tipg a representative, a significant departure from the
original provision in the patent of 1697 Concerning the
manor representation in the Assembly. This deviation
meant that the heirs of Stephanus Van Cortlandt appare
ently gave up their right of representation to the free~
holders of the manor. In any event, on May 23, Philip's
petition was approved by the Council and the writ for
the election was issued.34 ‘1

On June 10, 1734, Philip Ver Planck, husband of
Gertrude, the only daughter of Johannes Van Cortlandt,
presented to the Assembly an indenture certifying that
he was "duly elected a Representative for the Manor of

Cortlandt."35

However, some of the Assemblymen strongly
Opposed admitting Ver Planck to the body on the grounds
that the manor patent of 1697 lacked a provision ffor the

Regulating and chuseing Such Representatives," and that

he was not elected in the manner as the laws of the

 

33Ca1endar of Council Minutes, XVI, p. 296. At
the time, Philip Van Cortlandt was a member of the Coune
oil.

34Ibid., p. 298.

35Journo1 of Assembl , I, p. 663. As for the
geneological information about Philip Ver Planck, see "A
Family Bible of Philip Ver Planck, Esqr. of the Manor of
, Cortlandt," Gulian C. Ver Planck Papers, Letter, Viz,
Box 8, No. 30, NYHS.

P\

 

 

 

 

67
colony regarding the election of representatives provided.
Exactly how he was elected, it is impossible to say° Yet,
after "some debates and controversies," the Assembly
reached a compromise. Under the compromise, Ver Planck
would be admitted as soon as the Assembly passed an act
regulating the choice of a representative for the manor

so that such representation might be "more orderly and

36

duly elected for the future." It was not until June

18 that a bill for that purpose was passed by the

Assembly° Four days later, Ver Planck was duly sworn in

after Governor William Cosby signed the bill into law.37

The law thus enacted for regulating the election
of a representative for the manor provided that

. . .it may be lawful for the ffreeholders of
the sd Mannour of Cortlandt. . .to Assemble
in the Manor at Such time & place as the Con—
stable or other Returning Officer or Officers
of the sd Mannour for that purpose Shall Di—
rect And Appoint & there by Plurality of
Voices of the ffreeholders to Elect, Chuse &
Send a Fitt & Discreet Inhabitants. . .That
Freeholders pay the wages of their own Repre—
sentatives & that Nothing herein contained
Shall Exempt them from paying their Due and
Equal proportion of the Wages of the Deputies
or the Representatives for the County of

 

36"An Act for Regulating the Choice of a Repre-
sentative for the Mannour of Cortlandt in the County of
Westchester," The Colgpial Laws, 11, pp. 835—36; Journal

of Assembly, I, p. 664.

 

37Journal of Assembl , I, pp. 667, 669; Journal
of Legislative Cogpcil of the Colon of New York, 2 vols.
(Albany, 1861), I, p. 633.

 

68

Westchester County And of all other the

Annual Publick & Necessary charges of the

same County.3
The significance of the law lies in the fact that the
privilege of sending a manorial representative, which
Stephanus Van Cortlandt had acquired in 1697 for himself,
his heirs and assignees, was transferred by legislative
action to the manor electoral freeholders who possessed
"land or tenements Improved to ye vallue of forty pounds
in freehold” or leasehold for life.39 Thus, the manor as
a corporate body, not the Van Cortlandt family, joined
the ranks of other boroughs and counties which constitut—

ed representation districts for the General Assembly.40

 

38The Colqpial Laws, 11, pp° 836—37.

39"A bill for ye Regulating Elections of Repre—
sentatives in General Assembly in each reSpective Citty &
County within this Province," passed on May 16, 1699, Th3
Colonial Laws, 1, pp. 405—08; "An Act for the more regu-
lar proceedings in the Elections of Representatives for
the Several Cities and Counties within this Province,"
passed on October 18, 1701, Ibid., pp. 452—54. Most of
the tenants in the Manor of Cortlandt were qualified to
vote, because they held leases for life or longer and
their improvements generally exceeded £400 See chapters
V and VI.

40By 1774, there were thirty—one representatives
in the Assembly: New York City sent four, Albany City two,
the two boroughs of Westchester and Schenectady one each,
the three manors of Rensselaerwyck, Livingston and Cort—
landt one each, and the ten counties two each. See
"Report of Governor Tryon on the Province of New-York,“
June‘ll,l774, N. Y. Col. Doc., V111, pp° 443—44.

 

 

 

 

69

Some historians have often pointed to the manor-
ial representation in the Assembly as a measure of quasi—
feudal or illiberal privileges that the manor lords en—
joyed.41 However, this particular privilege seems to
have been stated out of proportion. Certainly, in the
case of the Manor of Cortlandt, two of the Van Cortlandt
family, namely Philip Ver Planck and Pierre Van
Cortlandt, continuously represented the manor in the
Assembly until 1775; the former served the Assembly from
1734 to 1767 and the latter from 1768 to 1775. Although
the representation was monopolized by the Van Cortlandt
family, the fact still remains that the two representa—
tives were not selected by the family by virtue of the man-
or patent of 1697, but elected by the manor freeholders;
the latter were, at least, in theory, the masters of poli-
tics in the manor. Furthermore, the only one extant re-
cord concerning the election of a representative for the
manor shows that Pierre Van Cortlandt contested his nephew
Colonel James Ver Planck, the eldest son of Philip, in the
election of 1768, and was elected with a plurality of 116

votes over Ver Planck who received twenty-seven.42 The

 

41E. Marie Becker, "The 801 Westchester County
Freeholders of 1763," pp. 297-98; Spaulding, New York in
the Critical Period, pp. 58—59; Carl Becker, The History
of Political Parties, p. 10.

42"Votes taken at an Election in Manor of Cort-
landt, March 10, 1768," V1645, SHRLo

 

 

 

 

7O
fact that Pierre Van Cortlandt successfully challenged
Ver Planck was a significant indicator that the Van
Cortlandt family did not act as 333 cohesive political
power to control the political affairs in the manor in
the election of a representative for the manor.

The manor electorate had a privilege that those
of the County could not duplicate: whereas the former
could vote in the election of the County representatives,
the latter could not vote for the manor representative.43
But this privilege was not a unique one for the manor,
for the freeholders of the Borough of Westchester also
enjoyed it, just as the Borough of Schenectady did in the
election of representatives from the County of Albany.44
The only difference between the manor and the Borough of
Westchester in terms of privilege is that the manor free—
holders were, by a new law of 1737 Concerning the manor
representative, exempted from paying the wages of the two
representatives of Westchester County at large, while
those of the Borough were not. The General Assembly voted

down the application of the Borough for the same privilege?5

 

43The Colgpial Laws, II, pp. 835-37.

441mm,, V, pp. 874-75; Journal of Legislative

Council, II, p. 1981.

45"An Act for Defraying the Common & Necessary
Charge of the Mannor of Cortland in the County of West
Chester," The Colgpial Laws, II, pp. 960—62; Journal of
.of Assembly, 1, pp. 726, 731.

 

71
Whatever reason there was for the Assembly to discrimin—
ate against the Borough, it is significant that the
manor's privilege was given and sanctioned by the popular
branch of the colonial government.

Further evidence that diminishes the illiberal and
"quasi-feudal" aspect of the manorial representation in
the Assembly was the great number of the electoral free-
holders living in the manor. According to William Smith,
Chief Justice of the New York Province and a member of the
Governor's Council in the early 17705, the four counties
of Richmond, Kings, Queens, and Suffolk together did not
as of 1775 "contain half of the number of Freeholders in
Rens(s)elaerwyck [manor] alone, nor above one third more
than. . . in the Manor of Livingston, & fewer than those
in the Manor of Cortlandt."46 Whereas each of the manors
sent one representative, the four counties in total sent
eight representatives deSpite the relatively small number
of freeholders the counties hado Therefore, it can be
said that the Manor of Cortlandt as a district of repre-
sentation in the Assembly was rather discriminated
against. It was the ordinary counties, not the manor,
which were the privilegedo

Moreover, it is extremely significant that those

who tried to curtail the privilege of the manorial

 

46Journal of Legislative Council, II, pp. 1981-

 

82°

72

representation were mostly Tories in the late 17605 and
early 17705. The Tories were jealous of the political
influence exerted by the manorial representatives like
Stephen ven Rensselaer, Peter R. Livingston, and Pierre
Van Cortlandt in the cause of American liberties and
rights against the British imperialism. In this connec—
tion, Lieutenant Governor Golden's following remarks in
1775 are worth quoting:

The present Representatives of the Manors

have distinguished themselves in opposition

to Government, and were the warmest supporter

of the [Provincial] Congress. I therefore

thought it was a proper time, my Lord, to

abridge this privilege [the rights of the

freeholders in the manors of Livingston and

Rensselaerwyck and the Borough of Schenectady

to vote in the election of the County of

Albany], when the Majority both4in Council

and Assembly were for it. . . .
Apparently, the manorial representation embodied a pro-
gressive and liberal force that the conservative elements
in the colony endeavored to suppress. It is ironic that

the manorial privileges originally established to enhance

the prerogatives of the Crown and the cause of status quo

 

47Colden to the Earl of Dartmouth, April 4, 1775,

N. Y. Col. Doc., VIII, p. 565. A law to bar the free-
holders of the manors of Livingston, Rensselaerwyck and
the Borough of Schenectady from voting in the County
election was passed on April 3, 1775. See The Colonial
Laws, V, pp. 874-75. However, strangely enough, the free—
holders of the Manor of Cortlandt were not affected by the
legislation as William Smith pointed out in his dissenting

opinion against it. Journal of Legislative Council, II,
pp. 1981—82.

 

 

73
was eventually transformed into a force against these
very prerogatives.

The lordship of the Manor of Cortlandt was a
dead letter from the beginning of its history as far as
its actual application was concerned. Its spectre was
there in the form of the letters patent of the manor,

but its efficacy as well as its luster were lost in the

gust of the "levelling" principles that, by the 1660s, had

already taken "so deepe a Root" in the Province as Gover—
nor Richard Nicholls observed. Considering the state of
mind of the people who abhorred the very name of a Justice
of the Peace,48 the colony was not congenial soil for the
transplanting of a lordship after the English feudal sys-
tem. It appears reasonable to suppose, therefore, that
the title of "lordship" must have been abominable to the
people.

The Van Cortlandts, abreast of the democratic pro-
clivities of the inhabitants, never pretended to the
title of lordship. Stephanus Van Cortlandt, the So—called
"first lord" of the manor was happy with calling himself a

"merchant by occupation" in his will.49 So did his

 

48Richard Nicolls to the Earl of Clarendon, April
1, 1666, NYHS. 0011., II, p. 119; Governor George Clinton
to the Lords of Trade, November 30, 1745, and also to the
Duke of Bedford, December 13, 1750, N. E, Col. Doc., VI,
PP c 287 , 602-03 0

49Stephanus Van Cortlandt’s will, MCNY.

 

 

74

surviving oldest son Philip, the "second lord."

Philip's eldest son Stephen Van Cortlandt of New York

was not even in a position to care about his title to the
lordship, for he had only three farms—~about 600 acres-—
on the manor.50 Pierre, Philip's youngest son, who in
1746 received from his father the largest amount of the
manor land and took charge of the manor affairs after 1749,
rightly called himself a "shop—keeper" in 1753 in a deed

51

dealing with land in the manor. In fact, Pierre did not
inherit the title of lordship simply because of his being
the youngest son of Philip, nor did Philip give him such a
titleo If Pierre ever used the title, it was an act of
usurpation on his part. Moreover, nowhere in his record
is any evidence that he ever assumed the lordship. Yet,
strangely enough some historians later granted Pierre the

"shop—keeper" the lordship by calling him "lord of the

Manor of Cortlandt."152

 

5orhilip Van Cortlandt's will dated August 11, 1746,
V1837, SHRL; NYHS. 0011., XXVIII, pp. 202-03.

51Partition Deeds, December 13 and 14, 1753, v1704,

SHRL.

52See Spaulding, New York in the Critical Period, p.
73; Rensen J. Lessing, Hours with the Livin Men and Women
of the Revolution (New York, 18895, p. 34o If there was
anyone who would be entitled to the title of lordship, he
was Philip Van Cortlandt, the eldest son of Stephen Van

Cortlandt of New York, Pierre's older brother. Philip, how-
ever, never called himself "lord of the manor."

 

 

— “ x r-vr' ‘ _ v'“_7¥~r:;- 1 w

75
Thus the institutional aspect of the manor lord-
ship was destroyed and its privilege of representation
in the General Assembly was taken over by the manor free-
holders. At the same time that the theoretical basis of
lordship on the manor was being destroyed, the manor it-
self was disintegrated as a result of its partition and

subsequent settlement.

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER IV
SETTLEMENT AND DISINTEGRATION

The settlement of the Manor of Cortlandt, like
most large manors, was quite slow until its first parti—
tion among the heirs of Stephanus Van Cortlandt in 1732.
When the founder of the manor died in 1700, there were
only several farmers whom he settled at "his great
charge" before the manor patent was granted.1

Terms or agreements with the settlers which Van
Cortlandt tersely mentioned in his will are so vague
that we are unable to identify positively their status.
His will simply ordered his executrix, his eldest son,
and overseers of his children to observe this agreement
with the settlers "according to the true intent and
meaning thereof."2 It is, however, highly probable that
Stephanus either let the people settle and live upon his

land without "Vry" (charge),3 as his neighbor Frederick ;

 

1Calendar of land papers, Mss., NYSL., II, p. 245.

2The will of Stephanus Van Cortlandt, MCNY.

3The Rev. David Cole, trans. and ed., First Re—
cord Book of the "Old Dutch Church of Sleepy Hollow"
organized in 1697 (Yonkers, 1901), p. 5.

76

 

V

 

77

Philipse did or made an outright grant in fee simple to
them in return for their improving the land. In the
latter case, there is, for example, a quit—claim deed
made in 1713 by Antie Van Texell and others to Gertruyd
Van Cortlandt, executrix of Stephanus, that clearly in—
dicates that Antie's husband, John Cornelieus Van Texell,
owned land of 200 acres in Verplanck‘s Point in the man-
or before 1700.4 Van Texell's title to the land is un-
questionable, for the price of the land ( £200 for 200
acres) in the quit—claim was too high to suspect that the
quit—claim was a reversion of a lease to the landlord.

The reason Stephanus offered such generous terms
for the settlement is not difficult to explain. Through-
out the colonial history of New York, the security of the
frontiers against hostile French and Indians was the most
compelling concern of her governors. The consensus was
that the Hudson River Valley was an extremely important
strategic area to be defended. Its logical imperative
was the settlement of people upon the lands along the riv-
er, which, the governors believed, would strengthen the
security of the frontiers. It is also to be noted that
the settlement of the land meant both increasing economic
prosPerity for the province and widening sources of income

for the government. Thus, the people, who were interested

 

4Quit—claim Deed from Antie Van Texell, et al. to
Gertruyd Van Cortlandt, V2187, SHRL.

 

 

78
in obtaining land along the river, found it desirable to
harp on the theme of security in their application to the
government of the land.5 It was from this consideration
that Stephanus, too, in his application for the manor
patent, laid particular emphasis on the fact that he had
settled several farmers on his land "at great expense."
As noted in the second chapter of this study, however, it
was very difficult, if not impossible, to find a tenant
to work on his land. For this reason, the landlord glad-
ly welcomed practically anybody to make a home on his land,

. 6
even "intruders."

Under these circumstances, the recourse
open for the landlord was to offer such liberal terms as
the way to induce the people to settles

According to the census of 1712, that is, fifteen

years after the establishment of the manor, there were

only 91 inhabitants including four Negro slaves on the

 

5Petition of Caleb Heathcote and Augustin Graham
for a grant of land upon the Hudson River, February 20,
1696, Calendar of Colonial Mss., XL, p. 132, NYSL; Gov-
ernor Benjamin Fletcher‘s answer to the charges against
his extravagant grants, December 24, 1698, N. I. Col. Doc,,
IV, pp. 447—48; Peter Van Brugh Livingston to Samuel
Stork, 1735 (nodo), Miscellaneous Manuscripts, V, p. 164;
Stork to the Privy Council, 1735?, V, p. 175, NYSL.

6A testimony of John Watts to the memorial of
Frederick Philipse, The American Loyalists, transcripts
of Audit Office Rolls, 12/19, vol. 41, pp. 596-600, NYPL.
This will be referred to as the Loyalist Papers.

 

79

manor of 86,000 acres,7 If the thirty-two inhabitants
in Rykes Patent, which was within the manor jurisdic—
tion until 1770,8 are included the total population
would be 1230 The population of Westchester County was
2,815.)9 Thus, the combined population of the manor and
Rykes Patent represented a little more than four percent
of the county at the time. Considering the size of the
manor, which comprised twenty-eight percent of the
county territory, the manor population was very smallo

The settlement on the manor then, seems to have
been concentrated in the small strip of land in Ver—
planck's Point and its adjacent areas along the Hudson.

The rest was left unimproved. The small villages that

 

7Doc. Hist. N. Y., III, p. 574.

8The So-called Rykes Patent of 1800 acres was
granted by Thomas Dongan to Tunis Dekay and his associ—
ates, namely, Richard, Abramsen, Jacob Abramsen, Sybout
Harchie, Jacob Harchie, and Samuel Dekay, all of New York
City, on December 23, 1685. Later, the patent passed by
purchase to Hercules Lent and Hercules Syboutse Krank-
hyte in 17150 The patent was located near Verplanck's
Point in the manor. See Deed Book Aber A, pp. 189, 195—
96; Aber G, pp. 154, 157, WCCOo In January, 1770, the
patent was separated from the manor, and became an admin—
istrative unit as a town with its own supervisor. See
The Colonial Laws, V, pp. 114—15.

9The extent of the county before the Bronx was
annexed to New York City was 307,200 acres. See Robert
Borton, The History of Several Towns, Manors and Th2
Patents of the Cognty of Westchester, 2 vols° (xawfxork,
1905), I, p. 38.

 

 

80

clustered around the extreme northwestern part of the
county were so peaceful and calm that Caleb Heathcote,
a renowned resident of the county, failed to mention
the manor settlement in his letter to the Secretary of
Society for Propagation of Gospel in 17050 "There be-
ing," he said, "besides a settlement belonging to Colo
Morris, and another to Mr, Phillips, and mine, not any
that belong to particular men of any great value in the
county."10 Illustrative of the Sparse settlement of the
manor was the fact that there were no decent highways in
the manor that connected its various sections except
possibly along the Hudson. A series of laws enacted in
1713, 1721, and 1728 concerning the laying out of county
public roads even omitted the manor.11

Several fragmentary records provide a glimpse of
the people who settled on the manor before 17320 How-
ever, because of the total absence of written contracts
between the settlers and proprietors, it is impossible
to establish the exact lease terms of those who moved to
the manor after the death of Stephanus Van Cortlandt.
Based on their records of serving various public offices

of constable, collector, and assessor which required at

 

loDoc. Hist. N. Y., III, p. 83.

11The Colgpial Laws, vol. I, pp. 795—96; vol.
II, pp. 68, pp. 446-670

 

81
least a life-term lease—hold to the value of £40, the
most reasonable presumption is that most of the settlers
on the manor during this period were at least tenants

12

"for life." Here, the list of the manor officials

from 1712 to 1723 is very helpful in understanding the

 

manor conditions.13

the year served name office
1712 Francis Besley Constable
1713 Samuel Brewer Constable
1714 Jacob Gardiner Constable
1714 Abraham Amburgh Assessor
1714 William Van Tassel Assessor
1714 John Lent Collector
1715 Samuel Brewer Assessor
1715 Francis Besley Assessor
1715 William Taylor Collector
1715 Jacob Gardiner Constable
1716 Hannus Brewer Constable
1716 Sebout Krankhyt Assessor
1716 John Besley Assessor
1716 Abraham Lent Collector
1718 John Besley Constable
1719 John Besley Constable
1719 William Hendrickson Assessor
1719 Abraham Lent Assessor
1719 Samuel Brewer Collector
1720 John Besley Constable
1720 Crankheight Assessor
1720 Peter Williams Assessor
1720 Hendrick Brewer Collector
1721 Hendrick Cambrough Constable
1721 Jacob Krankhyt Assessor
1721 Matice Brewer Assessor
1721 Albert Lent Collector

 

12"An Act for the more regular proceedings in
the Elections of Representative for the several Cities
and Counties within this Province," passed on October
18, 1701, The Colonial Laws, I, pp. 452—54.

13Deed BonkAber 1)., pp. 17, 25, 37, 42-43, 49,
58, 78—79, 83, 88, 99, 108-09, 137, wcco.

 

 

 

 

82

the year served name office
1722 Sybout Krankhyt, Jr. Constable
1722 John Lent Assessor
1722 Nicholas Heliker Assessor
1722 William Teller Collector
1723 Sybout Krankhyt, Jr. Constable
1723 Peter Hansen Assessor
1723 Elias Conklin Collector

The above list indicates that the offices were occupied
by 15 families in rotation. The Besleys, for example,
occupied the various offices successively from 1712 to
1720; and the Brewers from 1712 to 1721. In view of the
limited number of manor inhabitants, such a rotation of
offices was perhaps inevitable.

The importance of this list lies in the number
of identifiable tenants of the Van Cortlandt Manor. The
1723—1731 account books of the estate of Gertruyd Van
Cortlandt, widow of Stephanus, show that Samuel Brewer,
John Besley, Abraham Lent, Jacob Gardiner, Jacob
Krankhyt, Hendrick Brewer, and William Van Tassel were
tenants of Van Cortlandt because they paid rents for
their leases.14 The rest of the men on the list were
either their relatives or tenants who were not yet en-
tered in the widow's account. It is to be noted that
all the Krankhyts and the Lents were from the Rykes Pa-

tent, and their fathers were the proprietors of that

 

14Account Book of Estate of Gertruyd Van Cort-
landt, 1726-1740, NIPL; Account Books of Gertruyd
Beekman (Mrs. Henry; original title is A Book of the
Estate for Geertry'd Van Cortland alias Beekman,), V-
2302-V2303, SHRL.

 

83
patent° There were several more tenants who do not ap-
pear in the list of the manor officers; they were
Cornelis Janse Van Tessel, Cornelis Akerson (Akerman?),
Harme Montross, Johannis Van Lent, Jan Cruijn, and

Hendrick Lent.15

Montross was a non-resident tenant,
for he was shown as a resident of the Manor of Philips-
burgh in 1726° All in all, the evidence supports the
supposition that there were some twenty families working
on the manor land until 17320 However, the extent of
their leased land cannot be established.16
The slowness of settlement was due primarily to
reluctance on the part of the settlers to work as ten-
ants on others' land. There was no occasion in this
early period of the Colony that compelled the people to
tenantize themselves in a county where they could easily

obtain freeholds.l7

Even if they could not find land of
their own in New York, they could cross the colony line

to the western colonies, New Jersey and Pennsylvania,

 

15Account Book of Estate of Geertruyd Cortlandt,

NYPL.

16Most of them appear in the roster of the Re—
formed Dutch Church of Tarrytown which was established
in 1697. In view of this fact, it can be said that they
were of Dutch extraction. See Cole, ed., First Record
Book of the Old Chgrch of Sleepy Hollow, ppo 9—10.

17Governor Hunter to the Lords of Trade, N. Y.
Col. Doc., V, pp. 179—80.

 

 

84

where they were enthusiastically welcomed. It was not
the New York York governors' senility which caused them
to worry about the prospect of their province becoming
depopulated. The prospect was real because of the con—
stant westward migration of young people from the colony
who felt cramped at home.18 For the restlessness of the
youth, and their loss to the neighboring colonies, Governor
Hunter blamed the large landowners’ "vain hopes of getting
tenants."19 The fact that Philip Van Cortlandt, head of
the Van Cortlandt family, willingly settled some of the
Palatines in the manor in 1717 proves that the delay in
the settlement of the manor was not caused by a proprie—
tory aversion to the improvement of their domain.20 It
further demonstrates that the manor proprietors also in-

dulged in widespread "vain hOPeSo"

A comparison of population figures between the

 

18Lord Cornbury to the Board of Trade, July 1,

1708, Ibid., p. 56.

 

19Hunter to the Lords of Trade, November 12,
1715, Ibid., p. 459; Bellomont to the Lords of Trade,
November 28, 1700, Ibid., IV, p° 791; Calwallader
golden to Secretary Popple, December 4, 1726, Ibid., pp°
05-06.

 

20Philip Van Cortlandt to Gulian Verplanck,
October 21, 1717, Letter Book of Philip Van Cortlandt,
NIHS, p. 156.

 

 

 

85

various towns and the manor dramatically illustrates
the reason for delay in the settlement of the latter.
The lands in the former were held in freehold, the
latter in leasehold. The township of Bedford, with
23,000 acres of land had 172 inhabitants, almost twice
as many inhabitants as the manor, in 1712o21 The other
towns presented a far more striking contrast with the
manor in terms of population density; Westchester had
572 on its less than 7,000 acres;22 Rye on 4,500
acres;23 Eastchester 300 on 5,000 acresoz4 These are
but several examples that show the early settlers’ ten-
dency to avoid dependence upon leasehold for their live—
lihood.

Another factor that discouraged the manor settle-
ment was that the manor had not partitioned for more
than thirty years after the death of Stephanus Van
Cortlandt. Tenancy in common that characterized the ti—
tles of the heirs of Stephanus to the undivided manor posed

Some problems not only for the proprietors but also

 

21Patent to Bedford Township, April 8, 1704,
Patent Book 7, p. 271, 088; V219, SHRL.

22Patent Book 6, p. 101, 033.

‘23Patent Book 8, p. 391, 053.

24Patent Book 7, p. 328, oss.

5\.

 

 

 

86
for the prospective settlers of the manor. On the pro—
prietory side, the mere fact of common ownership of the
manor reduced the incentive for making a vigorous effort
to settle tenants. If any tenant in common, either for
profit or for support of his family, should settle by
himself or hire tenants on the manor, benefits accruing
from his improvement or a settlement went as much to the
one who did not improve it as to the one who did,25 For
the potential tenant settlers, tenancy in common on the
part of the manor proprietors meant uncertainty as to
the lease terms. For none of the proprietors of the man—
or was in a position to assure the tenants that the lease
would last longer than the time of the manor partitiono26
The uncertainty of the lease tenure thus compelled poten—
tial tenants to avoid the undivided manor,

That the undivided status of the manor was in no

 

25The Colonial Laws, II, pp. 868—70. As for the
records of Colonial legislation on the problem of parti—
tion (of land) in joint tenancy or tenant in common, see
Ibid., I, pp. 633-36, 882, 1006; Lords of Trade to the
Lords Justices, June 19, 1719, No Y. Col. Doc., V, po 527;
V, pp. 529—30; Governor William Burnet to the Lords of
Trade, November 30, 1721 and December 20, 1726, Ibido, V,
PPo 644, 648, 8120 As for the fate of the acts concern—
ing the partition of land held in tenant in common or
joint tenancy, see Ibid., V, pp. 843-44°

 

26Even the priority of choosing each share of the
manor land was not so certain until the devisees of
Stephanus Van Cortlandt entered into an agreement in
1730. See Cortlandt Manor Papers, NYHS.

 

 

 

87
small part responsible for the delay in the settlement
is strikingly clear when the population of the Cort—
landt Manor is compared with its much smaller neighbor,
Philipsburgh Manor. The latter, despite being one
fourth the size of the Manor of Cortlandt,27 had 348
tenants in l7l2--almost four times the number on Cort-

1andt's.28

The relatively rapid improvement of the
Philipsburgh vis-a—vis the Manor of Cortlandt before
1712 might be explained by the fact that the former had
not gone through the status of "tenants in common."29
What, then, caused such a long delay in the par-
tition and the settlement of the manor? Unfortunately
there is no ready explanatory evidence on this matter.
The will of Stephanus Van Cortlandt ordered his wife,
Gertruyd, as the sole executrix to maintain and educate
his children until they reached the legal age of twenty—

one or they married. So it can be reasonably exPected

that she kept all the estates of her husband in her

 

27PRo, American Office (A0) 12, 88, p. 306, on
microfilm, SHRLo

28Doe. Hist. N. Y., III, p. 574.

29One might argue that the location of the Phil—
ipsburgh Manor, which was a little closer to New York
City than the Manor of Cortlandt, was accountable for the
former's quick settlemento But, in view of the dense
settlement in the other towns in the County north of the
Philipsburgh Manor, this geographical factor did not
seem to have played much of a part in the slow settle—
ment of the Manor of Cortlandt.

 

 

88
hands until when their last child, Cornelia, became of
age.30 However, the question of why the heirs of
Stephanus postponed the partition even after Cornelia's
coming of age still remains to be answered.
The will of Gertruyd Van Cortlandt, who died in
1723, did not Specify the time when the manor should be

divided.31

But it is not totally impossible to guess
what would have discouraged the early partition. On
June 15, 1728, Philip Van Cortlandt on behalf of his
brothers and sister applied to Governor Montgomerie for
a warrant directing the surveyor-general of the province
to survey the real estate of his parents. Such a war—
rant was a necessary step for the division of the es-
tates. Philip said in the application that all the de-
visees of the estates "coming of age have agreed to make
partition. . . of the said lands pursuant to the will"
of their father.32 It is significant that the applica-
tion was made only two years after Gertruyde, fourth
daughter of Stephanus, married Colonel Henry Beekman as

his second wife; although she was thirty-eight years old

 

30New York G93. & Bio. Rec., v, pp. 70-72.

31Mrs. Gertruyd Van Cortlandt's will, December
16, 1718, NYHS. (3011., XXVI, P0 457-

32Philip Van Cortlandt's petition to the Governor,
Calendar of Land Papers, Mss., X, p. 66, NYSL.

 

 

 

89
at her marriage, she was the last one of the sisters to
give up her maiden name.33 It is quite probable that
the Van Cortlandt devisees had felt it eXpedient to
wait until every one of the sisters got married.

The warrant for the survey of the manor and
other estates as described in Philip‘s application was
quickly granted by Governor Montgomerie. On November
13, 1730, the children of Stephanus Van Cortlandt and
devisees drew up articles of agreement, among other
things, for the division of the manor.34 The articles
provided that the manor be partitioned in ten equally
valuable parts for each of the ten parties (reckoning
each of the sisters and their husbands as one party).
They also agreed that Philip Van Cortlandt be given
the first choice of the ten equal shares; and Stephen
Van Cortlandt of New Jersey, the second surviving son
of Stephanus, the second choice. This was done, be-
cause Philip Ver Planck and his wife, Gertruyd, the
only daughter of Johannes Van Cortlandt (the eldest son
of Stephanus), voluntarily forsook "in consideration of

severall condescention made in their favor by the other

 

33New York Gen° & Bioo Eggo, V, pp. 70—72.

34The articles of agreements were made a day
after they conveyed the estates in Rahway, New Jersey,
to Stephen Van Cortlandt. Cortlandt Manor Papers,
NYHS; Van Cortlandt Family Papers, Case for Oversized
Mss., 1730, NYHS.

 

 

 

90

parties," the right of the first choice given to their
father by the will of their grandfather. The articles
further stipulated that Philip Ver Planck be appointed
as the surveyor and appraiser, and Danis Purdy and
Samuel Purdy as their disinterested appraisers of each
share of the manor,

Thus, in 1732, the land of the manor north of
the Croton River was surveyed and divided into 30 lotso
And this survey was followed by an appraisal of each
lot° By the end of May, 1733, the survey and appraisal
of ten more lots southeast of the river and west side
of the "pretended" bounds of the Bedford Township were V
returnedo The lots and their value as distributed ‘

from 1732 to 1734 among the heirs were as follows:35

 

35Deed of Partition for the Schuylers, Mss.,
No. 12248; for the Beekmans, Cortlandt Manor Papers,
NYHS; for Stephen Van Cortlandt, Case for Oversized
Mss., NYHS; for the Skinners, Van Cortlandt Papers,
V58, V222, SHRL and Case for OversizedTM533 , NYHS; "Es—
timate of the Value in the Manor of Cortlandt, 1733,"
Van Cortlandt-Van Wyck Papers, 1716~ ~1819, NYPL; "The
Return of 10 lots in the South art of the Manor of C
on the south side of Grooten' s €Croton) Rivero . a,
May, July, 1733, V2193, SHRL; "Lotts Drawn by Ger.
Beekman l/lO Manor Cortlandt 1732, " V2066, SHRL; Samuel
Bayard to Mrs. Gertruyd Beekman, February 12, 1733/4
and July 5, 1734, V2100, SHRL.

 

91

 

Name Lot Acreage Value
in 1733—34
(Pound)
Philip Van North Great Lot 3968 480
Cortlandt No. 6
South Great Lot 2225 195
No.
Front Lot No. 1 1255 300
Lot south of the
Croton 562 330
7210 1305
Stephen Van South Great Lot 2760 383
Cortlandt No. 6
South Great Lot 2660 375
N00 7 *
Front Lot No. 4 1474 214
Lot South of the 686 200
Croton No. 4 7580 1172 ‘
Philip Ver South Great Lot 2995 345
Planck No. 2
South Great Lot 2904 413
Neo 3
Front Lot No. 2 932 215
Lot south of the
Croton N00 5 854 260
7685 1233
John Miln North Great Lot 3696 450
N00 8
North Great Lot 2784 300
No°
Front Lot N00 5 1234 238
Lot south of the 531 280
Croton N00 10 8245 1268
William South Great Lot 3712 675
Skinner No. 4
South Great Lot 2565 156
Front Lot N00 3 1886 120
Lot south of the 852 255
Croton No. 7 9015 1206
Stephen North Great Lot 3273 210
DeLancey No. 10
South Great Lot 2932 555
N00 5
Front Lot No. 6 1172 234
Lot south of the 912 290

Croton No° 9 8289 1289

 

 

92

 

Name Lot Acreage Value
in 1733-34
(Pound)

Andrew North Great Lot 3695 310
Johnston No° 7

North Great Lot 4095 339

No° 1

Front Lot No° 9 1233 240

Lot south of the 586 270

Croton No. 2 9609 1189
Samuel North Great Lot 3560 ?
Bayard No. 5

South Great Lot 2811 ?

No. 9

Front Lot N00 7 1027 ?

Lot south of the 604 290

Croton No. 3 8002 ?
John North Great Lot 3696 225
Schuyler N00 9

North Great Lot 2860 575

N00 4

Front Lot No. 8 808 210

Lot south of the 852 250

Croton N00 6 8216 1260
Henry North Great Lot 2904 596
Beekman N00 3

South Great Lot 2394 106

No. 8

Front Lot No, 10 2764 210

Lot south of the 689 285

Croton No. 8 8751 1197

*
Stephen's son Philip later corrected the acreage of the
Front Lot No. 4 to be 1447 acreso (Letter from Philip
Van Cortlandt to General Pierre Van Cortlandt, Jr.,
March 17, 1823, Van Cortlandt Papers, SHRL, V1855).

Excluded from the survey and division were Ver-
planck's Point of 915 acres that belonged to the heir of

Johannes Van Cortlandt according to the will of Stephanus;

Sarah's Point; and a tract east of Bedford township; In

the latter two cases, the titles and boundaries were

 

93
disputed by other claimants.36 The decision not to in—
clude the disputed lands was made in 1730 when the de—
visees of the Van Cortlandt Manor entered into an
agreement of the partition,

Then, in December, 1753, twenty years after the
second division of the manor, the ranified heirs of
Stephanus Van Cortlandt, now numbering twenty—one, ar-
ranged a deed of trust. By this new arrangement they

conveyed all the disputed and thus undivided land, in

trust,to John Watts, John Van Cortlandt, and Oliver

 

36An entry on November 5, 1731 in the account

book of the estate of Gertruyd Van Cortlandt shows that
the Van Cortlandt family bought a copy of the Bedford
patent for £1.83. The purchase of the Bedford title
was, without doubt, to ascertain and investigate the
disputed area between Bedford and the manor. See Account
Book of Estate of Geertruyd Van Cortlandt, 1726-1740,
NYPL. The Van Cortlandts had also a di5pute with the
Oblong patent of 50,000 acres that was granted to Thomas
Hyat and others on June 8, 1731 after the final boundary
settlement between New York and Connecticut. Patent
Book 2, p. 4, 088° Although the Van Cortlandt's rejec-
ted the title of the Oblong that gnawed away at the
eastern boundary of the manor, they could not do any-
thing about it. See Deed of Nine parties to William
Skinner, October 27, 1732, case for Oversized Mss. NYHS°
The devisees of the Van Cortlandt were challenged by the
Patentees of the Croton River in 1733. But the dispute
seems to have subsided after some exchange of sharp
notice and rebutals between the parties through a news-
paper. The New York Gazette, July 23 to July 30,

August 27 to September 3, September 3 to 10, September
10 to 17, 17330

 

 

 

 

 

94
DeLancey.37 The agreement was made with an inten-
tion that the trustees should recover the disputed
land through legal proceeding and divide the proceeds
from the sale of the land so to be recovered. The

The trustees also would have a complete discretional

 

37Deed Book 16, pp. 289-93, 038. The twenty—one
parties to the deed were as follows:
Stephen Van Cortlandt of Second River in Essex County
in New Jersey,
John Miln,
Henry Beekman of New York City,
William Skinner of Perth Amboy, New Jersey, husband of
Elizabeth (Van Cortlandt),
Andrew Johnston, husband of Catherine Van Cortlandt
and a Speaker of the New Jersey Assembly,
Cornelia Schuyler, widow of John Schuyler,
Stephen Bayard of Bergen in New Jersey, son of Samuel
Bayard,
Nicholas Bayard,
Peter Kemble of Mount Kemble, Morris County, New Jersey,
husband of the second daughter of Samuel Bayard,
James Van Horne,
James DeLancey of New York City, son of Stephen De-
Lancey,
Peter DeLancey of Westchester, son of Stephen DeLancey,
Nicholas Van Dam,
William Cockcroft,
Stephen Van Cortlandt of New York City, the eldest
son of Philip Van Cortlandt,
Pierre Van Cortlandt of the Manor of Cortlandt, store—
keeper, the youngest son of Philip,
John Watts, merchant in New York City, husband of
Anne, daughter of Stephen DeLancey,
John Van Cortlandt, merchant in New York City, son of
Stephanus Van Cortlandt of Second River in New Jersey,
Oliver DeLancey, merchant in New York Gity, son of
Stephen DeLancey,
Susannah Warren, daughter of Stephen DeLancey and
wife of Sir Peter Warren of England,
Source: The Deed of Trust, dated November 14, 1753,
Deed Book 16, pp° 289-96, 083.

 

 

 

95

power to settle such problems as trespass and boundary
controversy by arbitration or ejectment. In a word, the
trustees became the watchdogs of the manor interests.

The partition of the manor, though incomplete,
removed one of the impediments that had stood in the way
of its settlement: uncertainty of titles to the manorial
land was done, making the heirs of Stephanus Van
Cortlandt absolutely sure of their reSpective shares.
Some of the new landlords soon began to sell a part of
their inherited land and others chose to lease; or some--
times they did both. As will be shown later in detail,
the landlords' offer of very liberal lease terms, such as
a relatively small cash—rent for a large tract of land, a
long and secure tenure, a long no—rent period for the
sole purpose of improving the land, a repeal of a day's
work (corvee) and fowls to attract settlers to their land
in no small part facilitated the conversion of the manor
into a prosperous farming community. In fact, the liber-
alization of the lease terms as an economic necessity
mollified the general aversion of people to become ten-
ants. However, there was no better way to effect the
manor settlement than the outright alienation of land by
sales.

Beginning with the sale of 1,886 acres of land by
William Skinner to Joseph Conklin and John Baisley, Jr. in

1736,38 as Table II on the following pages show, until 1776

 

 

96
approximately 41,646 acres of land, nearly half of the
manor, were conveyed in fee simple by eight of the ten
original devisees and their descendants, of the estate
of Stephanus Van Cortlandt to different peopleo More
Specifically, the Johnstons sold about 8,972 acres,
93% of their share; the Schuylers 6,106 acres, 74%;
Philip Van Cortlandt 6,249 acres, 87%; the Skinners 4,334
acres, 48%; the Bayards 5,273 acres, 65%; the DeLanceys
4,057 acres, 49%; the Ver Plancks 4,653 acres,39 60%;
Stephen Van Cortlandt 2,000 acres,40 28%. Material con-

cerning the disPosition of land by the Milns of Albany

 

38Deed of sale, William Skinner to Joseph Conklin
and John Baisley, Jr., May 21, 1736, Van Cortlandt-
Van Wyck Papers, Misc. Land Papers, Box 1, NYPL.

39This figure is based on the will of Philip Ver
Planck dated October 23, 1767. Identity of purchases of
his land is, however, unknown. NYHS. Coll., XXI, p. 459.

 

4OAgain the figure is derived from a deed struck

by the heirs of Stephen Van Cortlandt concerning the nine
farms (1703) out of twenty-one farms in the manor of
which Stephen died seized in fee simple. According to
the deed, the size of the average farm was 243 acres. If
we multiply 243 acres by 21 to size up the amount of land,
Stephen had approximately 5103 acres of land at the time
of his death out of 7580 acres that he had inherited.
This means that Stephen sold in his life time, allowing
for roads and other public appropriations, at least some
2000 acres of land. See Partition Deed among Philip Van
Cortlandt, Johanna Van Cortlandt, and John Van Cortlandt,
August 20, 1791, Deed Book 23, pp. 247—50, 083. The two
known deeds of sale contracted by Stephen seem to support
the figure; One deed to Samuel and Joseph Wilson of 276
acres in 1753, the other, together with Oliver DeLancey
et. al., to Peter Hasenclever of 1570% in 1764. Deed Book
Aber H, pp. 407-501, WCCO; Deed Book 18, pp. 59-65, 088.

 

97

New York, is unavailable.41

On the other hand, the
Beekmans kept their entire manor estates by leasing
them until the death of Gertruyd Beekman (Van Cortlandt)
in 1777,42 At any rate, out of 63,606 acres of land in—
itially owned by these eight families, over 65% of it
was sold.

Yet some of the land sold went into the hands of
their own relatives° For instance, Oliver DeLancey, son
of Stephen DeLancey bought 1,200 acres from his uncle

Philip Van Cortlandt‘s estate in 1757..43

A year later,
Pierre Van Cortlandt, in addition to his small inheri—
tance of the manor land, acquired 3,138 acres more from
his father, Philip‘s estateo44 Sometime in 1740 John

Schuyler conveyed 3,696 acres to his brother-in—law,

Stephen DeLancey. Gertruyd Beekman expanded her estate

 

41All we know about the Milns with regard to land
transaction is that they sold Front Lot. No. 5 (1234) to
Samuel Bayard soon after the partition of the manor.
See Lease, Samuel Bayard to John Lent,May1 l, 1733,
Bayard—Campbell—Pearsall Land Papers, NYPL.

42The will of Gertruyd Beekman, February 20, 17b6,
Mss,, No. 12695, NYSL.

43"The Estate of Father Philip Van Cortlandt,"
V1837, SHRL; "Minutes of the estate of Philip and Stephen
Van Cortlandt Esqrs. dec'd," BV, Sec., NYHS.

44"Paper Belonging to the Lieutenant Governor,
1757-1758," V1836, SHRL.

 

 

 

Table 2.-—Land Transactions between the Original Proprietors
and Settlers in the Manor, 1733-1776

A. The Andrew Johnston's estate

 

 

Original Home Purchase Acre- Price
Purchaser of Buyer Status Year age Paid
Gertrude Land—
Beekman Na Y* City lord 1739 340 9
Peter Burr M.C. ‘ Yeoman 1742
Ephraim
Hayward n u n
Zachariah
Hubbell " " "
Isaiah Wood " " " **
Adorian 5,135 2,619.465
Treadwell " " "
Simon
Dackin Dutches
County
Elisha
JOhnson N H H
Caleb Hall Mass. " "
Caleb Hall M.C. " 1745
Pelatia 335 167.10.0
Haws " " "
Joseph _
Travis " Tenant 1748 121% 121.0.0
Caleb Hall " Yeoman " 115 115.0.0
Eleazer 1748—
Yeomans " Tenant 60 326 500.l5.0
Richard Dutches 1750—
Curry County Yeoman 53 432% 475.0.0
Israel
Kniffem M.C° " ? 202 225.0.0
Joseph Lee " Tenant 1753 102 132.0,0
Jeremiah
Drake " " 1756 134 268.0.0
James Lent " Yeoman 1760 88 20090.0
Hackaliah 1762—
Brown " 72 342% 691 .ll .0
John Seeley Conno " 1763 210 500.0.0
Levi Baily MaCo Tenant 1773 318% 832°10.0
Patrick! ' : “ ’ ‘.17 J" ‘ '
Cuinins " " .1775 303% :2
John Greens N. Castle Yeoman 1772 229; ?
Peter Corne MoC. 1773 __ggg_
, 8,972

98

 

 

* M.C° is the abbreviation for the Manor of Cortlandt.
** In 1743, Ephraim Hayard, Zachariah Hubbell, Isaiah
Wood, Adorian Treadwell, Simon Dackin, and Elisha
Johnson surrendered their shares to Peter Burr and
Caleb Hall for £1,700° Two years later, Peter Burr
conveyed his moity to Pelatia Haws for £1,300.

Sources: Deed Book Aber G, pp. 359—61, 401, 402, 403,
Aber H, pp. 171—81, 342—43, 344-45, 376—78,
425-26, 427—28, Aber I, pp. 66-7, 70-2, 179-
80, 210-11, Aber K, pp° 8—9, 21-2, 284—86,
WCCO; Deed Book 14, ppe 293-94, OSS; V1644,
V2066, SHRL; Mss., 12695 (4), NYSL.

B. The Johp Schuvler's estate

Stephen Gentle—

DeLancey N. Y. City man 11762 3,696 ?
David Travis M.C. Tenant 1766 215 433.5.0
Jeremiah

Travis " " " 192 384.0.0
James Guion " Yeoman 1767 190 380.0.0
Frances Lent " " 1768 200 90000.0
Hendrick Lent Rykes Patent Tenant " 300 750.0.0

Andrew Gerow M.C. Tenant " 109 196.4.0 ‘
Aaron Forman " " " 205 40400.0 !
Aaron Forman " " c.1768 111 ?

Joseph Lyons " " 1768 203 403.0.0

Jacob

Underhill " " 1769 220 410.0.0

John Lee " Yeoman 1773 0.200 436.10.0

John Petrue " " 1765 260 525.7.0

David Becker " " 1766 5 17.0.0

6,106

Deed Book Aber H, pp° 232-34, 448-49, 449-51,
Aber K, 246—47, WCCO; Deed Book 19, p. 110,
OSS; Schuyler Papers, Box 10, 19, 23, NYPL;
Schuyler Papers, SHRL.

Sources:

99

 

 

O\

 

Co The Philip Van Cortlandt's Estate

Henry Scott
John Tomkins
Cornright
Briggs
Samuel
Fields

John Duncan

Oliver
DeLancey
Moses Knapp
James
Russel, Jr.
Pierre Van
Cortlandt
David Weeks

M.C. Tenant 1757
M°P°* n u
M.C. " 1758

M II N

Schenectady Gentleman
l

Conn. " "
M.C° Tenant 1759
" ? 1760
Shop— 1758—
" keeper 62

" Miller 1761

480
241

125
125
500

1,200
250

100
3,138

100
6,249

819.8.0
361.10.0

450.0.0
450.0.0
590.000

1,719,760
52560.0

?

l,197.10.0
?

* M. P. is the abbreviation for the Manor of Philipsburgh.

Sources: Van Cortlandt—Van Wyck Papers, Miscellaneous Land
Papers, Box 1, NYPL; Van Cortlandt Papers, NYHS;
"Minutes of the estate of Philip & Stephen Van
Cortlandt Esqrs decd, 1760,” by Philip Van Cort-
landt, NYHS; Deed Book Aber K, pp. 250—52, WCCOa.

D. The William Skinner's Estate

John
Beasley,Jr. M.C. Tenant 1736
Joseph
Conklin n n n
Harmanus
Gardenier " " c.1737
Daniel Gerow New
Rochelle Yeoman 1755
John Pinkney M.C. Tenant 1765
Michael
Michael n n n
Seth Whitney " " 1765-
68
John Veal " " 1765
John Travis " " "
John Bowton ? Yeoman 1770
Gilbert Drake M. P. Tenant 1767

100

1,886

0.400

200
123%

219%

246
233%
127
314
204

360.0.0

?

250.0.0
339.12.6

811.2.6

671.9.2
818.2.6
?

314.0.0
700.0.0

 

 

 

Sc

Joseph Strang M.C. Tenant 1767 76 296.3.4
Ezekiel

Hawley " Yeoman 1772 58 58.0.0
John Ambler " " 1773 136 314.5.0
Thaddeus

Weed " ? 1775 110 354.0.0

4,334%

Sources: Van Cortlandt—Van Wyck Papers, Misc. Land Papers,
Box 1, NYPL; Deed Book Aber G, pp. 223—24, 596-97,
599-600, 601—02, 602-04, 663-64, Aber H, 266—69,
563—65, Aber I, pp. 115—16, 368—69, WCCO; Deed Book
18, pp. 142—46, 455—56, OSS; Whitney-Kipp Family
Papers, NYHS; Whitney Papers, NYHS; Cortlandt Manor
Papers, NYHS; V1681, SHRL; The New York Gazette and
the Weekl Mercur , October 31, 1768.

E. The Samuel Bayard's Estate

 

Samuel
Brown Rye Yeoman 1743 c.1,000 392.0.0
Hackaliah 1743-
Brown " " 60 0.600 c.300.0.0
John Gedney Manor of
Scarsdale " 1743 608% 160.0.0
James Woods N. Y. City " " 120 ?
Thomas Smith M.C. Car-
penter 1760 167 250.10.0
Nathaniel Westchester
Newman, Jr° County ? 1760 113 118.17.1%
Joseph .
Benedict M.C. Tenant " 454% 500,10.0
Benjamin Westchester
Griffin County Yeoman " 106 131.0.0
Jacob Newman " " " 114 l39.6.1%
Jonathan
Brown " " " c.1,000 1,073.18.6
Lewis Palmer M.C. Tenant 1765 162 ?
Thomas Thorn " " 1761 50 ?
Thomas Barker " " 1771 300 ?
John Leverick " Cooper 1773 106 341.5.0
Abraham Wright " Tenant 1774 100 ?
Joseph Ogden " " 1775 15 ?
William and
Hendrick Lent " Tenant 1771 111 ?
James
Van Horne N. Y. City Merchant 1743? 116 ?
5,273

101

 

 

 

Sources:

Deed Book Aber G, pp. 312-13, 477-78, 693-95,
Aber H, pp. 106—08, 277—80, 320-25, 481-83,
Aber I, pp. 36—37, WCCO; Bayard-Campbell—
Pearsall Land Papers, NYPL; Philip Van
Cortlandt (son of Pierre) to William Bayard,
November 8, 1773 and April 10, 1773, Nicholas
Bayard Papers, NYHS; "Droughts of Front Lot
No. 5," Cortland Manor Papers, NYHS; Book of
Wills B, pp. 295—98, Westchester County Surro—
gate Office; Van Cortlandt—Van Wyck Papers,
Misc° Land Papers, Box 1, NYPL; American Loyal—
ists, XVII, p. 137, XXIX, p. 17, NYPL.

F. The Stephen DeLancev's Estate

Andrew Miller M.C° Tenant 1761 200 365.5.0
John Maybee " " " 248 496.0.0
Three unidentifiable persons " 728 1,460.0.0
Epenetus

Townsend M.C. Priest 1769 60
Benton Smith ” Tenant " 115 230.0.0
Levi Baily “ " " 227 510.11.0
Nathaniel 1769-

Delivan " Yeoman 73 151% 361.10.0
John Delivan " Tenant 1769 124 310.17.0
Robert Weeks " ? "

Joseph Osborn " Tenant " 482 424.4.0
Samuel

Scribner " 9 1771 % 0.10.0
Mathew Delivan " Tenant 1773 89 152.11.6
Cornelius Mill—

Steenrod " wright 5% 50.0.0
John Patrick " Yeoman " 116 186.8.0
Abraham
.Delivan " " " 23 81.10.0
Timothy

Van Sooy " Tenant " 59% 83.13.0
Jacob Keeler " " " 109 219.0.0
Benedict

Carpenter Scarsdale l Yeoman " 105% ?
Halsey Wood M.C. " " 73 100.0.0
Daniel Lobdill " Tenant " 123 184.17.0
John Lobdill " Yeoman 1774 160 251.12.0
Gabriel Purdy " Tenant 1773 265% 531.0.0
Caleb Smith " Yeoman " 218 240.7.0
David Brown " Tenant " c.20 ?
Ephrain

Lockwood " " " 111 178.8.0
David Ogden " " 1771 156 ?

4,057

102

 

n I. lilil! ‘ ‘ ,t! It 1 Ill I, w, t! 'II-| -IJ.

 

 

 

Sources: Deed Book Aber H, pp. 375-76, 388-90, 391-93,
393-96, 396-97, 401-02, 459-60, 513-14, 518—20,
558—59, 560-61, 555-58, Aber I, pp. 5—6, 21—22,
22, 40—42, 42—43, 44—45, 130—32, 162—63, 177,
180—81, 183—85, 250—51, 321-22, V660; Deed Book
19, pp. 432-33, OSS; V1644, SHRL; Warren Papers,
Univ° of LondonO

 

103

 

 

 

 

104

further by purchasing 340 acres from her brother-in-law
Andrew Johnston in 1739.45 Thus, the size of land a0quired
by settlers other than the Van Cortlandt family would be re-
duced to 33,272 acres, about 50% of the eight of the ori—
ginal devisees of Stephanus Van Cortlandt, i. e., 39% of
the manoro

To be further noted in the sale of manorial land is
the fact that the majority of buyers of the original pro-
prietary shares, 79 out of 107, i. e., 75% of the buyers,
without counting either three unidentifiable persons or men
related to the Van Cortlandt family, were residents in the
manor. They bought 17,342 acres, 34%, of the estate of the
eight original proprietors and a little more than 25% of the
manor—~a conservative estimate0 The above figures substan—
tiate the generalization that the individual size of land
purchased by manor residents was considerably smaller than
that which was bought by people outside of the manora

Interestingly enough, of those resident buyers, ex—
cluding three persons whose occupation or status were un—
known,46 io e9, 59%, could be definitely identified as ten—

ants. They bought approximately lO,798 acres, constituting

 

45Deed Book 19, pp. 109-14, 038.

46Indenture between James DeLancey and Henry Beek—
man in V trust for Gertruyd Beekman, March 13, 1739, V2066,
SHRL; Andrew Johnston to Dear Sister (Gertruyd Beekman),
June 9, 1759, V2066, SHRL°

 

105
15% of the eight manor proprietors. Not included in this
figure are those tenants who acquired the land from non-
tenant residents. The number of tenant purchases, besides
those just mentioned above, however, would be far larger
if there was more information about the status identity of
"Yeoman," a term interchangeably used in the eighteenth
century for "farmer,” Hence, the term "yeoman" for desig-
nating one's occupation in land deeds does not serve any
useful purpose in a search for whether or not he was a ten—
ant, since even a tenant was called "yeoman" in documents
such as deeds and leaseso Even though some of those manor
residents are classified in Table l as Fyeoman," it is
doubtful if they were really worthy of the name as we un—
derstand it. One should remember that, after all, there
was no real yeoman living in the manor prior to the first

partition of the manor in 1732, except those people living

in the Rykes Patent° If so, would it be a mere figment of'

the imagination to suppose that some of the "yeoman" in
Table l were also tenants?

Conspicuously significant about the sale of land
was the extent to which manor proprietors liquidated their
inherited estates. The discussion to this point raises an
interesting question of why they preferred to sell their
land so extensively; why did they not put it exclusively to
renting with eXpectation for regular rental income from
their tenants?

Circumstances that compelled the landlords to

106
diSpose of their estates in the manor were manifoldo One
of the important factors was the debts that some of the
landlords had incurred for their extravagant living and
poor business operations. Philip Van Cortlandt, the sur—
viving eldest son of Stephanus Van Cortlandt and the so—
called second "lord" of the manor, had been so obsessed
with the idea of keeping his shrunken manor estate intact
that he bequeathed it in his will of 1746 to his heirs in
entail, an attempt to reverse the pattern his father had
seto His eldest son Stephen, thus having no alternative,
also entailed his manor estate in 1754, However, their
heirs later found out that both Philip and Stephen had left
a large number of debts. The farmer's debt ran(£5,050 in—

7 As a con—

cluding interest and the latter's was £8,690.4
sequence, the heirs, namely Philip and William Van Cortlandt,
their mother Mary Hughes and Pierre Van Cortlandt, decided

to break the entail through legislative action and disPose

of some estate in various areas and a part of the manor land.
In 1756, the colonial Assembly passed an act to enable them
to sell "so much of the real estate" in entail "as will be

48

sufficient to pay the debts." The heirs perhaps would

 

47"Minutes of the estate of Philip & Stephen Van
Cortlandto . . ," BV. Sec,, NYHS.

48The act was passed on July 9, 1756. yhe Colonial
Laws, IV, pp° 97—100; Calendar of Colonial Mss., Land Papers,
XV, p. 143, NYSL; The New York Mercur , November 28, 1757 and
April 2, 1759; Deed, Pierre Van Cortlandt to Nicholas Bayard,
Jr., November 2, 1759, Deed Book 16, ppo 110-12, 088.

 

 

 

107

have agreed with the remarks of Philip Van Cortlandt, the
official head of the Van Cortlandt family, that "there is
an Absolute necessity of disposing of some lands in the
manor to pay those persons who are most pressing as also to
rid the Estate of a Consuming matter."49 Eventually, they
sold off, among others, about 4,250 acres of land, more
than half of Philip Van Cortlandt's original share of the
manor.50

In a similar manner, an incident concerning
the Skinner family reinforces the contention that the
debt of the original manorial proprietors accounted
for some part of the manor land falling into the hands
of people other than the Van Cortland family at large°
As agreed upon in July 1764, the partition of Eliza-
beth Skinner's estates in the manor among heirs
Cortland Skinner, William Skinner, Stephen Skinner,
John Skinner, and Gertrude Parker (Skinner), South Great
Lot No. 4 (3968 acres) and No. 10 (2826 acres) were put

51

on sale. According to Cortlandt Skinner, the primary

 

 

49Philip Van Cortlandt to his uncle Pierre Van
Cortlandt, December 12, 1759, V1883, SHRL.

50Minutes of the estate of Philip at Stephen Van
Cortlandt. . .," BVo Sec., NYHS; File No. 70, Mss., Court
of Appeals, Albany, New York.

51Deed Book 18, pp. 142-46, OSS; The New York? er-
cury, December 22, 1766; "Division of Land of Elizabeth
Skinner dec'd among her heirs, 1764," Warren Papers, Univo
of London.

 

 

108

reason for the sale of their mother's manor estates was to
pay their father‘s debts.52

No less important than debt as a factor in induc—
ing the manorial proprietors to diSpose of their estates
was the poor return of profits in the form of rent from
leased land. Purely in terms of economics, renting the
land was not a profitable business at all simply because
the amount of rent accrued was far less than one might ex-
pectD One of the manor landlords, while discussing the
desirability of selling about 400 acres of well—improved
land worth. $2,000 which he jointly owned with his brother,
complained that the farm ”don't bring but thirteen pounds
[and] Simple Interest is one hundred forty pounds" annually.
In desPeration, he declared that he would be satisfied if
he could lease the farm for only the annual rent of £40,
two per cent of the value of the farm.53 As will be shown
later, however, no ordinary farm of that size except mills
or mines could be rented for so high a rate throughout the
colonial period of New York. As a result, some manor pro-

prietors became anxious to convert the landed estates into

 

52Cort1andt Skinner to Dear Brother (Colonel Will—
iam Skinner?), October 25, 1771; William Skinner to Stephen
Skinner, 1770; Stephen Skinner to William Skinner, October
26, 1771, all in Warren Papers, Univ. of London.

53Stephen Skinner to William Skinner, October 23,
1767, Warren Papers, Univ. of London.

 

 

 

 

109
cash which they might invest in economic ventures other
than land and expect a good profit approximating at least
the official interest rate of seven per cent.54
An attempt to explain why the manor proprietors

chose to sell their estate, however,.would be far from com—
plete if one fails to take account of proprietory testators'
concern to make eguitable division of their estates among
their sons and daughters. Heightening their anxiety was the
multiplication of heirs who would be entitled to the stead—
ily shrinking family estates. Had the testators followed
the practice of primogeniture, perhaps the break—up of their
estates for the sake of its equal division would have been
unnecessary. Although Philip Van Cortlandt and Philip Ver

55

Planck entailed some of their estates, none of the Van

Cortlandt heirs dared to defy the prevailing custom which
56

strongly shunned primogeniture. Hence, the testators,

particularly Cornelia Schuyler and Elizabeth Skinner, the

 

54Seven per cent interest rate was fixed by the
New York provincial government on December 16, 1737. See
the New York Gazette, July 10, 1738.

55Will of Philip Van Cortlandt, August 21, 1746,
V1837, SHRL; Will of Philip Ver Planck, October 23, 1767,
NYHS. 0011., Va 31, p. 459.

56Sometimes the common testators paid a nominal
sum of five or ten shillings or bible to the eldest son in
Consideration of heirship. See Record of Wills, A—G,
passim, at Westchester County Surrogate Office° Hereafter
the Office will be cited as WCSOo

 

110

widows of the original manor proprietors, laid down in
their wills specific instructions to make sure that the
executors sell "so much" of their "land in. . . the manor
as will raise" enough money "as an equivalent" for their
other children,57

Whatever the reasons for the diSposition of the
manor land might have been, its steady sale together with
the offer of generous lease terms by the landlords during
some four decades from 1732 to 1775 Opened the door for
rapid settlement by the fast-expanding colonial population.
With a series of encouragements from the colonial Assembly,
highways and roads linking together different parts of the
manor and joining them to the outside were planned and con-
structed.58 These, in turn, served to integrate the manor
physically with the political, social, and economic trends
of the times. As a result, the "number of (its) inhabitants

and settlements increased" so much and so rapidly that the

colonial Assembly found it "now necessary" to authorize the

 

57Will of Cornelia Schuyler, August 26, 1760, Mss.,

No. 923, NYSL; Will of John Schuyler, n.d., NYHS. Coll.,
XXVII, p. 387; will of Elizabeth Skinner is recited in a
deed from Cortlandt Skinner, William Skinner, John Skinner,
James Parker and his wife to Stephen Skinner, August 1,
1764, Deed Book 8, pp. 142-45, OSS; Cortlandt Skinner to
Dear Brother, October 25, 1771, Warren Papers, Univ° of
London. See also will of Andrew Johnston, May 2, 1761, Mss.
No. 12695 (2) NYSL; will of Stephen DeLancey, March 4, 1735,
NYHS. Coll., V. 20, p. 358; Will of Ann DeLancey, March 2,
1741, Van Cortlandt Papers, NYHS; will of Gertrude Beekman,
February 20, 1776, Mss., Noo 12695, NYSL.

58
PPQ 79-82.

 

The Colonial Laws, II, pp. 466-68, 935-37, IV,

 

 

111
manor to elect two additional constables in 1756.59 Twelve
years later, the Assembly again, having realized the inade—
quacy of three constables, amended the previous act to al—
low the manor to elect two more constables, along with a
second Overseer of the Highways.60

More important, the alienation of the manorial land
by the heirs of Stephanus Van Cortlandt had a benevolent ef-
fect upon the fate of the manor. It rendered final the pro—
cess of physical disintegration of the manor which had
started in 1732; it made the liquidation of the manorial
title itself a historical reality. For the alienation of
the land from the Van Cortlandt heirs destroyed the very
physical basis of their potential economic influence and
powero Thus, it can be said that the manor settlement and
its disintegration went hand in hand.

Finally, minor though it is, the tenants' contribu—
tion to the settlement and physical disintegration of the
manor is perfectly clear, because they could afford to pur-
chase the land making themselves genuine "yeoman." This
observation causes us to wonder at the degree of social mo-
bility in the manor. In other words, what were the terms of
lease for the tenants and their relationship with the land—
1ords that allowed them to better their lot? How well off

were the conditions in which the tenants found themselves?

 

591bid., III, ppo 942-45.

601bid., Iv, pp. 1065-67.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER V
THE LEASE STRUCTURE AND ITS OPERATION

Historians, in describing the relationship between
manorial proprietors and their tenants, have concluded that
"quasi-feudal" conditions were a cause of "persistent dis—
content" among the latter,1 Such conclusions have resulted
largely from studying only the terms of leases, Some of
these provisions appear to have been so burdensome that it
has been assumed that tenants lived in poverty and must have
been continually disgruntled. This discussion, however, will
show that lease terms were reasonable, and that in actual
practice tenant-proprietor relationships in the Manor of
Cortlandt often were very different from what was stipulated
in leases.

The names of about 320 people who were tenants at

some time between 1732 and 1776 have been found during the

 

1Carl Becker, The History of Political Partie§,po
10, Staughton Lynd, "The Tenant Rising at Livingston Manor,
May, 1777," New York Historical Society Quarterly, XLVIII,
April, 1964, No. 2, ppo 164—66; Beatrice G. Reubens, "Pre-
Emptive Rights in the DisPOSition of a Confiscated Estate,
Philipsburgh Manor, New York," William and Mary Quarterly,
XXII, July, 1965, pp. 441, 445—46; David M. Ellis, band-
lords and Farmers in the Hudson Mohawk Re ion 1790-1850
(Ithaca, 19465, pp. 29, 36, 43; E° Marie Becker, "The 801

Westchester County Freeholders of 1763," pp. 297-98.

 

112

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

113

course of this study. They were gleaned from rent rolls,
wills, deeds, lease papers, account books, ledgers, tax
records, and letters relating to the manor. Information
about many of these tenants is fragmentary and unbalanced.
We know no more than the names of some of them and while
there is a good amount of material for the tenants of cer-
tain proprietors, there is very little for those of others.

The scarcity and imbalance of the material are il-
lustrated by the limited number of lease papers still avail-
able. The Van Cortlandt prOprietors are known to have left
only fifty-eight lease papers. Of these, the Beekmans left
twenty—four; Stephen Van Cortlandt of New Jersey and his son
John, twenty—eight; Samuel Bayard, three; Philip Van Cort-
landt of New York City, one; Stephen Van Cortlandt of New
York City, one; and Pierre Van Cortlandt, one. One reason
for the scarcity of available lease papers is that some
landlords (the DeLanceys, for example) preferred "parole"
or"unwritten" leases to the written ones.2 Since the ex-
tant lease papers seem to represent a fair cross-section
of the proprietors, however, it is possible to describe
the general pattern of lease practice.

The details of lease terms varied from one proprie-

tor to another and from one lease to another. But there

 

2See "Value of Lady Warren‘s Real Estate in the
Province of New York and the manner she came entitled to
them New York ye lst June 1759," Warren Papers, Univ° of
London.

 

114

were several basic conditions common to every lease; that
taxes should be paid by the lessee, improvements be made
on the land, and that mines, minerals, and ores within the
leased premises be exclusively reserved to the landlord.

One of the most important conditions in early leases
was a provision requiring the tenant to improve the land
that never before had been farmed. By the time of the
Revolution, however, such improvement seldom was demanded,
As prescribed by the proprietors, the improvements consisted
of building a house, planting a fenced orchard of apple or
pear trees, and cultivating the land. One lease varied
from another in such technical details as the size and mat-
erial of the house, number of trees, and the use of the land.
Samuel Bayard was exceptionally particular about improve-
ments. In his leases to Peter Win and Philip Linnebecker
in 1732 and John Lent in 1733, he required them to build, at
their cost, houses "at least 18ft. square, either of Stone
or Timber, boarded or shingled without, & plastered within,
covered with shingles, floor'd & glazed, with necessary
Doors & Windows, & a Sufficient chimney, with a Lentoe of
the Bigness of the said House, also covered with Shingles
. . . ." As for the orchard, he Specified that they plant
within a year at least 150 apple or pear trees "at a dis-
tance from 35 to 45 foot." Bayard's directions for the de—
velopment of the land were particularly fastidiouso Each

of the lessees was to

 

115

clear at least from 4 to 8 acres of land, ac—
cording as he is handed, & not to manure any
of the Land, so cleared above two crops with
Winter Grain, & after that one Year with Indian
Corn, Oats, Flax, or Buckwheat, after that to
lie Fallow four years, except sown with Flax,
on Land first Dunged for that purpose, & so
every Four Years to be manured either with
Summer or Winter Grain. . . . They shall, after
the lst Ten years setling of the said Farm,
leave at least Six Acres of Meadow Ground for
Hay not to be plowed up, otherwise than for
that Use, and to Dung & Fence the same as Occa-
sion requires, and to Graft yearly 20 Fruit—
Trees, providedathe Grafts are sent up by the
Landlord, . . .

Compared with Bayard, the other manorial proprietors
were quite liberal about provisions for improvement, al-
though they all insisted upon the planting of 100 apple
trees within six yearso As the building of a house, the
Beekmans simply laid down the rule that it should be erected
only on "a dug Stone—Walled Cellar."4 Some of the other

proprietors were silent about this matter, while Stephen

 

3Win's lease was on farm No. 1 (174 acres) in the
West range of Great North Lot No. 5 and Linnebeker's farm
No. 2 (207 acres), Great North Lot No. 5. Bayard-
Campbell-Pearsall Collections, Land Papers, NYPL. Even the
Bayard case was not so exceptional compared to the practic—
es of the other ordinary landlords outside the manor. See
Gulian VerPlanck's lease to James Lecky, August 29, 1751,
in Wappinger Creek, Dutchess County, Verplanck Papers,
NYHS; lease of Albert Pawling & W. Cathania to Lewis Hunt,
May 13, 1745, in Dutchess County, M322, SHRL; lease to
Isaac Haviland, April 9, 1767, PX415, SHRL.

4Leases, Henry & Gertruyd Beekman to Andrew Barton.
May 1, 1749, V1942, No. 2; to Abiel Fuller, June 11, 1761,
V2200; to Andrias Bergher, March 25, 1737, V1942, No. l;
to William Borden, May 1, 1756, V2198; to Solomon Lane,
March 25, 1737, V2189; to Jonathan Odell, May 6, 1749,
V1697, SHRL.

 

 

l l Jill . III'III
.Iu.
’
.
A :x
.\ n\
n\
n\
n\ o
Yl Rx
Q r 9.
WA\
V:
F \ '\ V
n.,
-K i
a
o,
0
~
1 a
a
o Ix
..t
h\
~1\
l 0‘
n .
L
O, 0. a .K
a I
.
.
f I\ fit»
.
V.
I
a
.1
A 'x
0,
p
0
s
.
Q
r,
O
NV
‘ h ,
Q a
.
Q
.
n \
a ,

 

116

Van Cortlandt of New Jersey and his son John developed the
policy of building for each of their tenants a house worth
about <£35. The tenants were expected to pay back the cost
of the building.5

Leases drawn up by proprietors other than Bayard
seldom contained detailed provisions as to the use and de—
velopment of the land. This was due mainly to a sanguine
expectation that tenants would find it in their interest to
make good use of the lando For it was assumed that improve—
ments would result in greater income to renters during the
duration of their 1easeholds.6

Some proprietors did demand that their tenants, up—
on selling their leases (a step that could be taken only
with the landlord's consent), should relinquish a percent-
age of the value of improvements they had made. Thus,
Stephen Van Cortlandt of New York, John Van Cortlandt,
Oliver, Peter, and James DeLancey, and the Warrens and
Schuylers all demanded one—third of the value of the improve-
ments in case the tenant sold his lease or one-fourth when

they themselves decided to sell the land before the tenure

 

5Journal of John Van Cortlandt, (c), 1764—1772,.

NYPL.

6The heirs of Sir Peter Warren and his wife
Susannah deceased reported in the 1760s that the "build—
ings, tenaments, and improvements are in general claimed
by the tenants." See Warren Papers, NYHS°

117
of lease expired.7 Although it is not known whether these
landlords also demanded a percentage of the improvements
in case of a second or third sale of a lease, practices
elsewhere make it seem likely that they did make similar,
although smaller, claims. In the neighboring Philipsburgh
Manor, for example, landlords took one—sixth of the value

of improvements for every sale after the first one.8

 

7Lease, Stephen Van Cortlandt of New York to Joseph

Haight, April 11, 1751, Van Cortlandt—Van Wyck Papers, NYPL;
leases of Solomon Burtus, Israel Knap, Cornight Briggs,
Joseph Height, and Samuel Fields, all tenants of Philip Van
Cortlandt, IX2108, V1837, SHRL; leases of John Wilson and
Benjamin Golden, Receipt Book of John Van Cortlandt, NYHS;
Receipt Book of Pierre Van Cortlandt for Oliver De Lancey
and the Warrens, V1689, V1644, SHRL; Account Book of Pierre
Van Cortlandt, V2301, passim, SHRL; John Van Cortlandt to
Capt. Montross, April 5, 1773, Letter Book of Stephen and
John Van Cortlandt, 1771—1792, NYPL; Schuyler Papers, Box

0, on John Stevens, NYPL; Deed Book Aber H, pp. 501-02, on
Henry Scott, WCCO. Other ordinary landlords in New York a1—
so practiced the same policy with regard to the landlords‘
share in the improvement. See John Watts to Henry Livingston,
May 11, 1762, Letter Book of John Watts of New York, 1762-
1765, NYHS Coll., for the year 1928, LXI, p. 47.

8Recently, Beatrice G. Reuben, echoing Irving Mark,

wrongly inferred that "it is not clear whether Philipsburg
observed the hated "quarter—sale" by which the landlord
took one fourth of the price a tenant received when he sold
his improvements." See Reuben, "Philipsburgh Manor," p.
439; Irving Mark, Agrarian Cgpflicts in Colonial New York,
1711—177: (New York, 1940), p. 70. To correct this misre-
presentation, it suffices to quote a sworn testimony of
Beverly Robinson, former landlord in Dutchess Bounty and
brother—in—law of Frederick Philipse: "(The witness) says
that the Custom upon w(hi)ch the Tenants held their Farms
of the Claimant (Frederick Philipse) was when the Tenants
were changed they sold the value of their Improvements &
paid the landowner a 3rd of the Improvem(en)t for the lst
Sale and a 6th for every Sale afterwards." As for a speci-
fic incident of the tenant paying a third of improvements
upon the sale of lease in the Philipsburgh Manor, see the
testimony of the Reverend Samuel Peters. See also the

 

 

 

 

0\

 

 

 

118
By no means every proprietor, however, demanded a
percentage of the value of improvements. Philip Van
Cortlandt, Son of Stephanus, permitted a tenant named
Cornight Briggs to receive the full value of the improve-

9

ments he had made. And the Beekmans followed the same

policy, at least until 1775, when they inserted a hand-
written demand for a "tenth" in two printed lease forms.10
Although the justice of such claims may be open to
question, it is nevertheless true that tenants in holdings
such as the Manor of Cortlandt agreed to the terms of a
lease voluntarily and presumably after taking their own
. interests into consideration. As was shown in Chapter II,
the prolific economic opportunities in colonial New York V
made it unnecessary for anyone to enter into the terms of

a lease against his better judgment.

When it came to settling claims such as those

 

memorial of Samuel Davenport, a former tenant of Frederick
Philipse for compensation for the loss of his improvements.
All in Loyalist Papers, Vol. 41, pp. 578, 590, Vol. 17, pp.
425-29, NYPL.

9Briggs' improvements were appraised by the impar-
tial appraisers at £150 exclusive of grains already sown.
Then, he was paid £160 for his lease in 1758. See "Paper
belonging to the Lieutenant Governor (Pierre Van Cortlandt),
1757-1758," V1836, V1643, SHRLo

10Leases, Henry and Gertruyd Beekman to Abiel Fuller,
March 16, 1775, V2208; to Abel Weeks, April 12, 1775, V2209,

L.

119
relating to improvements, the tenant was by no means at the
mercy of his landlord. When Pierre Van Cortlandt, for ex-
ample, in 1758 had to sell two farms of 500 acres, among
others, in order to pay the debts of his father and older
brother, he held an unlordly negotiation with the tenants
at which they "indifferently" chose two apparently impor-
tant individuals as appraisers of improvements. Van
Cortlandt was to "well and faithfully" pay, immediately
after the sale of the farms, the amount of "improvement
money" determined by the appraisers, who two weeks later
reported that Joseph Haight's improvements over the past
seven years were worth £175 and Cornight Brigg's £150,
"each exclusive of grain sown." Three months later, Haight
received £100 after his rent and one—fourth of the improve—
ments had been deducted, as specified in his lease, while
Briggs received $160, which included the value of grain he
already had planted.11 This case is typical of many others;2
It shows the willingness of both landlord and tenant to
settle a touchy problem by means of the impartial arbitra-
tion of a third party and helps to explain why tenants sel-

dom found it necessary to protest against the claims of

 

11111643, V1836, SHRL.

12See a draft for lease in Receipt Book of Pierre
Van Cortlandt, V1689, SHRL.

 

120

proprietors.13

Of Special importance to a discussion of the lease—
hold is the tenure of a lease, upon which the degree of im-
provement largely depended. For it was generally assumed
that the shorter the tenure, the less inclined would the
tenant be to make improvements. The functional relation—
ship between improvements and the length of lease tenure
is well illustrated by the complaints of prospective lessees
as reported to an absentee landowner by Oliver DeLancey, one
of the more experienced proprietors of the manor.

(Tenure shorter than) a 21 years (three lives)

Lease had made People Decline Hiring the Lands

about Greenwich as they say they must Build

Houses & Barn which cannot be worth these Ex-

pences So that I fear unless You Build your

Selves the Grounds will go to waist.
Thus it was in his own interest for a landlord to give suf-
ficiently long tenure to his tenants. Aware of this, Gulian
Ver Planck, who owned a large landed estate in Fishkill in
Dutchess County, instructed his heirs, in a will dated July
5, 1750, to rent "all of any of my Lands. . . on the best

Terms they can they giving Leases to the Several Tenants

for and During the natural Life of the ReSpective Tenants

 

13Beekman's lease to Jury Brower, May 1, 1747,
V1960, SHRL.

14Oliver DeLancey, New York to Colonel William

Skinner, London, January 7, 1775, Warren Papers, Univ. of
London.

 

in ‘lzm ’

121
and their wives. . . ,15

Except for Stephen Van Cortlandt of New Jersey and
his son John, the Van Cortlandt proprietors followed the
general practice of New York landowners in offering long
tenure to leaseholders. 0f 23 extant lease papers of the
Beekmans, for example, covering the period 1737 to 1775,
twenty leaseholds were for "three lives" or "21 years." Of

the remaining three, one was for thirteen years and the

other two for fifteen years.16 Of the three extant Bayard

leases, one was for "three livés" and the others for "two

15Gulian Ver Planck‘s will, Gulian Ver Planck Pap—
ers, Box 8, No. 31, NYHS. As for the general practice of
lease tenure, see leases, Albert Pawling to Lewis Hunt,
May 13, 1745 in Dutchess County, M322, Beverly Robinson to
Isaac Haviland, April 9, 1767, PX415, SHRL; leases, Gulian
Ver Planck to James Lecky, August 29, 1751, Samuel Ver

Planck to Ralph Philips, August 23, 1762, Ver Planck Papers,
Box B, NYHS.

16Leases of the Beekmans:

Lessee Year Leased Tenure
Solomon Lane '37 3 lives
Andrias Bergher ’37 3 lives
Daniel DeLamonex ‘37 3 lives
Daniel Field ‘37 3 lives
Joseph Purdy '37 3 lives
William Jewell '38 3 lives
Jury Brower '47 15 years
Andrew Barton ‘49 3 lives
Jonathan Odell '49 3 lives
William Borden ‘56 3 lives
Caleb Barton '57 15 years
Abiel Fuller '61 and '75 3 lives
Ebenezer Clark '61 and '75 3 lives
Gabriel Carman '67 3 lives
Henry Keer '69 13 years
Gilbert Drake '72 3 lives

John O'Bryan ’72 3 lives

 

 

 

 

122
lives."17 A letter written by Philip Schuyler to his son
Philip Jeremiah Schuyler in 1796 indicates that the family
usually offered their renters tenure of either two or three
"lives."18 The three extant lease papers of Philip Van

Cortlandt and his sons Stephen and Pierre provided for

tenure of one, two, and three "lives" resPectively,l9 The

 

Townsend Lodee '72 3 lives
Pierre Van Cortlandt '73 3 lives
Isaac Frost '73 3 lives
Joseph Walter '73 3 lives
Jesse Weeks '75 3 lives
John Brewer '75 3 lives
Abel Weeks '75 3 lives

Sources: V2189, V1942 \No. l), V2194, V1960, V1697,
V1945, V1942 (N00 2), V2198, V2199, V2200,
V2066, V2204, V2205, V2188, V2206, V1690,
V2207, V2208, V2209, V2190, SHRL; Van
Cortlandt-Van Wyck Papers, Misco Land Pap—
ers, Box 1, NYPL; Van Cortlandt Papers,
NYHS° The two 15 years tenure were of
leases of millso

17Leases, Samuel Bayard to Phillip Linnebeker, May
1, 1732, to Peter Win, November 1, 1732, and to John Lent,
May 1, 1733, Bayard—Campbell—Pearsall 0011,, Land Papers,
NYPLo

18Tenants referred to were Elisha Turner and David
Turner, see Philip Schuyler to his son Philip Jeremiah
Schuyler, March 3, 1796, S941, SHRL. ,Both James Perry and
Aaron Forman had leases of "two lives" since 1750. "Doc—
tor James Perry in account with the Extors of Cornelia
Schuyler, August 13, 1791, Schuyler Papers, Box 36, No.
2084, NYPL.

19Leases, Philip Van Cortlandt to Solomon Burtis,
April 18, 1748, V2108; Pierre Van Cortlandt to John Leer,
January 27, 1764, V1684, SHRL; Stephen Van Cortlandt to
Joseph Haight, April 11, 1751, Van Cortlandt—Van Wyck Pap—
ers, NYPL.

 

123
terms of Gulian Ver Planck's will suggest that the Ver
Plancks in the manor granted life tenancy. There is no
record of the policy adopted by the DeLanceys, who granted
"parole" or unwritten leases. At this point, it should be
remembered that the "parole" lease was not necessarily a
lease without tenure. The correspondence of Oliver De-
Lancey reveals that he was well aware of tenants' desire
for "three lives" tenure.20 Nor do we have a record of
the practices adopted by William and Elizabeth Skinner. A
letter written by one of their sons in 1772, however, indi—
cates that he planned to lease a farm in the manor for a

rent of ten pounds on a life term.21

At least, this state-
ment suggests that the lease on life tenure was not shunned
by the Skinners.22

Once tenure for life or longer was contracted, the

tenant was secure in his holding as long as he observed the

 

20See footnote No. 2.

ZlStephen Skinner to William Skinner, October 26,
1771, Warren Papers, Univ. of London°

22E. Marie Becker presumed on the basis of tenuous
evidence that "a great part of the leaseholders of Cort—
landt Manor were tenants for years or at will° . ."
Becker, "The 801 Westchester County Freeholders of 1763, "
Po 297, n. 40, pp. 330-07. But this presumption is
mistaken in view of the above observations.

 

124

conditions of lease. As will be seen later, however, even
if he failed to do so, he was rarely prosecuted and evicted.
His security was further enhanced by the fact that he could
easily obtain a renewal of his lease. Although it seems
strange that anyone sought to maintain leasehold for a
life in a country where economic opportunity was prevalent,
some tenants even with "three lives" tenure persuaded their
landlords to add a clause whereby they might substitute a
new name for the deceased by paying ,£10.23

In striking contrast with the policy of most of the
Van Cortlandt proprietors, Stephen Van Cortlandt of New
Jersey and his son John adopted a policy of giving rather
short tenure. Examination of John Van Cortlandt's tenant
rolls and letters shows that out of 28 identifiable tenants,
14 were given tenure ranging from five years to a maximum
of seventeen years, while the rest were "tenants—at-will,"

subject to the whims of the landlord.24 The tenancy of the

 

23See leases, Beekman to William Borden, May 1,
1756, V2198, to Andrew Barton, May 1, 1749, V1942, No° 2,
and to Jonathan Odell, May 6, 1749, V1699, SHRL° See also
Borden's advertisement for the sale of his lease, The New
York Mercur , March 24, 1766.

24List of Stephen and John Van Cortlandt‘s tenants
and their tenure:

A. Tenants with tenure Tenure
Isaac Nambury '46—'56
William Griffin '55-'67
Isaac Wright '48—'63

Joseph Lee ? —'56

 

 

A

 

 

 

 

125
latter in theory could be terminated by either party at any
time. The tenant-at—will provision seems to have been made
only when the landlord furnished farming utensils, equip—

25 The tenant with tenure might

ment, livestock and houses.
apply for the extension of the lease, but it was rarely
granted unless he had performed his obligations to the sat-

isfaction of the landlordo

 

John Soulice '54-'71
Ebenezer Brundige '55—'67
Andrew Merrit '56—'64 (extended to '85)
Job Wright '64—'71
Joseph Veal ’57—'62 (then, tenant—at-will)
Michael Mathews '62-'67
Benjamin Field —'50
Annanias Rogers '43-'55 (extended)
George Booth —'54
Jacob Wright ”'57
B. Tenants-at-Will
Elisha Parker Augustine Rogers
Jedediah Dean Benjamin Golden
Joseph Golden Isaac Frost
John Golden Simon Brady
Bartlet Brundige George Carpenter
Lawrence Losee Danieerornel
John Wright John Wilson

Tobias Lent

Sources: Letter Book and Journal (0) of John Van
Cortlandt, NYPL; Receipt Book of John Van
Cortlandt, NYHS; Letter and Note Book of
John Van Cortlandt, Van Cortlandt Papers,
NYHS; V2201, SHRL.

25See Oliver DeLancey and John Van Cortlandt to
Tobias Lent, September 11, 1762, Letter Book of John Van
Cortlandt, NYPL.

126
One result of the tenure policy of Stephen and John Van
Cortlandt was apathy on the part of tenants toward the
development of their leaseholds. This, in turn, exasPer—
ated the short—tempered John Van Cortlandt. His letters
to tenants were studded with harsh reprimands for negli-
gence and with threats df eviction° This, however, served
only to strain even further his relationships with his
tenants.

The most important aspect of the lease terms was
the provision relating to the payment of rent. As with the
other terms previously discussed, the rent policies of the
different proprietors presented a kaleidescopic diversity
which defies sweeping generalization. The Bayards, in
their leases of 1732 and 1733, called for not only the pay-
ment of rent in money, but also for day's work "with a team
of cattle of horses," or "two days' work of single person,"
yearly for the landlord.26 Pierre Van Cortlandt attached
"two fowls" to the money rent.27 The Beekmans' rent in-
cluded, among other things, "one couple of live fat hens."
Even here, five tenants who contracted a lease in 1737 were

given special treatment in that "the days' work yearly as

 

26Leases, Samuel Bayard to Philip Linnebeker and
gwter Win, 1732, Bayard—Campbell—Pearsall Collections,
YPL.

27Pierre Van Cortlandt to John Leer, lease, January
27, 1764, V1684, SHRL.

 

127

mentioned here above shall not be accounted for unless it
be yearly demanded. . . ." Two other Beekman tenants with
a limited tenure of fifteen years were exempted from either
performing the one day's work or rendering the fowlso
Pierre Van Cortlandt, cousin of the Beekmans, John O‘Bryant,
their agent, Gilbert Drake, Esq., and Isaac Frost who
leased an unusually large tract of 385 acres from the
Beekmans, were exempted from all payments except a yearly
rent. One other tenant, Henry Keer, with a tenure of thir—
teen years, was also exempted from the day‘s work. One
other facet of rent policy was that payment in money of
seven and two shillings respectively could be substituted
for the day's work and the fowls.28

The Bayards, the Beekmans, and Pierre Van Cortlandt,
however, seem to have been the only proprietors in the man—
or who made even such modest demands for "quasi-feudal"
forms of tent payment as theseo There is no evidence what-
soever that any of the other ven Cortlandts or the DeLanceys,
Warrens, Schuylers, Skinners, or Ver Plancks ever demanded

29

anything except money in rent.

 

28See footnote No. 15. As late as 1782, one day's
work was still rated at seven shillings. See Silvanufi Hyat's
rent account with the heirs of Gertruyd Beekman, V1931, SHRL.

29The records indicate that the neighboring Philips-
burgh Manor tenants were not required of the fowls and the
day's work. See Loyalist Papers, V, 41, pp. 575-646.

 

 

Table 3.--The Beekmans'

Name Acreage

William Borden
Joseph Budd
Mathew Bookhowt
Jacob Cornell
Ebenezer Clark
Amos Fuller
John Hyat or
John Conklin
John Hyat
Nethenel Hyat
Joshua Hyat
William Jewell
Jacobus Krankhyt
Sybout Krankhyt

Joseph Lane
Daniel Lane
Solomon Lane
Lee Lee
Nathaniel Miller
Townsend Losse
Jonathan Odell
William Ogden
Abraham Purdy
Joseph Strang
Josehp Theall
Charles Moore

Tenants:

of the Lease, 1769—1752

 

Rent Rent
1769 in arrears
as of 1769

142 3—10- 0 26-18— 0

220 3-10- 0 30-10- 0

266 2-13- 4 ?

143 3-10- 0 34-10- 8

322 4-10- 0 22-10- 0
? 4-10- 0 27— 0- 0

331 4-10- 0 22—104 0

363 4— 5— 0 3—15- O

319 3- 6- 0 10- 7— 7

230 ? ?

266 2-13- 4 7-10- 0
? 4- 0— 0 56- 0 0
50 8-15- 0 9- 0— 0

(Mills)

? - 0- 0 16- 0— 0

319 3- 6- 0 ?

275 3— 6— 0 1—13- 0
? 8— 0- 0 32- 0- 0
? 5- 0- 0* 35- 0- 0

192 5— O— 0 30— 0— 0

300 ? ?

? 5- 0— 0 ?

156 3- 0- O 21- 0- 0
? 2- 0- O 14- 0- 0
2 4-.8- 0

143 13- 0— O 65— 0- 0

(Mills)

102— 6— 8 593—15— 0

Rent and the Size

Rent
1752

3—10- 0
2-13- 4
3—10— 0

4— 5-0
3- 6-0
2—13- 4

3- 6- O

4-10~ 0

* A new lease Losse received in 1772 shows that his rent

decreased to four pounds for the same premises.

Sources: Van Cortlandt Papers, 1700—1799, Box Misc. Mss.,
NYHS; Van Cortlandt Papers, passim, SHRL; van
Cortlandt—Van Wyck Papers, NYPL.

128

 

Table 4.--The Schuylers' Tenants:

Name Acreage
John Ketchum 200
David Travis 215
Aaron Forman 206
Elisha Turner 206
David Turner 202
John Stevens 206
Robert Galer 190
James Perry 217
Widow Gerow 202

Bartow Underhill 331

Sources:

Rent
(pounds)

3-10- 0
3—10-
3-10-
3- 0-
3—10-

3- 0-
2-10-

0
0
0
0
3-;0- 0
O
0
3-10- 0
0

3— 5-

35—15- 0

Rent
in arrear

49- 5- 0
as of '73
61- 5— 0
as of '74

as of '74

540- 2- 0

Rent and the Size
of Lease, 1768

Rent
in 1753

3-10- 0
3-10- 0
3—10- 0
3-10- 0
3-10- 0
3-10— 0
3— 0- 0
2—10-10
3—10- 0
3- 5- 0

Advertisement for the sale of land in Great North

Lot No. 4 and Lot South of the Croton No. 6, The
New York Gazette and the Weekl Mercur , April 4,

 

1768; Schuyler Papers, Box 10, 19, 23, NYPL.

129

Table 5.--The Warrens' Tenants:
of Lease, 1769 and 1749

Name

David Montross
Symon Mabee
Samuel Frost
John Veal
Nathan Whitney
Abraham Wright
Peter Montross
James Cock
William Travis
Mary Ward
Daniel Totten
William Pearce
Daniel Wolsey
Walter Ward
Richard Crab
Joseph (Eliz-

abeth) Anthony

Silas Smith
Thomas Powel

Acreage

211
196
227
198
203%
?
234
210
180%
390%
186
234
160%
?
341
293%

105%
180

Rent,

3- 5-
4-10-
3-10-
4— 0-
3-10-
3-15-
6- 0—
4-10—
3-10—
4-10—
?
6— 0-
3- 0-
4-10-
3-10-

4-10-
3—10-

Rent and the Size

'69

O O 0000 0000000000

Rent,

3- 5-
4-10—
3-10-
4- 0—
3—10-
3-15-

NNNNQNQN

-\‘)

I‘D-‘1

Sources: Receipt Book and Account Book of Pierre Van
Cortlandt, V1644, V2301, and V1689, SHRL;
DeLancey Papers, 1647-1804, NYHS; Warren Papers,
Univ. of London.

130

'49

000060

 

Table 6.--The Skinners' Tenants: the Size of Lease,

1768

Name Acreage
Hicks Seamen 201 3/4
Seth Whitney 206 3/4
Timothy Halsted 199 1/2
Forster Remsen 189 l/8
Caleb Vail 204

John Pinkney 203 1/2
Philip Travers 233 3/4
Solomon Smith 201 1/4
Samuel Warren 219 1/2
Abraham Post 240

Robert Cook 310 1/4
Michael Michael 231 3/4
Annania Akerly 270 3/4
Isaac Forman 203 3/4
Joseph Smith 205 1/2
Solomon Smith 227 1/4
John Purdy 223 1/2
Johathan Haight 230 3/4

Sources: Partition deed among the heirs of Elizabeth
Skinner, 1768, Deed Book 18, p. 148, OSS;
The New York Mercury, December 22, 1766.

 

131

Table 7o-—Tenants of Philip and Stephen Van Cortlandt
of New York: the Size
of Lease, 1757

Name Acreage Rent
(pounds)

John Mabee 240

Tunis Krankhyt 240

Marmaduke Griggs 240

James Serine 240

Henry Springer 240

Charles Serine 240

William Yeamans 240

Jeremiah Hunter 240

Israel Knap 240

Solomon Burtus 240 4-10- 0
John Krankhyt 240

Cornight Briggs 250 4—10 0
Joseph Haight 250 4-10 0
Jacob Cornwell 240

John Bailey 250

Henry Scot 241

Andries Miller 250

John Berick Miller 250

Sources: The New York Mercur , November 28, 1757 and
May 22, 1758; will of Philip Van Cortlandt,
August 21, 1746, V1846, SHRL; will of Stephen
Van Cortlandt, June 7, 1754, NYHSo Coll., for
the year 1896, pp. 173-75; leases, to Solomon
Burtus, V2108, SHRL; to Joseph Haight, Van
Cortlandt—Van Wyck Papers, Misco Land Papers,
NYPL°

132

 

 

 

Table 8.——The Ver Plancks' Tenants: the Size of Lease,
1

Name

Albertus Van Tassel)
John Holmes
Nicholas Vredenburgh
Jacob Ryder

Michael Vredenburg
Walter Dobbs, Jra
Ernest Clemens
Joseph Fowler
Benjamin Fields
Daniel Horton
Walter Dobbs

Source:

767

Acreage

900

135

300

235

130

300

160

300

250

106 (Grist Mill)

Will of Philip Ver Planck, dated October 23,
1767, NYHSo Coll., XXXI, p. 456.

133

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 9.—-The Size of the Leases in the Manor
by Groups or Classes

Number of Leases

Class Acreage
in Class
I 300-450 13
II 240-300 18
III ZOO-240 30
IV 150-200 12 f
V 100-150 _g
9 f

134

 

 

 

 

135

Money thus was by far the most important rent re-
quirement in the Manor of Cortlandt. The amount demanded
varied considerably from one landlord to another and was
affected by such factors as the size and quality of the
leasehold, its location and use, and the degree of its im-
provement. In accordance with the general practice of New
York, in most cases, the proprietors of the manor initially
offered tenants who would settle on "rough" soil rent-free
period as an inducement to settlement and improvement. The
Beekmans usually demanded only the payment of two fowls a
year during the first two to four years, while the Bayards
collected no rent of any kind during the first seven years.
Stephen and John Van Cortlandt allowed some tenants to pay
"nothing but improvements in lieu of the rent" for the first
half of the lease period, but did not extend this privilege
to tenants—at—will.3O

As will be shown, the amount of cash demanded follow-
ing the initial rent—free period Was fairly reasonable, par-
ticularly in view of the average size of leasehold granted
by the various proprietors. Although the records in this
regard are by no means complete, there is enough evidence to
establish a relationship between leasehold size and the
amount of rent charged by the Beekmans, Warrens, and Schuylers

in 1768 and 17690 And we have scattered evidence relating

 

30Receipt Book of John Van Cortlandt, NYHS.

 

 

 

136
to the rent policies of Philip Van Cortlandt, the Skinners,
and the Ver Plansks°

As is shown in Tables 3 through 8, the average size
of the leaseholds for which evidence is available is 238
acres; the average rent is i3. 190 Broken down individually,
the average leaseholds and rents for the various proprietors
are as follows: Beekmans (Table 3) 256 acres and .£4.4;
Schuylers (Table 4) 218 acres and £3.2; Warrens (Table 5)
243 acres and £3.18; Skinners (Table 6) 222 acres; Stephen
Van Cortlandt (Table 7) 243 acres and £4.10; Ver Plancks
(Table 8) 256 acres. The smallest lease, excluding mills,
is 105 acres of Silas Smith and the largest 450 acres of
Albertus Van Tassel. As Table 9 shows, only 18 of 79 leasee
holds are less than 200 acres, while 48 are between 200 and
300 acres and the other 13 between 300 and 450 acres.

The size of a leasehold is, of course, not neces-
sarily indicative of its value. There is no information as
to how much of the land was improved and how much was unim—
proved or unimprovable. The average size of the leaseholds,
however, does compare favorably with the average size of
freeholds in other parts of the North. According to Robert
E. Brown, farms in Massachusetts, a colony not noted for
the quality of its soil, in the eighteenth century usually

Varied between about 75 and 150 acres in size and averaged

 

 

 

137
about 123 acres.31 The sixty-one leaseholds in the Manor
of Cortlandt larger than 200 acres all were equal in size
or larger than the individual holdings of what Charles S.
Grant has called the seven "wealthiest farmers" in nearby
Kent, Connecticut, in 1796. These seven Kent farms, ac-
cording to Grant, were capable of producing "considerable
surplus and presumable profit from the sale of this excess

produce."32

It thus seems that, by the Kent standard, a

majority of the tenants in the manor had, at least, the

potential of becoming "the richest farmers." )
That this was so, however, does not mean that manor ‘

tenants were always better off than the freeholders in

Massachusetts and Connecticut. Whatever the potentiality

of the leasehold might be, the fact remains that the ten-

ants had to pay rent. However, the average yearly cash—

rent of £3. 19s for 238 acres was not oppressiveo Certain-

ly, a landlord did not think so. Take, for example, the

experience of John Van Cortlandt with the tenant of one

ZOO-acre farm, to whom he wrote as follows:

 

31Robert E. Brown, Middle-Class Democracy and the
Revolution in Massachggetts, 1691-1780 (Ithaca, New York,

Cornell Univ. Press, 1955), pp. 18, 25-27. The pattern
remained the same even in the early nineteenth century. See
Papers; ngsisting of Communicatigps to the Massachusetts
Society for Prgmgting Agriculture and Extracts (Boston, 1807),
p. 100

 

 

32Charles S. Grant, Democracy in the Connecticut
Frontier Town of Kent (New York, 1961), p. 34.

 

 

 

 

 

 

138

As you have Refused making the Improvement on

the farm adjoining you which You had Seven

Years without paying any Rent for that purpose

and afterward for ng Years At the Small Rent

of £3:10 a year I am now to give you notgge

that I have Lett the farm to Post. . . o

(Italics added.)
Had the rent rate been unfair, it is doubtful that many ten—
ants would have accepted it, since land was abundant and
cheap elsewhere. Moreover, in cases in which the rent rate
originally agreed upon turned out to be unsatisfactory to
the tenant, he often was able to secure a satisfactory ad-
justment with the proprietor. Townsend Losse, a tenant of
the Beekmans, for example, agreed to pay rent of £5 for his
lease of 192 acres in 17620 Later, however, he complained
to the proprietor, who lowered the rent to £4 in 1772.34

One important factor in regard to the rent rate,
moreover, seems to have been working in favor of the ten-
ants during the period under consideration. While the rent
rate remained static with only a few exceptions, as shown
in Tables 3, 4, and 5, the prices of farm produce went up
steadily. In negotiating the sale of a farm in 1772, John

Van Cortlandt determined to get 30s per acre, 35 more than

a purchaser was willing to pay, on the grounds that "Country

 

33John Van Cortlandt to Mr. Soulice, February 17,
1773, Letter Book of John Van Cortlandt, NYPL; Receipt Book
of John Van Cortlandt, on farm No. 16, NYHS.

34Lease, The Beekmans to Townsend Losse, February 8,
1772, V2204, SHRL° See also the case of Sybout Krankhyt in
Table 20

 

 

 

 

 

139
produce is near double to what it was formerly so that Land
must be valued."35 His statement can be verified by com-
parison of the price indexes for such farm produce as flour,

beef, and pork for the years 1739 and 1769.

Table 103b.--Prices of Farm Produce, 1739 and 1765
1739 (pounds) 1765
Flour per Bushel 0:8:9 to 0:9:0 0:15:6
Beef per Barrel 1:15:0 to 2:0:0 2:12:0
Pork per Barrel 3:0:0 3:10:O

Some landlords who had kept abreast of the upward
trend of commodity prices but were incapable of raising the
rent of an already granted lease sought to compensate for
their relatively declining inCome by attaching to new-leases
two rates of rent: a lower rate for the first ten years and
a higher one for the subsequent period. Thus, in 1761 the
Beekmans provided in their lease to Ebenezer Clark that "£4°

10.0 shall discharge the rent until 1770" and. £5.10.0 after

 

that year. In another lease, Abiel Fuller was to pay ‘£4.0.0

until 1770 and ‘£4.15.0 thereafter.37

 

35John Van Cortlandt to Archibald Armstrong, November
4, 1772, Letter and Note Book of John Van Cortlandt, NYHS.

36The New York Gazette, October 29 to November 26,
1739 and January 7, 1765 6o See also John Van Cortlandt re-
port on current prices of the various farm produces in New
York City, Letter Book of John Van Cortlandt, NYPL°

37See V2199 and V2200, SHRL.

 

 

 

140

These precautionary measures on the part of the
Beekmans against inflationary tendencies must be regarded
as an exception to the general practices of those landlords,
including themselves, who gave a life term or longer of ten—
ure. For the lease, once contracted, was not subject to re-
vision unless the two parties agreed. John Van Cortlandt,
however, who let his land on the basis of "years" tenure or
at his pleasure, frequently raised the rent as soon as a
lease expired or changed hands. Captain Annanias Rogers,
who possessed Farms No. 4 and 5, was told to pay £10, £2
more than he had paid, after his original lease expired.
In 1756 Andrew Merrit of Rye hired Farms No. 18 and 19 at
the annual rent of £4, £1 more than its former occupant
had paid. Michael Mathews could secure in 1760 the renewal
of his lease only after promising to pay £6 rent for a farm
he had used for £3 for the last five years.38 John Soulice,
who had hired Farm No. 16 for the yearly rent of (£3,10 in
1754, was told by John Van Cortlandt in 1773 that if he
wanted to stay on the farm, he would have to pay {35 a year°
These are but a few of many rent increases that John Van
Cortlandt initiated.

But even raising the rent scale, though disturbing

to tenants, should not necessarily be construed as unfair

 

38Receipt Book of John Van Cortlandt, passim, NYHS°

 

141
or an extraordinary practice on the part of the manor land-
lords to squeeze helpless tenants. The increased issuance
of paper currency resorted to by the New York provincial
government and its concomitant devaluation were primarily
resPonsible for some landlords' practice of raising the
rent regularly.39 In this connection, it should be kept
in mind that a New York City corporation exhibited the same
anticipatory caution in renting its property. A lease of
farm given in 1773 by the "Rector and Inhabitants of the
City of New York, in Communion of the Church of England"
to Hermanus Talman of the city contained a special provision
that the rent would be raised £2 every twenty-one years.40
The majority of the manor proprietors, however, could not

raise their rent arbitrarily while the leases to which they

 

39Apprehension about the possible depreciation of
the value of currency as a result of the rampant issuance
of paper money was shared generally by the propertied
class° Typical of this is the following remark by Gulian
Ver Planck: ". . . in case it shall happen that a Large
Quantity of Paper Currency shall hereafter be made in the
Province and that the value of the money may be likely by
that or any other Means to be much depreciated then and in
such case I do direct and Empower my Executors to send
Such Moneys as they shall so Collect to some part of
Europe and to put the same into some good fund there for
the Benefit of my Children." His will, July 5, 1750,
Gulian Ver Planck Papers, Box 8, no. 31, NYHS°

floLease, Church Farm of Church of England in New
York to Hermanus Talman, Carpenter, James Alexander Papers,
BOX 46 ’ NYHS .

 

 

142
. 41,?
were bound were in effect.
Coupled with the question of rent rate were the
problems of punctual payment of the cash-rent and of enforc-
ing other obligations.42 The problem assumed serious pro—

portions because of the absenteeship of most of the manor

proprietors. Only one preprietor, Philip Ver Planck, resided

 

41It is interesting to observe that even Frederick
Philipse, the so-called "third Lord" of the Manor of Philips-
burgh, after he inherited the entailed estate, had a diffi—
cult time in persuading his tenants—at—will of the necessity
of raising their rent. He raised it only on the condition
that he would not raise the rent again during his lifentime.
See testimony to Memorial of Frederick Philipse by John
Tabor Kempe, late Attorney General of New York, Loyalist
Papers, Vol. 41, pp. 620-36, NYPL.

42Omitted from the discussion of the lease terms is
a provision requiring the tenants to grind their grains at
the grist mills owned by the landlord and pay a tenth part
of the grain for the toll. The requirement was certainly a
feudal legacy. But there was only one landlord, the Beekmans,
who, at least on paper, tried to apply it. Their extant 24
lease papers show that seven tenants, namely, Jewell, Walter,
Week, Losse, Brewer, Weeks, and Fuller agreed to grind their
own grains at the Beekmans' mills. DeSpite this, it seems
that the landlord added the mill provision to the leases to
help the tenants who had rented the mills or would build
them in the manor. If the Beekmans were directly operating
the mills, they would not have favored one tenant against
another in the application of the provision. The cords
show that they gave a mill site to Peter Calvill in 7405,
who would build and operate the grist and saw mills. They
also granted a lease to Jury Brewer in 1746 for the same
purpose for the duration of fifteen years. Caleb Barton ob-
tained a lease of mill site from the Beekmans in 1757 for the
same period, which was later taken over by Charles Moore.
It is very doubtful that the tenants ever carried out the
provision, particularly when the Beekmans were anything but
strict about applying it uniformly. See leases, to Jury
Brewer, V1960, SHRL; to Caleb Barton, Van Cortlandt—Van
Wyck Papers, Misc. Land Papers, Box 1, NYPL.

 

143
in the manor until April, 1749, when the 28—year-old Pierre

Van Cortlandt, youngest son of Philip, moved from New York

City to Croton, to take charge of his small manorial share?3

Meanwhile, the proprietors left their manorial estates
largely unattended except by an agent or an occasional

trip to the spot. Some landlords were too preoccupied with

other business to pay close attention to manorial affairs,44

and the manor soon disPlayed an intermixed scene of legi—

timate tenants and squatters who had not registered with the

45

proprietorso The ignorance on the part of the landowners

of manorial affairs was particularly noticeable by the third

generations of proprietors, who were often Confused about

46

"how they (lessees) are tenanted & by whom," They were

 

4JSee an entry of receipt, April 14, 1759 at Croton,
Receipt Book of Pierre Van Cortlandt, V1689, SHRL.

44Stephen Skinner of Perth Amboy, New Jersey, an

heir of Elizabeth Skinner, wrote in 1768 to his brother:

"I have the lands in this province that will take up all the
time I can Spare to attend in that way," Stephen Skinner to
William Skinner, April 2, 1768, Warren Papers, Univ. of
London.

45$tephen Skinner to William Skinner, June 25, 1768,
Warren Papers, Univ. of London. In this letter, he said
with regard to the squatters: "o . . in regard to your lands
in the manner I shall visit them in the fall and Run off the
pe0ple that are on them as they are destroying the Timber."
See also the case of John Wilson who lived on Farm No. 6,
one of the farms of Stephen Van Cortlandt of New Jersey, with-
out a lease. John Van Cortlandt did not know "how long he
has lived on the farm." Then, in 1759, Wilson sold his im-
provements for £409 Receipt Book of John Van Cortlandt, NYHSo

46Cortlandt Skinner to Dear Brother, October 25,

1771, Warren Papers, Univ. of Londono

 

 

 

 

144
often unaware whether their tenants were alive or dead.47

And in many cases they did not even know who their tenants
were.48

The tenants, taking advantage of absenteeship and
ignorance or the lessors, tended to become delinquent in
carrying out their contracts° More often than not, strinu

gent warnings or impassioned pleas by landlords in respect

to rent and other obligations elicited no response from

9

their tenants.4 \One landlord, Sir Peter Warren, son-in-

law of Stephen DeLancey, was so incensed by his tenants‘
subterfuge that he became fearful, as early as 1750, about
the fate of his estate.

I wrote to you [his brother—in—law Oliver
DeLancey] severak times about the Rents of
the Lands in the Mannor of Cortland , which
by the Tennants owu Consent so long ago as
when I was at N York amounted to near £100
pr. annum Surely Something ought to be done
or Else they will think the Land their own
in time.

 

47Philip Schuyler to his son Philip J. Schuyler,
March 3, 1796, S941, SHRL.

48Samuel Ver Planck to Pierre Van Cortlandt, June
25, 1786, V1716, SHRL.

49See Letter Book of John Van Cortlandt, passim,
NYPL; Philip Schuyler to his son, March 3, 1796, S941,
SHRL.

50Sir Peter Warren to Oliver DeLancey, August 11,
1750, Warren Papers, NYHS.

 

 

 

145

In reSponse to this letter, DeLancey, who had been looking
after the estates of Warren and of his sister Susanna from
his residence at Westburg since 1743, made Pierre Van
Cortlandt the family's agent in the manor. To the delight
of both the DeLanceys and the Warrens, Van Cortlandt proved
to be an efficient and dependable agent who from 1756 to
1773 regularly turned in rent proceeds to them.51

The other Van Cortlandt manor proprietors seem to
have experienced difficulties similar to those of the De-
Lanceys and the Warrens. Although there are no rent re—
cords for such absentee proprietors as the Skinners, Bayards,
and John Miln, a rough idea of their rental income can be
found by examining the rent rolls of the Schuylers, the
Beekmans, and John Van Cortlandt. All three had agents
collecting their rents and supervising the performance of
the tenants. The Schuylers retained their cousins the Ver

Plancks as agents, while the Beekmans, the Skinners, and
52

 

John Van Cortlandt employed tenants for the job. In

 

51Deed, Power of Attorney to Pierre Van Cortlandt,
May 10, 1758, and Rent Rolls of Oliver DeLancey and Stephen
DeLancey, V1644, SHRL; Receipt Book of Pierre Van Cortlandt,
V1689, SHRL; Account Book of Pierre Van Cortlandt, 1762—1763,
V2301, SHRL; "Receipt for Oliver DeLancey to Lady Susan
Warren, March 14, 1769?"Warren Papers, Univ. of London.

52The Beekmans had two agents, John Bryant and Pierre
Van Cortlandt; the Skinners Jonathan Haight; John Van Cort—
landt, Capt. David Montross and Joseph Golden. See "Bonds
Belonging to the Estate of Aunt Gertruyd Beekman Dec'd,"
V1931, SHRL; "List of Tennants in the Manor of C. . . to May
1769," Van Cortlandt Papers, Box Misc. Mss., NYHS; "Acct.
Pierre Van Cortlandt with Col. Henry Beekman, rents,~ etc."

 

 

 

146
spite of these agents' efforts, the arrggrs rent grew.

As Table 3 demonstrates, the Beekmans' yearly income
from rent was, without counting two tenants whose rents were
to be adjusted by their agent, approximately .£102.6.8, but
back-rent as of 1769 amounted to i593.15.10. This means
that on the average each tenant owed the landlord almost
gig years of rent. This delinquency in the payment of cash
rent was mild compared with that in regard to the perform-
ance of the day's work requirement. Thirteen of twenty—
five tenants of the Beekmans, who were to do one day's work
yearly, had a backlog of ninety—three days of work. Each
tenant had missed roughly seven years' work rent. Delin-
quency in the fowl requirement, furthermore, closely paral-
lelled that of the day's work. Such tenants as Nathaniel
Miller, William Borden, Jacobus Krankhyt, and Ebenezer Clark
paid neither cash—rent nor the other requirements from the
inception of their leases.53

Still worse than the Beekmans’ rental situation was

 

V2066, SHRL; Deed Book 18, pp. 142—45, 088, Whitney Papers,
NYHS; Letter Book of John Van Cortlandt, passim, NYPL. As
for the Ver Plancks being the agent of the Schuyler family,
see "Estate of Cornelia Schuyler dec'd," Schuyler Papers,
Box 10, NYPL. Also there is sufficient evidence that Pierre
Van Cortlandt looked after the interests of Peter Kemble,
son—in-law of Samuel Bayard, in the manor° See V1689, SHRL;
"Biography of Col. Stephen Kemble," from Preface by Edward
F. DeLancey, NYHS. Coll., XVI, i-x.

 

53"List of Tennants in the Manor of C. . .," Van
Cortlandt Papers, Box Misc., NYHS.

 

 

 

 

 

147

that of the Schuylers, whose tenant roster shrank by 1774
to only 10. According to Table 4, yearly rental income
from the manor for the Schuylers would have been £35.15.0
had it been paid punctuallyo But their tenants were so
remiss in rent payment that by 1774 arrears ran as high as
55540.2.0. This figure suggests that the Schuylers had
not received a single penny from their land for the past
15 years.

John Van Cortlandt fared no better as far as the
collection of rent was concerned. Since he, in represent—
ing his family estate, had never given life tenure to his
tenants, he did not have to suffer such long rental arrears
as did the Beekmans and the Schuylers. The lease tenure of
his tenants was short and so were their arrears in rent.
But in view of his letters to tenants and his receipt book
peppered with pungent threats warning them to pay their
back rent, it is not hard to visualize how uncooperative
they were, even though the sources do not yield exact fi—
gures on the matter.54

Landlords, of course, had a potential reserve of
power at their diSposal to counter the delinquencies of a
tenant and force him to perform the terms upon which the
lease was granted. This power, at least in theory, author—

ized the landlord "by the Space of 20 days" after the day

 

54Letter Book of John Van Cortlandt, NYPL; Receipt
Book of John Van Cortlandt, NYHS.

 

1h.

 

III||||||| lltlI Ill. - -IJ

 

 

 

148
when the rents were due, to enter the leased premises,
and distrain and distress the goods of the tenant until
the rents were paid. However, if the renter failed to og-
serve the agreements in his lease for the space of six
months, the landlord could, by virtue of the agreement,
revoke the lease and recover the premises, This is what
the Beekmans specified in their leases and there is no

55

doubt that other proprietors did the same. Such an ar—
rangement was necessary because there were no statutory
laws dealing with tenants‘ frauds and landlords' right to
recovery of rents until 1774, when the provincial govern—
ment passed "An Act for the better Security, and more easy
recovery of Rents, and renewal of Leases and to prevent

"56

Frauds committed by Tenants. The law was too late to

 

55
Beekmans.

See any one of the leases granted by the

56The bill was passed on March 9, 1774. The Col-
onial Laws, V, pp. 624-36. Three years earlier, a bill to
relieve the predicament of the landed interest because of
the abuses and frauds of the tenantry was passed, but met
the veto on June 9, 1772 by the home government which was
then scheming to alienate tenants from the revolutionary
ranks. See "An Act to prevent abuses committed by Tenants,
or by other Persons entering and keeping possession of Mes—
suages Lands and Tenements before a legal Title to the same
is obtained," The Colgpial Laws, V, ppo 204—07o There were
several laws concerning tenantry in the previous years, but
they were to be applied only to certain areas and aimed at
preventing tenants and others from trespassing on lands.
Governor Burnet to the Lords of Trade, October 14, 1726,
N. Y. Col. Doc., V, p. 782. In any event, it is interesting
to note that the New York Assembly had not taken up a mea-
sure to cope with the nonoperformance of lease terms by the
tenant until 1771° It may be that the tenantry problems and
their abuses had not yet become sufficiently serious to
alarm the legislature°

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

—_7—'——_—**

149

help the landlord, who, however, could always, as a last
recourse, bring his case to a court of Common Pleas to
redress his predicament when tenants doggedly refused
either to surrender their leases or pay back—rent.57

Strangely, however, the manor proprietors, ex-
cept for John Van Cortlandt and his father, rarely in-
voked this last power. One is struck by the fact that
there were but two instances of eviction by the Beekmans ,
as a result of a renter's violation of lease articles.
Andries Bergher was ousted in June, 1747, for his ”default
of non—performances . . . in presence of Henry Beekman by
John Yeomans constable, in witness of Jury Brewer,

Abraham Stober and William Scot."58

Unfortunately, we are

unable to establish the details of the non-performance.

The other lease, possessed by John Lancaster, was for-

feited in 1748 for the back rent of seven years.59 None

of the Beekman's renters was ever evicted or brought to ;

account for delinquencies after that date, however, al- l

though they were notoriously bad tenants. It must be

 

57See Westchester Court of Common Pleas, Frederick
Philipse against Uriah Travis for arrears of rent, May,
1769, Huguenot and Historical Association, New Rochelle,
New York; Stephen Van Cortlandt of New Jersey against Capt.
Annanias Rogers, 1762, John Van Cortlandt to Capt. Rogers,
December 4, 1762, Letter Book of John Van Cortlandt, NYPL.

58Lease, the Beekmans to Andrew Barton, May 1, 1749,
V1942, No. 2, SHRL.

59Lease, the Beekmans to Jonathan Odell, May 6,
1749, V1697, SHRL.

 

 

 

 

 

150
concluded, from what we know about the state of rent arrears,
that the Beekmans were far from being oppressive landlords.
The Beekmans' case also seems to hold true for the
other proprietors. For there is no evidence that they pro-
secuted their tenants or distrained the latter's goods for
back-rent° Indeed, if anyone was hurt by delinquencies in
back rent and, accordingly, was justified in taking an ap—
propriate measure to obtain restitution, it was the
Schuylers. But they did nothing, despite cases such as
that of Dr. James Perry, who leased a farm of 217 acres in
1750 at the yearly rent of g£2.10 for "two lives."60 He
wrote General Philip Schuyler in 1786 that he was "ashamed
for [his] great neglect in letting it (back—rent). . .
amount to such a sum (;£37.10)" and continued:
Therefore as your Honours Patience has Forbore
Prosecuting mg for a longtime I hope you will

Desist a little longer I am very. . . willing
to give a Bond and Security if Required. . .

61
Perry may have suspected that General Schuyler had reached
the end of his patience with him, for he was at the time
negotiating the sale of his lease to John Carman. Explain-

ing to General Schuyler why he wanted to sell, Perry wrote

that "it is not upon any account of any oppression" he had

 

6OSchuyler Papers, Box 10, NYPL.

61James Perry to Philip Schuyler, May 9, 1789,
Schuyler Land Papers, Box 23, NYPL.

 

I'lllll 1 i ‘1
aulll Ill

 

 

 

151
ever received from the Schuylers, but because of "growing
ancient and not having enough strength to carry on the

62 How does one account for the apparent leniency of

Farm."
the manor proprietors other than John Van Cortlandt toward
recalcitrant tenants? This is a vitally important question,
pointing toward the very core of colonial society. There
is, however, only circumstantial evidence for the questiono
The principal reason for the 1andlords" leniency
seems to have been closely related to the abundant economic
opportunity in the province that already has been described.
Vast tracts of land were waiting to be settled and land-
lords, in order to secure tenants to improve their own
lands, found it necessary to compete with one another in
offering acceptable terms. The alternative to this was to
let the land remain undeveloped and run the risk of forfei-

63

ture to the government for non—improvement. Thus it is

not surprising that landlords often were "very glad" even

 

62James Perry to Philip Schuyler, February 17, 1748,
Schuyler Land Papers, Box 19, NYPL.

63Oliver DeLancey to Colonel Fitz Roy, et. al.,
April 10, 1772, Oliver DeLancey to Colonel William Skinner,
June 10, 1772, Warren Papers, Univ. of London; Governor
Hunter to the Lords of Trade, November 12, 1715, N. Y. Col.
223°, V, pc 456; Earl of Bellomont to the Lords of Trade,
November 28, 1700, Ibid., IV, pg 791.

 

 

 

 

152
to have "intruders" or squatters settle on their estates.64
Proprietors in positions of influence in the provincial
government sought, for avowedly humanitarian purposes, to
bring to their lands such foreign refugee groups as the
Palatines in 1710 and the "Neutral" refugees from Nova
Scotia in 1756.65 Thus it may well be that the economic
interests of the Cortlandt proprietors led them to offer ap—
parently liberal lease terms to prosPective renters and to
be tolerant of delinquencies rather than run the risk of
losing irreplacable tenants and having their estates revert
to wilderness.66 The tenant of the Colonial period had a
value that made it necessary to treat him gingerly°

Only John Van Cortlandt seems to have taken excep—
tion to the general practices of the manor proprietors in

regard to tenant defaults. Of all the Cortlandt proprie-

 

tors, only he, with his eccentricities and high—handed men—
ner, most nearly fitSthe stereotype of a haughty and imper-
ious landlord. To one recently settled tenant he wrote in

1768, "Unless you settle your Rent Immediately on Recipt of

 

64Testimony to the Memorial of Frederick Philipse by
John Warrs, one of the landlords of the Manor of Cortlandt,
Loyalist Papers, 41, pp. 596-600.

65Mr. James Du Pre in New York to Seceetary Vernon,
October 4, 1710, Secretary George Clarke to the Lords of
Trade, May 30, 1711, N. Y. Col. Doc., V, pp. 172, 238-40°
As for the case of Canadian "Neutral" refugees in 1756, see
Council Minutes, August 25, 1756, XXV, p. 141, NYSL. The
Manor of Cortlandt took care of eleven "Neutrals" including
children.

66Oliver DeLancey to Colonel William Skinner, Janu-
ary 7, 1775, Warren Papers, Univ. of London.

 

153
this you must Expect to be compeled shortly."67 The same
day he wrote to another renter:
Upon viewing the Farm you possess I find not
withstanding my Telling you you should not dis-
obey & élear any more of the wood Land-—-except
Swamps you have cleared 30 acres of the best
young timber Such Behaviour I cannot forgo & Also
observe you have not made any Improvements since
you have had possession of the farm must now
tell you which you may depend on that I shall at
Request of the family---replace every person on
that behaves in such a ggnner & Desire you will
on Receipt of this pay.
True to his threats, he evicted at least twelve tenants be-
tween 1762 and 1773 either for failing to live up to lease
agreements or for being behind with their rent.69 He was,
moreover, extremely reluctant to renew a lease without
raising the rent. Yet there were occasional sales of im-
provements or leases among John Van Cortlandt's tenants,
which suggests that even his policies, at least to some
renters, were not unbearable.

In general, the manor proprietors‘ policies in re—

gard to their renters, even as expressed in the terms of

 

67John Van Cortlandt to Benjamin Golden, November
9, 1768, Letter Book of John Van Cortlandt, NYPL.

68John Van Cortlandt to George Carpenter, November
9, 1768, Letter Book of John Van Cortlandt, NIPLo

69The evicted were: Isaac Wright, Annanias Rogers,
John Soulice, Jedediah Dean, Lawrence Losee, John Wright,
Daniel Cornel, Peter Montross,,Bartlet Brundige, Isaac
Wright, Augustine Rogers, and "Mr. Sutton.” See Receipt
Book of John Van Cortlandt, passim, NYHS; Letter Book of
Stephen and John Van Cortlandt, passim, NYPL; Journal (c)
Of John Van Cortlandt, NYPL.

 

154

lease papers, were by no means "quasi-feudal." Even such
demands as a day's work or two fowls per year were made
only by the Bayards and the Beekmans, who did not always
insert such terms in their leases. There was, moreover, a
great difference between what Proprietors could demand in
writing and what they could command in actual practice.
To make sweeping generalizations about landlord—tenant re—
lationships on the basis of what is contained in letters
of patent and leases is as erroneous as to try to gain an
understanding of colonial politics by studying only the
decrees and instructions of the English government without
bothering to find out how these were applied in the various
colonies.

How did lease terms and their applications affect

the economic and social life of the tenant and his chances ,

 

of prospering in the manor? This will be discussed in the

following chapter°

 

 

CHAPTER VI
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL STATUS OF THE TENANT

Despite all that has been written about social dis—
content and conflict, no student of colonial New York has
attempted to determine the extent of tenant property hold-
ings except in the most general terms.1 Harry Yoshpe wrote
in 1939 that "the tenantffarmers of Westchester County . .

9 were comparatively well—to—do and can hardly be classed
with the rank and file of poor yeoman, dependents, artisans,
and landless laborers."2 Yoshpe based his conclusion upon
an examination of the disposition of loyalist estates in the
county during and after the War for Independenceo This view
was subsequently questioned by an historian who had studied

one section of the county.3 Our own scrutiny of source

 

ICarl Becker, The History of Political Paroles: g
Irving Mark, Agrarian Cgpflicts;IStaughton Lynd, Anti-7
Federalism in Dutchess Count , New York (Chicago, 1962);
Lynd, "The Tenant Rising at Livingston Manor;" Lynd, The
Revolution and the Common Man (unpublished Ph.D. Disserta—
tion, Columbia University, 1962); Alexander Co Flick, 0 al—

ism in New York Durin the American Revolution (New York,
19015; Ellis, Landlords and Farmers.

2Harry Yoshpe, The Dis osition of L0 alist Estates
in the Southern District of the State of New York (New York,
19395, p. 116.

3Reubens, "Philipsburgh Manor," p. 44.

 

155

 

 

 

 

156
material regarding the tenants in the Manor of Cortlandt,
which comprised a large portion of the county, however,
supports Yoshpes's conclusion.

The manor tax list for 1779 with the valuations of
real and personal estate on the basis of the assessment of
1775, but excluding rents, mortgages, and other encum-
brances, has been preserved. A cross-checking of the names
on the list, which included 547 residents, with the list of
tenants as of 1779 as well as the former tenants identified
the property—holdings of eighty—seven tenants and former ten—
ants.4 Besides these eighty-seven persons, an effort was
made, with the help of rent rolls, deeds, wills, and Loyal—
ist papers, to find information about the property-holdings
of certain other tenants, not on the tax list, who had left
the manor during the war or had sold their leases before
1775.5 It is, however, impossible to determine the exact
number of tenants and freeholders in the manor, since some
freeholders were also tenants and because of the paucity of
the material. In a society where speculative fervor was

rampant and human mobility was high, the task of tracking

 

4"Tax list of the County of Westchester made Pursu-
ant to an act of the Legislature of the State of New York
passed March 2, 1779," Mss., Folder 17, NYSL.

5Since this chapter is devoted to a study of the
property holdings and social mobility of the tenants, ten—
ants as of 1779 as well as former tenants will be referred
to as tenants.

 

 

 

 

 

157

down all the inhabitants of the manor is beyond our reach.
Some tenants died intestate, some left the manor after
selling their improvements, and others simply faded away
without leaving any trace. A further impediment to research
is the fact that even some of the rare official documents
are undependable. For example, the manor tax list just re—
ferred to is silent on the estate of Dr. James Perry, a
tenant of Philip Schuyler, despite positive evidence that
he was residing on the manor during the war and continued
to keep the taxable lease which he had acquired in 1750.6
Moreover, the assessment of estates was obviously conser-
vative and probably also inaccurate. Thus, the tax list
recorded no personal estate for Pierre Van Cortlandt, one
of the wealthiest landlords, while some of the manor tenants
are shown to have had $3,000 or more personal property. 'In
many cases, there were discrepancies between the assessed
value of estates-~real and personal—~as recorded in the
list, and actual holdings of tenants, as is to be seen by
Comparing the assessments with other information that has
been turned up about some individualso

In view of the extraordinary-amounts of back—rent
which many tenants owed their landlords, one might conclude

simply that they were very poor. This same thinking,

 

6See Perry's letters to Philip Schuyler, February 17,
1784, November 2, 1784, May 9, 1786 and March 22, 1787,
Schuyler Papers, Box 19 and Box 10; rent account for his
lease with the Schuylers, Box 10, NYPL.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

158

however, also could lead to the absurd conclusion that the
Colonies refused to pay taxes imposed by the home govern-
ment because they, too, were poverty—stricken. That the
accumulation of back-rent in many cases had no relationship
to the size of a tenant's estate is shown by the case of
Joseph Veal, a typical leaseholder in the manor. Veal,
who had settled on a 299-acre farm in 1753 as a tenant of
Stephen and John Van Cortlandt, moved to Fishkill, Dutch—
ess County in 1786, leaving a large amount of back-rent.
Several letters from the ”surprised" heirs of John Van
Cortlandt after 1788 threatened prosecution, but attempts
at collecting the rent were unsuccessful until 1790. De—
spite the back-rent, Veal's personal estate alone, accord—
ing to the 1779 tax list, was,£3,312.7

The tax list, however, does not show how much of
the value of an estate consisted of the landlord‘s basic
soil right and how much represented improvements made by
the tenant and belonging largely to him. For this reason,
it has been necessary to exclude real proPerty from our es—
timates of tenant wealth, which, as a result, will be ex-

tremely conservative. The exclusion of real estate from

 

7Receipt Book of John Van Cortlandt, NYPL; Stephen
and John Van Cortlandt, heirs of John Van Cortlandt, to
Joseph Veal at Fish Kill, May 7, 1788, June 24, 1788, and
October 17, 1789, Letter Book of Stephen and John Van
Cortlandt, 1771—1772, NYPL.

 

 

 

159
our consideration, though inevitable, would be regarded as
outrageous by tenants like John Hyat, Jr., Joshua Hyat,
Simon Brady, and Joseph Anthony, to name a few, whose im—
provements were considerable.8

Even when we include only personal property assess-
ments, however, we find that tenants, contrary to the
standard view, usually were prosPerous. As shown in
Tables 11 and 12, 16 tenants (18% of those examined) had
estates ranging from no personalty to £99. Thirty-eight
others (44%) had from £200 to $699, while 23 (26%) had from
£700 to £1,499 and ten. (12%) had from £1,500 to 353,760
personal property.

The size of such estates can be seen when measured
against the prices of certain goods and services. Between
1740 and the 1770's, 100 acres of unimproved land near a
well—settled town such.as Albany was worth between $10 and

<£20 (in New York money),9 while good manor land in the

 

88cc Table 13, also notes 42 and 43.

9Nicholas Bayard, et. al to Johann Frederick Ries

(the Lutheran Minister) resPecting Back Lands, October 17,
1749, Nicholas Bayard Papers, NYHS; Governor Tryon to the
Earl of Hillsborough, April 11, 1772, N. Y. Col. Doc., VIII,
p. 293. In frontier Vbrmont, unimproved patented land of
100 acres was rated only at.£l.10 to.£2. See the land sale
records of Mansfield and Stowe townships from 1774 to 1828°
See Mansfield Proprietors Book of Records, 2 vols., Town
Records of Stowe; Land Records of Stowe, 2 vols., all at

the town hall of Stowe, Vermont.

 

 

 

 

 

 

160
vicinity of New York during the 1760's was worth about
QiB per acre, exclusive of improvements.10 A modest new
dwelling house of six rooms in the manor was rated at

11
A manor common

around £35 druing the same decade.
school master's salary in 1770 was no more than,f25.12
Governor Bellomont observed in 1690 that with1i50 or,£60
"a man will have a comfortable little house built with
necessary furniture, two or three cows, and a couple of

13 Allowing for the

horses to begin his husbandry with."
gradual inflation that took place during the early eigh—

teenth century, a man could perhaps do the same with £100
or less during the 1760's and 1700's. Under these circum-

stances, a man with $200 personal estate, exclusive of the

 

loSee Oliver DeLancey's report on the value of soil
right to the heirs of the Warrens, n.d., Warren Papers,
NYHS. See also the valuation of the soil right of the
Skinners” land in the manor in 1768, Deed Book 18, p, 148,
OSS; "Copy of Survey of Lot No° 4, the property of the Es-
tate of Elizabeth Skinner. . .," Warren Papers, Univ. of
London.

11See John Van Cortlandt's Journal (0), on Isaac
Frost's house, NYPL.

12Account of John Wright, school master, with
Pierre Van Cortlandt, January 29, 1770, V1948, SHRL.

13Earl of Bellomont to the Lords of Trade, Octo-
ber 20, 1699, N. Y. Col. Doc., IV, pp. 588-59.

 

. .\
c
n\
c
.
.x
a
.
v a fix
. ‘
I Q Q
1 .\ I\
. l
. .
.
. F.
l
a, q
. ._

 

 

Table 119--Property Holdings of Tenants, 1775

A. The Beekmans’ Tenants

Name Real Estate Personal Estate
(pounds) (pounds)
Abraham Purdy 500 666
John Conklin 400 800
John Hyat, Jr. 860 1600
Joshua Hyat 2000 3256
Joseph Lee 200 456
Joseph Lee, Jr. 400 650
Joseph Strang 600 —-—
John Bryant 1350 96
John Brewer 375 1096
John Field 510 655
Gabriel Carman 1120 928
William Jewell 400 800
Bathias Bookhowt 600 1200
Henry Keer 200 320
Jeremiah Drake 140 1954
Isaac Frost 1750 2424
Hyat Lane 600 1030
Nathaniel Hyat 450 1134
Ezekiel Hyat 1500 880

Supplementary Information on the Tenants Listed above:

Yeoman; a descendent of Joseph Purdy of
White Plains; died in 1778; took over his
brother Joseph's lease of 156 acres in No
Lot N00 3 sometime before 1752; he was
sufficiently well-to—do as to donate,£50
to the Presbyterian Church of Hanover; he
bequeathed to his son Elvon "all lands and
tenements, large bay horse & (his) bauld
mare & (his) oxen, & l cow, 10 sheep, 5
swine. . . all farming utensils; then, ac-
cording to a deed, sold in 1786 to John
Strang 125% acres of land in 5. Lot No° 3
for c£596.3.6; eventually, Elvon purchased
the soil right of the lease for ,i400 from
the heirs of the Beekmans in 1791; the tax
list for 1779 shows that Elvon was mater—
ially better off than his father, owning
real estate worth 15120 and personal estate
$5700. (Cortlandt Manor Papers, NYHS; his
will dated April 9, 1778, NYHS. Coll.
XXXIII, 150‘ Deed Book Aber K, 24-6, WCCO;

V2194, SHRL .
161

Abraham Purdy:

 

 

 

 

John Conklin:

John Hyat, Jroz

Joshua Hyat:

Joseph Lee:

Yeoman; took over a part of John Hyat, Sr.'s
lease after the latter's death in 1760; re-
cords show that he bought a tract of 123
acres for.f30 in 1738 and conveyed it to
Jonathan Conklin for £5 in 1758; according
to his will, dated June 29, 1787, he owned
real estate in Dutchess County which he
ordered his sons Jeremiah, Drake, and Timoh
thy to divide equally among them; he also
gave Drake and Timothy each 1 pair of oxen,
1 cow, 1 horse; to daughter Jane,£50 out of
his personal estate; two female negroes, to
his son John all his land, Messuages, the
lease in the manor plus 1 pair of oxen, l
cow, 1 horse, and a negro boy called Adam
aged about six months; to his wife the

rest of his estate. (Cortlandt Manor Pap—
ers, NYHS, V1730, V2050, V2066, SHRL;‘
Gertruyd Beekman's will, Mss. 12695 (3), p.
3, NYSL; Will Book A, 175-76, wcso).

Yeoman; his father, John Senior, a Justice
of Peace, leased first 331 acres of land
for the yearly rent of $4.5. on May 1, 1749,
and then bought improvements of Andrew
Barton’s lease in 1757 for £60.10.9; John
Junior took over the first farm upon the
death of his father in 1760; he declared to
Pierre Van Cortlandt in 1796 that he was of—
fered for his lease $1400. (v1942, No. 2,
V1945, SHRL; John Hyat, Sr.'s will, April
22, 1760, NYHSo Coll., XXX, 244; Cortlandt
Manor Papers, NYHS; Gertruyd Beekman's will,
Msso 12695 (3), p. 3, NYSL; Pierre Van
Cortlandt to his son Philip Van Cortlandt,
March, 1796, V1783, SHRL).

Yeoman; second son of John Hyat, Sr., a Just—
ice of Peace; be received from his father
"Andrew Barton's Farm" in N. Lot No. 3 plus
2£30 upon his father's death in 1760; in
1791, he sold his improvements of the farm
for 55700. (V1945, V1680, V2066, V1945,

SHRL; Gertruyd Beekman's will, NYSL).

Yeoman; his lease from John Van Cortlandt
expired on May 1, 1755; in 1753, he bought
Lot° No. 18 and part of Lot No. 17 in N. Lot
No. 7 from Andrew Johnston; also purchased

in 1786 the farm where grandsonfEnos Lee lived.
(Borton, History of Westchester Count , II,
663—64; V2066, V1931, SHR ).

162

 

 

Joseph Lee, Jr.: Yeoman; took over his father's lease in

Joseph Strang:

John Bryant:

John Brewer:

John Field:

1766 and continued to keep it until his
death in 1791 when he willed it to his
second son Enos and his third son Elijah.
(V2205, SHRL; his will, April 13, 1790,
Will Book A, 189-92, WCSO).

Shop—keeper; leased a small tract around

1760 for the yearly rent of £2; started to
buy small pieces of land, first in 1759, 20
acres of land in S. Lot N00 3 from John Gue
for £60; then in 1767. 76 acres in S. Lot N00
4 for £296,3,4. from the Skinners; in 1769,
another 6 acres in N. Lot No. 4 for,£210 from
Isaac Guion; finally, 11 acres in S. Lot No.
4 for £44 from Gilbert Drake, Esqo (tenant of
the Beekmans and Frederick Philipse) in 1770;
speculated in Mansfield in Vermont in 1763.
It is impossible for us to think that Joseph
Strang as a Shep-keeper had no personal es—
tate at all. Also in view of his series of
purchases of land, the evaluation of his

real estate is too conservative° (Cortlandt
Manor Papers, NYHS; Deed Book Aber H, 264-74,

wcco).

Millwright; agent of the Beekmans since 1760;
in 1763 bought farms No. 6 and 7 in No. Lot,
No. 6 containing 500 acres from John Duncan
for £760 on mortgage; Pierre Van Cortlandt by
1766 paid off on Bryant's behalf, for which
Bryant mortgaged the land to the former; fin—
ally, in 1795, Philip Van Cortlandt, son of
Pierre, auctioned it to recover Pierre's cred—
it. (V2066, V1978, SHRL; Mortgage Deed, Octo-
ber 4, 1790, Van Cortlandt-Van Wyck Papers,
Misc. Land Papers Box 1, NYPL; New York Journal
and Patriotic Register, January 3, 1795 .

Yeoman; in April, 1775 leased 126 acres in N.
Lot No. 3 for the yearly rent of £2 and con—
tinued to keep it until 1732; he owed the
Beekmans a back-rent of.£56.7.9. as of April,
1775o (V2207, V1931, SHRL). '.

Yeoman; his bond of rent dated April 20, 1775

to the Beekmans amounted to £115; a deed of

sale in 1788 shows that he and his wife Lyde
owned 200 acres with houses and barns worth

d5160 in Harrison Purchase, Westchester

County. (V1931, SHRL; Deed Book Aber K, 299—300,

WCCO).
163

 

 

 

 

Gabriel Carman: Saddler; leased 156% acres on November 2,

William Jewell:

1767; he and his wife Hannah owned in fee
simple 70 acres of land in S. Lot No° 3
which had been given to Hannah by her cou—
sin Martha Woods of New York City in May,
1764; then, in 1771, they sold the tract to
their son Gabriel Carman, Jr° for £200°
(Will of Martha Woods, May 31, 1764, NYHS.
Coll., XXXI, 360-61; Deed Book Aber K, 16-
17, WCCO; lease to Gabriel Carman, November
2, 1767, Van Cortlandt Papers, NYHS).

 

Yeoman; leased a farm of 266 acres in 1738
in S. Lot No. 8 for the yearly rent of
(£2.13.4 and kept it at least until 1790
when his son George took it over from Will—
iam's wife Elizabeth. (Lease, May 11, 1738,
Van Cortlandt—Van wyck Papers, Misc. Land
Papers, Box 1, NYPL; V1884, SHRL; Deed of
grant from William Jewell to his wife, Nov—
ember 2, 1789, Deed Book, Aber K, 256—57,
WCCO; Elizabeth's will, August 3, 1790, Will
Book A, 217—19, WCSO).

Mathias Bookhowt: Yeoman; in 1760, leased a farm of 266 acres

Henry Keer:

Jeremiah Drake:

in S. Lot No. 8 for the yearly rent of £2.13
and kept it at least until 1788° (Cortlandt

Manor Papers, NYHS; Pierre Van Cortlandt to

Philip Van Cortlandt (his nephew), September
1, 1788, V1884, SHRL).

Yeoman;a1so a tenant of the Ver Plancks as
shown in the will of Philip Ver Planck in 1767
(a farm of 178 acres). (Lease, June 1, 1769,
V2066, SHRL; will of Philip Ver Planck, Octo—
ber 23, 1767, NYHS. Coll., XXXI, 459).

Yeoman; took over Daniel Delamoux's lease in
17405 at the yearly rent of $4.10 (270 acres);
bought 134 acres of land for £268 from Andrew
Johnston in 1756; in 1762, bought 1 acre and

a half for i£3 from Caleb Ward; bought 17 acres
for $535 from James Crawford of Yonkers in
1786. (See lease to Daniel Delamoux, March 25,
1737, Van Cortlandt—Van Wyck Papers, Misc.

Land Papers, Box 1, NYPL; Deed Book Aber K,
7-8, 8-9, Aber I, 365—66, wcco),

164

 

11 Ill '21.. J

 

 

Isaac Frost:

Hyat Lane:

Nathaniel Hyat:

Ezekiel Hyat:

Yeoman; leased a farm of 385 acres in Jan—
uary, 1773 for the yearly rent of $6.7; he
was also a tenant of John Van Cortlandt in
the 1760s. (Lease, V2188, SHRL; Journal
(c) of John Van Cortlandt, NYPL .

Yeoman; inherited a third of his father
Daniel's lease of 319 acres in 1770; Hyat
still held the lease when he was writing his
will in 1802; he willed one third of it to
his wife, along with his "Sorrel mare," 2
best cows, 2 best swine, and 5 best sheep,
and the other two thirds to his two sons; be—
sides, his will shows that he owned a tract
of land in fee and lease from Stephen Van
Cortlandt; he ordered his three sons to pay
$535 to his other heirs. (Daniel Lane's will,
June 22, 1772, NYHS. Coll., XXXI, 37—8; Cort—
landt Manor Papers, NYHS; V2213, SHRL; Hyat
Lane's will, Se tember 15, 1802, Will Book

C, 184-86, WCSO .

 

Yeoman; brother of John Hyat, Sr.; leased a
farm of 319 acres in 17405 for the annual
rent of <$3.6; held it until his death in
1794 when he willed half of it to his son
Ezekiel and the other half to his daughter—
in—law; he owned two dwelling houses; he also
owned in fee simple a large tract of land in
Dutchess County which he ordered his two
grandsons to divide equally between them;

his son Ezekiel was quite well-to-do; Nathan-
iel was a Captain of the Manor Militia before
the War. (Cortlandt Manor Papers, NYHS; Ger-
truyd Beekman's will, February 2, 1776, Mss.
12695 (3), p. 3, NYSL; Nathaniel Hyat's will
September 9, 1794, Will Book B, 141—43, WCSO).

Yeoman; a son of Nathaniel; received a sub-
lease from his father in the 1760% as he was
entitled to a lease that included his name.
(Lease to William Borden, May 1, 1756,
V2198, SHRL; Nathaniel Hyat's will, Will
Book B, 141-43, wcso).

165

 

 

 

 

 

B. The Warrens' Tenants

Real Estate Personal Estate
(pounds) pounds)
David Montross 1100 1864
Symon Mabee 700 616
John Veal 600 ---
Thomas Powell 550 600 (by estim—
John Wright 150 430 ation)
Abraham Wright 1100 1640
Jacob Write 400 294
Peter Montross 200 ---
Gilbert Griffen 120 320
William Pearce 250 480
Walter Ward 1200 1989
John Pinkney 700 428
Solomon Hunt 400 338
Joseph Sherwood 1000 1236
William Lent 120 —--
Abraham Lent 350 600
Joseph Osborne 450 592

Further Information on the Tenants Listed above:

David Montross: Shop—keeper; first appears on the rent rolls
of Oliver DeLancey in 1748 for the Peter
Warrens; occupied a 211-acre farm in the man—
or paying i3.5; in 1770, he leased another
farm; leased two more farms in South Lot. No.
9 in 1773. His will dated Feb. 28, 1806
shows that he owned one farm which he gave
to his son Jacob, also gave to his two sons
Jacob and Nathaniel the remainder of his
real and personal estates on the condition
that they would pay his other son $1250, to
Elizabeth 3375, to Winefered $125, to daughter-
in—law $250; to son Joseph $500, to a grand—
son 8500; he served as an agent of John Van
Cortlandt; Captain of militia. (V1644, SHRL;
Warren Papers, Univ. of London; Warren Pap-
ers, NYHS; Will Book F, pp. 270-71, WCSO).

Symon Maybee: Yeoman; possessed Farm No. 2 (196 acres) for
the rent of 4.10; appears on the rent rolls
in 1748 and continued to the outbreak of the
War. (V1689, V1644, SHRL; Warren Papers,
NYHS).

166

 

 

 

 

 

John Veal:

Thomas Powel:

John Wright:

Abraham Wright:

Jacob Write:

 

Yeoman; leased farm No. 3, Lot No. 5, rent
$4; in 1765, bought a farm of 233% acres
from the heirs of Elizabeth Skinner for
.i818.2.6; speculated in 1765 in Mansfield
in Vermont; first appears on the rent rolls
in 1748; continued to keep his lease through
the War. (V1689, V2301, SHRL; Deed Book Aber
G. 601-02; Warren Papers, Univ. of London,
SHRL; Batchellor, N. H. State Papers, XXVI,

Yeoman; bought im rovements on Farm No. 9,
S. Lot No. 5 for 6.10 in 1763 and kept it
through the War. (Warren Papers, Univ. of
London; Warren Papers, NYHS; V1644, SHRL).

School Master with a yearly salary of.£25.
according to his account with Pierre Van
Cortlandt in 1770; also a tenant of John Van
Cortlandt until 1768; leased Farm No. 12, S.
Lot No. 5 sometime before 1748 and kept it
through the War; his son Wright, Jr. was also
a tenant of the Warrens; sold 39% bushels of
wheat to Pierre Van Cortlandt in 1749.
(V1948, V2301, V1689, SHRL).

Yeoman; leased Farm No. 13, S. Lot No. 5 for
yearly rent of.£3.l5 sometime before 1748
and kept it through the War; his will dated
March 19, 1791, shows that he bought a farm
from Peter Kemble and bequeathed it to his
son Benjamin on the condition that his son
cancel his demand of 250 against his fath-
er; gave a farm in fee to his two grandsons
Samuel Osborn and Abraham Wright; also gave
to his grandson Abraham the half of his

farm he "lately bought of John Watt" and

the other half to Samuel Osborn; to daugh~
ter Martha 5&50, to son Benjamin'ih5, to

two great grandsons $15 each, to the heirs
of Silvanus Raynor.£20; ordered sale of all
the rest of his estates to pay his debts and
all the legacies. (V1689, V1644, V2301, SHRL;
Deed Book Aber K 280-82, WCCO; Will Book B,
pp. 295—98, woso).

Yeoman; leased two farms from the Warrens and
Stephen and John Van Cortlandt before 1748;
sold his improvements on the latter's lease
for £110 in 1758 as his lease term expired;
sold the other lease to Thomas Powell for
$546.10 in 1763. (V1689, V23o1, SHRL; Receipt
Book of John Van Cortlandt, NYHS).

167

 

 

 

Peter Montross:

Gilbert Griffen:

William Pearce:

Walter Ward:

John Pinkney:

Solomon Hunt:

 

Yeoman; brother of Captain David Montross;
leased two farms from the Warrens and
Stephen and John Van Cortlandt sometime Be—
fore 1748; in 1768, he was told by John

Van Cortlandt to remove off the lease for
back-rent and poor improvement; in 1771, he
and his wife Hanna received from his father-
in—law Jacobus Krankhyt 50 acres of land in
the Rykes Patent; speculated in the town of
Stowe in Vermont in 1763. (V1689 SHRL;
Warren Papers, NYHS; John Van Cortlandt to
Peter Montross, November 9, 1768, Letter
Book of John Van Cortlandt, NYPL; Will of
Jacobus Krankhyt, January 7, 1771, Jacobus
Krankhyt Papers, NYHS; Batchellor, N. H.
State Pa ers, XXVI, 461—64).

Yeoman; leased a farm in S. Lot No. 2 in
1749 for yearly rent of.£3.10; stopped pa -
ing rent after 1766. (V1689, V1644, SHRL .

Yeoman; bought the improvements on a lease
of 234 acres in 1762 from "Mr. Avery" for
£120; kept it through the War. (V1644,
SHRL; Warren Papers, NYHS).

Yeoman; leased a farm before 1761 and in
1774, bought improvements of lease from Dan—
iel Wolsey; Speculated in Mansfield, Vermont
in 1763. (V1644, V1689, SHRL; Batchellor,
N. H. State Papers, XXVI, 461-64).

Yeoman; until 1765, he was a tenant of the
Skinners; bought a tract of 123 acres from
them in the same year but released it to
them in 1771, for he was unable to pay "the
Consideration money"; in 1769, he bought im—
provements of lease from the heirs of Rich—
ard Crab, a former tenant of the Warrens; he
owned % of 1/30 of Mineforts Island in the
Manor of Pelham which he sold to his father
in 1763 for .£22.15. (Deed Book 18, p. 148,
OSS; Cortlandt Manor Papers, NYHS; Deed Book
Aber G, 596—97, WCCO; Warren Papers, Univ.
of London; will of Richard Crab, May 6,
1768, NYHS. Coll., XXXI, 209—10; V1689, SHRL).

Yeoman; leased Lot No. l in South Lot No. 9

before 1773; paid back—rent of .£30.17 on
January 9, 1773. (V1689, SHRL).

168

 

 

 

 

 

 

Joseph Sherwood: Justice of the Peace in the 1760h; ap-

William Lent:

Abraham Lent:

Joseph Osborne:

pointed by the New York Assembly as one
of the Commissioners of Highway for the
Manor, along with Philip Ver Planck and
Pierre Van Cortlandt, in January, 1765;
in 1768, he sold 50 acres of his land in
N. Lot No. 1 to Justus Sherwood for £50;
also sold land of 38% acres to Samuel
Drake in July, 1770; in 1773, bought from
Joseph Anthony improvements of two farms
of 293% acres that Anthony had purchased
in 1764 from John Wright, Jr. for (£450.
("Deposition of Lawrence Huff against
Joseph Sherwood," May 13, 1760, Calendar
of Hist. Mss., LXXXVIII, p. 12; The Colon—
ial Laws, IV, 895-96; Deed Book Aber H,
122-24, WCCO; Deed Book 27, p. 125, OSS;
Warren Papers, Univ. of London).

Yeoman; not much information except that he
died seized in 111 acres in fee simple ac—
cording to his will dated July 6, 1795 and
that he paid rent of £3 in 1771 and 1774.
(Will Book B, 372-73, WCSO; Warren Papers,
Univ. of London).

Yeoman; during the War, removed to Rumbout
Precinct of Dutchess County; after the War,
he bought at least 40 acres of land in the
Manor of Philipsburgh which he sold to John
Archer for £150 in 1786. (Deed Book Aber K,
190-91, WCCO).

Yeoman; occupied 203% acres of land, No. 7,
S. Lot 5 since 1760; bought with Robert
Weeks 482 acres of land in 1769 from Peter
DeLancey for $424.4. (Warren Papers, NYHS;
Deed Book Aber H, 375—76, WCCO).

169

 

 

C. The DeLancey's Tenants

Real Estate Personal Estate
(pounds) (pounds)
John Mabee 240 ---
Levi Bailey 920 540
Ephraim Baker 350 312
Deliverance Purdy 480 200
Abraham Van Skaay 120 250
James Bishop 200 -——
William Bloomer 720 400
Timothy Delivan 200 235
Samuel Cole 10 --—
John Delivan 392 534
Denton Smith 1000 666
Silvinus Townsend 860 320
Ebenezer Purdy 650 67
Mathew Delivan 500 666
Halsey Wood 255 ---
Solomon Close 400 ---
Timothy Van Scoy 600 ——-

Supplementary Information on the Tenants listed above:

John Mabee; Yeoman; until 1757, he was a tenant of
Philip and, then, of Stephen Van Cortlandt
with a lease of 240 acres in N. Lot No. 6;
in 1758, as its soil right was sold to
Oliver DeLancey, he became a tenant of
Oliver DeLancey; in 1761, he bought the
tract for £496 on mortgage from DeLancey;
by June 10, 1769, he paid off his bond
with interest as DeLancey's receipts indi-
cate; speculated in Mansfield, New Hampshire
in 1763. In view of his solvency just de—
scribed, it is not hard to accept the fact
that he did not own a personal estate at
all. (WeWHYbrkkMercury, November 28, 1757;
Account Book of Pierre Van Cortlandt, V2301
(Oliver DeLancey's rent receipts), V1685,
SHRL; Maybee's mortgage deed, April 27, 1761,
V1644, SHRL; DeLancey's receipts of payment,
V1644, SHRL; Batchellor, N. H. State Papers,
XXVI, 514—18).

Levi Bailey: Yeoman; leased farm No. 5 (227 acres) in N.
Lot No. 9 sometime before 1762; in 1769,
bought soil right of his lease from the heirs
of Stephen DeLancey for g£510.11; in 1772,
bought from the heirs of Andrew Johnston
farm No. 9 (318 acres) in N. Lot No. 7 for
.i832.10; held the rank of Commander for
Northern Battalion in 1775. (As for his

170

 

 

 

 

 

tenant status, see rent receipts of Stephen
DeLancey from 1763 to 1769, V1644, SHRL;
Deed Book Aber I, 179, 180-81, wcco).

Ephraim Baker: Yeoman; no information except that he paid
rent of.i3 in 1763 and 1765 and held this
land through the War. (Rent receipts of
James DeLancey, V1644, SHRL; Deed Book
Aber I, 177, WCCO.

Deliverance Purdy: Yeoman; first occupied Abigail Pedrick's
lease in 1763 at the yearly rent of $5.5.
(V1644, V2301, SHRL).

Abraham Van Skaay: Yeoman; leased a farm in N. Lot No. 9
at the annual rent of £3 before 1763.
(V2301, SHRL).

James Bishop: Yeoman; paid rent £3 in 1763 for a farm in
N. Lot No. 9. (V2301, SHRL).

William Bloomer: Yeoman; paid rent £3 in 1763 and seen
still residing in N. Lot No. 10 during the 1
War. (V2301, SHRL; Deed Book Aber K, 377-78,
wcco). 1%

Timothy Delivan: Yeoman; no information except that he paid
rent £3 for a farm in N. Lot No. 10 in 1763.
(V1644, SHRL).

Samuel Cole: Yeoman; paid rent of £2 for a farm in N.
Lot No. 10 in 1763. (V2301, SHRL).

John Delivan: Yeoman; bought part (36 acres) of soil right
of his lease from the heirs of Stephen De-
Lancey for7£120 in 1770 and bought another
part (52 acres) in 1773 for £70.17.6; in 1788,
he bought from Thomas Thomas, the high She-
riff of Westchester County, 50 acres near
his land for,£112.3.6. (Deed Book Aber 1,
159-60, 183-85, Aber L, 47-9, WCCO).

Denton Smith: Yeoman; paid rent £4.10 in 1763 and 1765
for his lease in N. Lot No. 10; in 1769, he
bought from Stephen DeLancey soil right of
his lease (115 acres) for i230; his will
dated October 20, 1808 shows that he had 160
acres; he willed to his wife the use and im-
provement of one third of his real estate
for her life in addition to 2 good cows and
household furniture to the value of $100, to
daughter Mince Smith his dwelling house,
barn and 50 acres of land, to his son Denton

171

 

 

 

 

 

 

r 7 ,

60 acres, to son Nathaniel Smith 50 acres,
to daughter Loretty Smith 3250, to daugh—
ter Salley Hallstead $250, to daughter
Rebecca Hawley $500, to daughter Hannah
Stevenson 3200, to two other daughters $400,
to two grandsons $150, to his executors
3125, all out of his movables. (V1644,
V2301, SHRL; Deed Book Aber H 388-90, wcco;
his will, Will Book G, 351-535, wcs)).

Silvinus Townsend: Yeoman; paid rent of £2.10 in 1763; there

Ebenezer Purdy:

Mathew Delivan:

Halsey Wood:

is strong evidence that he owned in fee sim-
ple a tract of land in N. Lot No. 10; his will
of 1799 simply said that "to my son William
land in N. Salem, to son Silvanus land in N.
Salem. . .to son James land in N. Salem, to
daughter Easter (and) to 2 sons Samuel &
Justus remainder." (V2301, SHRL; Deed Book
Aber H, 401—02. WCCO; his will August 21,
1799, Will Book F, 186—88, wcsoS.

Yeoman; a judge of the Inferior Court of Com-
mon Pleas for the County of Westchester;
leased a farm for the yearly rent of.£3 be—
fore 1763; sometime before 1788, Purdy made
the sale of the improvement of his lease
without the consent of the landlord Stephen
I. DeLancey that infuriated the latter; mean—
while he seems to have bought a tract of land
before 1792, for he appears selling 43% acres
to Caleb Smith for £207.10 in the same year.
(V2301, V1834, SHRL; Stephen I. DeLancey to
Pierre Van Cortlandt, Jr., January 14, 1788,
SHRL; Deed Book Aber L, 115-16, WCCO).

Yeoman; bought soil right of a part of his
lease (89 acres) from the heirs of Stephen
DeLancey in 1773; in 1775, bought 20 acres
from Nathaniel Delivan for,£136;in 1783,
bought 9 acres from Nathan Delivan for 100;
finally, bought another 87 acres from Nathan
Delivan for £550 in Specie. (Deed Book H
459-60, Aber I, 186, 187—88, 188-89, wccos.

Yeoman; in 1773 he bought soil riggt of a
part (73 acres) of his lease for 00 from
the heirs of Stephen DeLancey. (Deed Book
Aber I, 5, wcco).

172

1 ‘

 

Solomon Close: Yeoman; no information except that he paid
rent of £83.10 in 11753 and .1765. (V1644.
V2301, SHRL).

Timothy Van Scoy: Yeoman; paid rent $1.5 in 1773; bought
59% acres fer $83.13 from the heirs of
Stephen DeLancey in the same year; in 1788,
bought another tract of 30 acres for £30
from Thomas Thomas, Sheriff of the County
of Westchester as a result of the convic-
tion of Stephen DeLancey for debt. (Deed
Book Aber H, 513—14, Aber K, 204-05, WCCO;
Borton, I, p. 471).

173

 

D. The Schuylers' Tenants

Real Estate Personal Estate
(pounds) (pounds)
Joshua Travis 350 667
Bartow Underhill 700 980
Robert Galer 600 1056
Aaron Forman 320 1028
John Stevens 720 480

Supplementary Information of the Tenants listed above:

Joshua Travis:

Yeoman; a son of David, a tenant of the
Schuyler's, who first leased farm No. 4 of
215 acres in May, 1748; his father bought
farm No. 5 (211 acres) for $433.5 in May,
1766; upon the death of David in 1796,
Joshua and his brother Isaac inherited
David's lease and the other estate; before
that Joshua held a part of the lease since
1774 and Joshua willed in 1804 the use of
his whole estate to his wife until her
death,then to son Annanias $87.50, to daugh—
ter Jemima Ferris $25, to three grand—
daughters 387.50, to tw0 grand—sons $37, to
son Stephen 50 cents, to five sons two
thirds of all the remainder of his real and
personal estates, finally to four daughter
the other third; Joshua was a constable in
1769. (Philip Schuyler to his son, March 3,
1796, S941, V2004, SHRL; Schuyler Papers,
Box 10, NYPL; W and W
Mercur , April 4, 1768; Joshua's will,
August 4, 1804, Will Book F, 82-4, and Da-
vid's will, August 26, 1796, Will Book B,
441-42, wcso).

Bartow Underhill: Yeoman; leased a farm of 331 acres for

Robert Galer:

the yearly rent ofi£3.5 and held it until
1787o (Schuyler Papers, Box 10, NYPL).

Yeoman; leased a farm of 190 acres in 1761
and held it until it was sold to Henry Carman
in 1789; in 1772, he bought a farm of 142
acres near his lease from Joseph Lyon for
(£426; in 1784, however, 60 acres of his

land was seized for his debt of ifloo to
Gilbert Drake by a County Sheriff and sold

at a public vendue for<£210. (Schuyler Pap-
ers, Box 10, NYPL; Deed Book Aber H, 529-30,
Aber I, 232—33, WCCO).

174

 

 

 

 

Aaron Forman:

John Stevens:

Blacksmith; leased Farm No. 7 (206 acres),
No. Lot No. 4 in May 1750 and kept it until
1791; in 1768, bought Farm No. 10 (206 acres),
in N. Lot No. 4 for i404; besides he owned
at least 111 acres, a part of Farm No. 14 in
N. Lot No. 4, for £400 in May, 1774; in 1784,
he expressed to his landlord Philip Schuyler
his desire to buy the soil right of his
lease if its price was reasonable; apparent-
ly, Schuyler fixed its price higher than
Forman could afford; thus, Forman complained
to Schuyler that "having received your let-
ter by my son in law I am much at a loss to
know what to do the price you have prefixed
for the Soyl Exclusive of the lease is as
high or higher than Land’can be Bought
amongst us the farm that was Jeremiah Tra-
vers is on Soil for less than three pounds
Pr acre from what I can Learn Land sell very
10 which make it Dificult for us to ingage
the mony soon‘ as this Spring. . . ." (Deed
Book Aber K, 246-47, WCCO; Schuyler Papers,
Box 10, NYPL; Forman to Philip Schuyler,
April 17, 1784, May 1, 1786 and March 13,
1787, Schuyler Papers, Box 19, NYPL).

Carpenter; leased Farm No. 10 (206 acres)

in 17505 and held it until his lease and its
soil right were sold to his fellow tenant
Aaron Forman in 1770; a deed indicates that
he owned in fee simple a tract of land in N.
Lot No. l, for he sold 34% acres of the lot
to Richard Curry for $85.8 in 1770.
(Schuyler Papers, Box 10, NYPL; New York
Gazette and Weekly Mgrcury, April 4, 1768;
Deed Book Aber H, 430-31, cho).

 

T‘

 

 

 

E. Stephen and John Van Cortlandt's Tenants

Real Estate Personal Estate
(pounds) pounds
Elisha Parker 200 292
John Soulice 1320 456
George Carpenter 400 908
Andrew Merrit 400 ——-
Job Write 700 656
Joseph Veal 875 3312
Michael Mathews 600 720
Symon Brady 975 825
William Ted 182 1256
William Beagle 400 620
Samuel Wilson 480 672
Abraham Golden 676 1088

Supplementary Information on the Tenants listed above:

Elisha Parker:

John Soulice:

George Carpenter

Andrew Merrit:

Yeoman; leased a farm in 1766; bought a
Negro named Esquire as his servant; and 1
cow, 1 mare, and l calf in 1767. (John
Van Cortlandt to Elisha Parker, November 5,
1766 Letter Book of John Van Cortlandt,

NYPL).

Yeoman; came from New Rochelle; leased two
farms in 1748 and held them until 1773 when
he was told to give up one by John Van
Cortlandt for his refusal to make improve-
ments on the farm adjoining "his other farm."
(John Van Cortlandt to Mr. Soulice, Febru-
ary 17, 1773, to Captain Montross, February
17, 1773, Van Cortlandt Papers, NYHS; Re—
ceipt Book of John Van Cortlandt, on Farm

No. 16, NYHS; Day-Book of John Van Cortlandt,

NYPL).

: Yeoman; in 1760 took over the farm Henry
Woods had leased; paid the yearly rent of

£12 for the farm and kept it through the

War, even though he was once scolded by John
Van Cortlandt in 1768 for not making good
improvements on the farm since he had it.

(John Van Cortlandt's Journal (c), NYPL;

John Van Cortlandt to Carpenter, November,
1768, Letter Book of John Van Cortlandt, NYPL).

Yeoman; came from Rye; bought lease of two
farms No. 18 and 19 in 1756; kept the farms
paying the yearly rent of £4 until 1785 when
he sold improvements of the lease to Joseph

176

 

 

 

 

Job Write:

Joseph Veal:

Michael Mathews:

Symon Brady:

Weeks; a record also indicates that in
1775 he and Abel Weeks leased 100 acres
of land from the Beekmans. (Receipt Book
of John Van Cortlandt, NYHS; John Van
Cortlandt to Joseph Weeks, June 17, 1785,
Letter Book of Stephen and John Van Cort—
landt, 1771-1792, NYPL; V1931 and V2209,
SHRL).

Yeoman; leased a farm at the yearly rental
of (£5 in 1757 and continued to keep it un—
til his death in 1783; according to the tax
list, his son Job Write, Jr., was also fair-
ly well—to—do as he held real estate worth
$6820 and personal estate i688. (John Van
Cortlandt‘s Journal (c), NYPL; Job Wright's
will, May 4, 1783, NYHS. Coll., XXXII, 31).

Yeoman; bought the lease of Isaac Nambury
(Farm No. 17 of 299 acres) in 1754 and agreed
to pay the yearly rent of. ; Van Cortlandt
in 1762 raised the rent to £10 and at the
same time, Veal became a tenant—at-will; kept
the lease until 1786 when he removed to
Fishkill, Dutchess County, without having
paid his back-rent. Apparently, the heirs

of John Van Cortlandt could not recover the
back-rent from him for sometime thereafter.
Veal speculated in Mansfield, New Hampshire,
in 1763. (Receipt Book of John Van Cortlandt,
NYPL; V2201, SHRL; the heirs of John Van
Cortlandt to Joseph Veal at Fish Kill, May

7, 1788, June 24, 1788 and October 17, 1789,
Letter Book of Stephen and John Van Cort—
landt, 1771—1789, NYPL; Veal's Bond Deed,
April 29, 1762, V2201, SHRL).

Yeoman; in 1775; he bought a lease of
Farm No. 12; agreed to pay the back-rent of
the former lessee; rent for the first five
years was £5 and thereafter £6; continued
to keep it through the War. (Receipt Book
of John Van Cortlandt, NYHS).

Yeoman; leased sometime before 1765 and con-
tinued to pay his rent through the War; ap-
parently he bought the lease of Isaac Frost,
a tenant, and in 1792 he bought its soil
right for 3550 from the heirs of the Beek-
mans; sPeculated in Stowe, Vermont in 1764.
(John Van Cortlandt's Journal (0), NYPL;
John Van Cortlandt to Joseph Golden, May 24,

177

 

 

 

 

 

William Ted:
or Tead

William Beagle:

Samuel Wilson:

Abraham Golden:

1766, Letter Book of John Van Cortlandt,
NYPL; see also the back side of the lease
deed between the Beekmans and Isaac Frost,
V2188, SHRL; Batchellor, N. H. State Pap—
ggg, XXVI, 461-64).

Yeoman; leased 235 acres from Stephen Van
Cortlandt of New Jersey in 17605; besides,
he appears to have owned in fee simple some
tract of land, for he sold a part (40 acres)
of Farm No. 5 in N. Lot No. 5 to Hachariah
Brown, Jr. for 33300 in 1770; his will shows
that he purchased a farm of 136% acres from
James Wilson sometime before his death in
1807; his will bequeathed the 136% acres to
his son Isaac, to six grand-daughters $1500,
to a grandson $250, to a great grandson $250,
to his daughter his household furniture and
to his son, a daughter and a grand-dau hter
the residue of his personal estates. Deed
Book 33, p. 248, 088; Deed Book Aber I, 63—
5, WCCO; William Ted's will, February 16,
1807, Will Book E, 247-51, wcso).

Yeoman; leased 257 acres near William Ted's
in 1760s; in 1791, he bought 243 acres of
it from the heirs of Stephan Van Cortlandt
of New Jersey for 5%87. (Deed Book 23, .
248, 880; Deed Book Aber L, 207-08, WCCO .

Yeoman; came from Rye; bought, with Joseph
Wilson, from Stephen Van Cortlandt and his
wife Catalina of New Jersey 276 acres with
homes and improvements in 1753; he also
leased in the same year a farm of 341 acres
from them; later he sublet 40 acres to Isaac
Frost; in 1773, he bought 100 acres from the
Sheriff of the county for(£l75; he appears
in 1791 still holding his leaseo (Deed Book
23, p. 248, 083).

Yeoman; leased 242 acres in the 1760s; bought
the soil right of his lease for £500.10 in
1790; he willed in 1810 to his wife Phebe

the use of l cow and l calf during her widow—
hood, to three daughters $1500, to Charlotte
3200, to daughter Susannah $15 annually dur-
ing her life by his executors, to his grand—
son Isaac 8120 at his coming of age, and to
his two sons all the rest of personal and
real estate. (Deed Book 23, p. 248, OSS;
Deed Book Aber K, 442—44, WCCO; his will Nov—
ember 2, 1810, Will Book E, 110-12, W080).

178

 

T‘

 

F. The Ver Planck's Tenants

Real Estate Personal Estate
(pounds) pounds
William Clemens 400 1120
Joseph Fowler 300 1740
Benjamin Fields 1500 3760
Daniel Horton 210 568
Josiah Ingersoll 20 ——-

Supplementary Information on the Tenants listed above:

William Clemens: Yeoman; no information except that he was
son of Emmet Clemens possessing 300 acres
in S. Lot 2 in 1767, according to the will
of Philip Ver Planck. (Ver Planck's will,
October 23, 1767, NYHS. Coll., XXXI, 459.

Yeoman; leased 160 acres of land in S. Lot
No. 2 sometime before 1767; he willed, in
1789, to his wife Hannah his best horse,
saddle, and bridle, 4 best cows and calves,
10 best sheep with their lambs, 2 best
swine; to his son Joseph a farm that his
son was occupying on the condition that he
pay his other son Jesse .iZOO and his
daughter Elizabeth Forman ifio; to Jesse all
his "farm tenement" that he possessed on
the condition that he pay to Elizabeth ifio;
to his above—mentioned two sons all the
rest of his estate. (Philip Ver Planck's
will; Fowler's will, April 22, 1789, Will
Book B, 178—80, wvso).

Joseph Fowler:

Yeoman; appears as a tenant in possess-
ion of 300 acres in S. Lot No. 2 in 1767 ac~
cording to Philip Ver Planck's will.

(Philip Ver Planck's will).

Benjamin Fields:

Yeoman; possessed two farms (250 acres) in
S. Lot No. 2 in 1767; willed one third of
his real estate, 2 cows, 5 sheep, l lamb,
and 2 hogs to his wife during her life; all
the remainder of the estate to be divided
among his children. (Philip Ver Planck's
will March 6, 1812, Will Book E, 181—83,

wcso).

Daniel Horton:

Josiah Ingersoll: Yeoman; no information exce t that he
occupied Farm No. 6 in 1767° Philip Ver

Planck's will).

179

 

 

 

 

G. Philip and Pierre Van Cortlandt's Tenants

Real Estate Personal Estate
(pounds) (pounds)
Andries Miller 700 518
Cornight Briggs ' 850 1360

Supplementary Information on the Tenants listed above:

Andries Miller: Yeoman; in 1748 heocrupieda.farm of 250

acres in 8. Lot No. 1, according to the
, will of Philip Van Cortlandt; in 1759, his

lease and soil right were sold by the heirs
of Philip; in 1761, he bought from John
Watts, a husband of Anne (DeLancey),
daughter of Stephen DeLancey, 200 acres in
N. Lot No. 2 for£365.5; then, in 1784, he
sold it to John Strang for in specie.
(Philip Van Cortlandt's will, August 21,
1746, V1837, SHRL; Deed Book Aber I, 250-
55, WCCO).

Cornight Briggs: Yeoman; tenant of Philip Van Cortlandt
according to the will of the latter in
1746; occupied a farm of 250 acres in S.
Lot No. 1; his improvements on the lease
were rated £160 in 1758; in 1758, he
bought from Pierre Van Cortlandt, an exe-
cutor of Philip's will, 125 acres for
(£400; in 1761, bought from Pierre 25
acres for £75; in 1765, purchased from
Pierre and his wife Joanna 125% acres.
(Philip Van Cortlandt's will; New York Mer-
cur , November 28, 1757; V1643, V1836,
V2301, SHRL; Van Cortlandt-Van Wyck Papers,
Misc. Land Papers, Box 1, NYPL; Van
Cortlandt Papers, NYHS).

 

180

 

 

H. John Watt's Tenants

Real Estate Personal Estate
(pounds) (pounds)
William Horton 700 330
Ephraim Beadle 575 864

Supplementary Information on the Tenants listed above:

William Horton: Yeoman; came from White Plains; he inherit-

Ephraim Beadle:

ed a farm from his father Joseph in 1757 and
also owned a lease in S. Lot No. 1 at the
annual rent of £3; in 1763, sold about 99
acres for .£900 to Cornelius Mandevell; in
1775, bought 163% acres of land in the manor
for 400 from John Oakley of the Manor of
Philipsburgh; a record indicates that he
bought from Pierre Van Cortlandt 63 acres in
S. Lot No. 1; also speculated in Mansfield,
New Hampshire in 1763; he willed to his

wife Abia the profit of one third of his es—
tate during her life and widow—hood; to his
tWo sons his farm on the condition that

they will pay $140 to their brothers and
sisters; to two sons £40 out of movables;
and to three daughters the remainder of his
personal estates. (Joseph Horton's will,
November 8, 1757, NYHS. Coll., XXIX, 224;
Receipt Book of Pierre Van Cortlandt, rent
rolls for John Watts, V1689, SHRL; Deed

Book Aber G, 592, Aber I, 134-36; Van Cort-
landt—Van Wyck Papers, Misc. Land papers,
Box 1, William Horton's will, December 20,
1799, Will Book C, 53-6, WCSO; Batchellor,
N. H. State Papers, XXVI, 514—18).

Yeoman; leased a farm in the 17605; his will
left the following items to his devisees;

To his son 31, to daughter Deborah all his
money, goods, and chattels on condition that
she pay his debts and funeral charges, to
son Daniel 8375, to son David $580, to grand—
children $757, to four daughters $500, to

his daughter Deborah forever 8 or 9 acres of
land that he had bought from Captain Henry
Strang, a dwelling house, and one half of
his other land and tenements provided that
she pay a half of the above mentioned lega—
cies; and to son Jacob forever another house,
and one other half of his land provided that
he pay a half of the legacies. (Deed Book
Aber K, 16-8, WCCO; Beadle's will, September
16, 1809, Will Book G, 322—23, WCSO).

181

 

 

I. The Bayards' Tenants

Real Estate Personal Estate

(pounds) pounds

William &
Hendrick Lent 400 1090
Daniel Strang 350 -—-

Supplementary Information of the Tenants listed above:

William &

Hendrick Lent: Yeoman; sons of John Lent, who leased

Daniel Strang:

Front Lot No. 5 containing 1223 acres in
1733 from Samuel Bayard for "three lives"
at the yearly rent of £5.10; when John
Lent died in the 17605, William and.Hend-
rick too over the lease; by that time,

its improvement was substantial, so the
heirs of Samuel Bayard conveyed 111 acres
to their tenants as a compensation for

the improvements in order to recover the
land in 17710 (Quit—claim deed, April 18,
1771, on the back of the lease from Samuel
Bayard to John Lent, Bayard—Campbell-
Pearsall Land Papers, NYPL; Hendrick's will,
March 5, 1792, and William's will, July 6,
1795, Will Book B, 221-22, 372-73, wcso)°

Yeoman; leased Farm No. 2 in the east
range of N. Lot No. 5 in the 17505; not
much information. (V2076, SHRL; Deed Book
Aber H, 481, WCCO).

182

 

 

J. The Skinners' Tenants

Real Estate Personal Estate
(pounds) pounds)
Seth Whitney 700 744
Solomon Smith --- 96
Michael Michael 600 928
Joseph Smith 700 518
Joseph Benedict 800 350

Supplementary Information on the Tenants listed above:

Seth Whitney: Yeoman; leased a farm of 206% acres in S.
Lot No. 10 sometime before 1757 paying the
annual rent of i4; Speculated in Lincoln,
New Hampshire in 1764; he paid James Avery
(£5 for the latter's effort to procure from
"Hampshire Government grant of" Lincoln
township in the year; in 1765, bought the
soil right of his lease for.£671.18.9 mort-
gaging 40 acres out of 206% acres for his
bond .£105.6; in 1768 he paid the sum to
one of the heirs of the Skinners and, ac—
cordingly, 1768, the heirs released and
quit-claimed the 40 acres to Whitney; in
1773 Whitney bought another piece of land
containing 30 acres from Caleb and Jacob
Frost for (£27.10; after the War, he bought
from the Commissioners of Forfeiture a loyal—
ist estate of 80 acres for £160; in 1792, he
bought from David Hallock and his wife "about
100 acres" of land in 8. Lot N00 4 for jMOO;
he died in 1807. (His rent receipts, deeds,
and others, Whitney Papers and Whitney-Kipp
Family Papers, NYHS; Deed Book 18, p° 148,
OSS; Seth Whitney's will, January 1, 1807,
Will Book F, 292, WCSO).

Solomon Smith: Yeoman; no information except that he had a
lease of 201% acres in 1764. (Deed Book 18,
p. 148, 088).

Michael Michael: Yeoman; no date for his settlement in the
manor; bought soil right of his lease of
231% acres, Farm No. 4, S. Lot No. 4 for
,f 811.2.6 in 1765; two years later, he
sold to Nathan Whitney, a tenant of the
Warrens, 100 acres for i500; evidence indi—
cates that his son Uriah owned in fee simple
Farm No. 8, 5. Lot No. 4 in 1770. (Deed
Book 18, p. 148, OSS; Deed Book Aber G,
599-600, Aber 1, 24-5, WCCO).

183

e
C n
a Q T
n
a
e
s
Q C
, o
.
V s
.. ox
.
n
1
t
e .

 

Joseph Smith: Yeoman; no information except that he
held a lease of 227% acres. (Deed
Book 18, p. 148, 088).

Joseph Benedict: Yeoman; Assistant in 1755; in 1760,
bought from the heirs of Samuel Bayard
454 acres in N. Lot No. 9 for i500.10 on
mortgage; in 1772, the heirs completely
quit-claimed the land; he held the
Skinner's lease until the end of 1766 when
it, along with others, was put on sale by
the heirs. (Deed Book 18, p. 148, OSS;
Deed Book Aber H, 320-25, 384-85, WCCO;
New York Mercur , December 22, 1766; "Civil
Officers for the Manor of Cortlandt,"
Colonial Mss., LXXI, NYPL J.

184

 

 

K. The Johnstons' Tenants

Real Estate Personal Estate
(Pounds) (pounds)
John Hempstead 300 354

Supplementary Information on the tenant listed above:

John Hempstead: Yeoman; in 1763, he leased Farm No. 4 in
N. Lot No. 7; in 1772, the lease was re-
newed by the heirs of Andrew Johnston.
(Berton, II, p. 133).

185

 

 

 

 

owH

III. III III III II! III NI! Hobo m coo.m

H www.muooo.m

H m ama.HnOOm.H

H H oH oas.Hnooo.H

H oH eamuooa

mH omouoom

H H a ea¢IOmm

HH msmuoow

moHuooH

H m as a H

H NH odoz

nonosoa A¢HEm vamflnk use Hoadwom Hopdom HomooM ndEooH wvsdom
Ixoon IHHHS IoHPnow Inoo Imonm

deflwmmfiooo can
mmoHo an quouoa one %o wwflflpfiom hphomonm Honomhomll.NH canoe

 

 

 

 

——________—__—,‘ .

Table l3.—-List of Tenants not on the Tax List of 1779
but their BrOperty Holdings
Identifiable

Name &
Occupation

John Hyat, Sr.
Justice of the
Peace; one of
the Commissioners
of Highways, 1756;
tenant of the
Beekmans

Gilbert Drake, Esq.
Merchant & Chairman
of the Committee of
Society in Westches-
ter County in 1755-
1776; tenant of the
Beekmans

Nathaniel Merrit
Boatman

Jacobus Krankhyt
Yeoman; tenant of
the Beekmans

Benjamin Kniffen
Yeoman; tenant

Property

In 1757, he bought a lease
from A. Barton for $62.10;
besides, he had two rented
farms, one of which he ac-
quired in 1749; in 1760 he
willed .£52 to his children.
(His will, April 22, 1760,
NYHS. Coll., XXX, 244; Th2
Colonial Laws, IV, 79; V1942,
NFTEETTSEEJT

 

In 1772, leased 220 acres;
bought 204 acres for £700;in
1767; held a bond of £300
against a tenant. (Deed Book
Aber H, 272-74, 182-83, 186—
87; V2205, SHRL).

He held estate worth £416 as
of 1776. (Loyalist Papers,
XXIV, 333).

He willed in 1771 to his two
children 100 acres of land (in
fee simple) in the Rykes Pat-
ent. (His will, January 7, 1771,
Yacobus Krankhyt Papers, NYHS;
Van Cortlandt Papers, Box Misc.
Mss., NYHS).

In 1768, he bought 137 acres

for £300 and sold it for £540
in 1776. (V1931, SHRL; Deed

Book Aber K, 390-91, 394-96,

WCCO).

187

 

 

 

 

David Brown
Yeoman; tenant
of Philip Van
Cortlandt

Henry Scot
Yeoman; tenant
of Philip Van
Cortlandt

Nathan Whitney
Yeoman;"tenant
of the Warrens

Gilbert Totten
Yeoman; tenant
of the Warrens

James Cook
Cooper; tenant
of the Warrens

Samuel Frost
Yeoman; tenant
of the Warrens

Silas Smith
Yeoman; tenant
of the Warrens

Evidence shows that he held

about 100 acres of land, 20

acres of which he sold for £110
in 1774. (Deed Book Aber H, pp.
558—59, WCCO; As for his tenant
status, see Philip Van Cortlandt's
will, NYHS. Coll., XXVIII, 203).

He bought 482 acres of land of
land in 1757, which his execu—
tors sold for £1,400 in 1762; he
bequeathed in his will £130 in
cash and other property to his
eight children. (Deed Book Aber
H, 250-52, 501-02, WCCO; V1836,
SHRL; his will, November 2, 1761;
NYHS. Coll., XXX, 126).

He had estates worth £5,000 be—
fore the Revolution. (American
Loyalists, XXIX, p. 117).

During his time, he owned a 233
acre—lease and a tract of land

(in fee) in Rye; he willed, be-
sides these farms, two negroes,
35200 in cash and other movables
to his heirs. (His will, February
6, 1766, NYHS. Coll., XXXI, 8—9;
V1689, SHRL).

In 1758, he bought a lease for
(£192.12; in 1773, he bought 54
acres of land (in fee) for £130;
he held a bond of.£60 against
Lewis Hustid who went to Nova
Scotia during the Revolution.
(Deed Book Aber H, 434—36, Aber

K, 281, Aber 1, 308—11, WCCO;
V2301, SHRL; Warren Papers, NYHS).

He bought a lease for £120 in
1759. (V2301, SHRL; Warren
Papers, NYHS).

He bought a lease for £162 in

1759. (V2301, SHRL; Warren
Papers, NYHS).

188

 

 

 

— ‘

Richard Crab
Yeoman; tenant
of the Warrens

James Lockwood
Yeoman; tenant
of James DeLancey

Benedict Carpenter
Yeoman; tenant
of Stephen DeLancey

Andrew Gerow
Yeoman; tenant
of the Schuylers

He bought a lease for £72 in 1758;
died in 1769 leaving £20 in cash,
movables and the lease (V2301,
SHRL; Warren Papers, Univ° of
London; his will, May 6, 1768,
NYHS. Coll., XXXI, 209—10).

Record indicates that he owned,
besides his lease, at least 142
acres of land in the manor until
the Revolution broke out°
(V2301, SHRL; Deed Book Aber I,
107-08, 201-02)°

In 1773, he bought the soil
right of his lease (about 106
acres) and sold it for $250 in
1776 when he moved to Scarsdale.
(Deed Book Aber I, 177-78, WCCOS
V1644, SHRL).

In 1768, he bought the soil right
of 109 acres of land, a art of
his lease, for $196.4. Deed
Book Aber I, 355, WCCO; The New
York Gazette and the Weekl
Mercur , April 4, 1768}.

189

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

190
real property he owned either as a freeholder or a lease-
holder, would hardly have been poor. Yet 82% of the ten—
ants for whom we have information possessed personal estates
alone worth more than £200.

Even some of the sixteen tenants with less than £200
personal property were not really poor, as is shown by sup—
plementary evidence at our diSposal. If we accept the tax
list at face value, five tenants--Solomon Close, Josiah
Ingersoll, Daniel Strang, and Solomdn Smith--might be con—
sidered poor because of the lack of additional information
about them. But the rest seem to have had owned some real
property and to have had other financial assets. Thus, John
Maybee, a former tenant of Philip Van Cortlandt and Oliver
DeLancey, is listed as having landed estates worth .£240.
But Maybee in 1761 bought the soil rights of his 240-acre
lease in South Lot No. 6 for £fi96 on mortgage from DeLancey.
DeLancey's receipt papers make it clear that by 1769 Maybee
had liquidated both the principal and interest of his debt
through four payments totalling £629.l4 Another example is
Joseph Strang, a shop—keeper and tenant of the Beekmans,
who during the Revolution became a commander of one of the

Northern Battalions. The tax—list assessment of his estate

 

14Oliver DeLancey's receipts of rent of John Maybee
and others in "Account Book of Pierre Van Cortlandt," V2301,
V1685, SHRL; Maybee's mortgage deed, April 27, 1761, V1644,
SHRL; DeLancey's receipts of payment, V1644, SHRL.

 

 

 

 

 

 

191
shows that he owned land worth £600, but no movables. Nev-
ertheless, he bought between 1759 and 1770 four pieces of
land and tenements, including 20 acres in South Lot No. 3
for<£6o, 76 acres in South Lot No. 4 for $296.3.4, 6 acres
in North Lot No. 4 for £210 and 11 acres in South Lot N00 4

15

for ifi4. Therefore, the number of poor tenants of the

16 Another sixteen ten—

manor was probably very small indeed°
ants, as shown in Table 13, were not on the tax list, but the
size of their property holdings is discernible and does noth-
ing to change the general picture of tenant welfare.

Rather than forcing a man into a life of continual
poverty, tenancy, as the available information on these 33
renters shows, permitted upward mobility. Take, for example,
the case of Nathan Whitney, a tenant of the Warrens. Whitney
first leased a modest farm of 204 acres during the early
1740's, paying yearly rent of £3.10 for it.17 By the end
of the decade he was able to purchase an 83-acre farm for

18

e£85 in Orange County. And in 1767 he added 100 acres of

 

15See "List of Tenants in the Manor of c. of Col
Henry Beekman & wife. . .," Cortlandt Manor Papers, NYHS;
Deed Book Aber H, pp. 264-74, WCCO.

16The rest of the tenants who cannot be classified
as "poor" are John Bryant, John Veal, Peter Montross, Will-
iam Lent, John Delivan, Halsey Wood, Timothy Van Scoy, and
Andrew Merrit. See the brief biographical remarks on each
of the tenants in Table 12.

17"Account Book of Pierre Van Cortlandt," V2310, SHRL.

18Whitney Papers, NYHS.

 

 

 

 

 

192
improved land (,iSOO) to his leasehold. Four years later,
he bought another 80 acres of land adjoining his estate for
($350.19 By the time of the War for Independence, he had an
estate worth.£2002, including his lease ( $100), but not
counting his land in Orange County. For his support of the
Loyalist cause, he lost his estate, but was compensated by

the British government after the war.20

Many similar ex—
amples of economic advancement could be cited.

More significant than the mere expansion of Whitney's
estate was the slow but steady progression of his social
status. Until 1771, he always was referred to in his deeds
as "Yeoman," even though in 1755 he had been chosen as an
Assistant, along with Pierre Van Cortlandt and others. In
his 1771 deed, however, he was referred to as "squire," de-
Spite his being tenant as well as freeholder.21 "Squire" and
"gentleman," terms used interchangeably at the time, were the
hallmark of the upper class.

Nathan Whitney was by no means the only tenant who
succeeded in climbing to such a high social standing. The

attainments of at least four others—-Joseph Budd, John Hyat,

 

 

19Deed Book Aber H, pp. 463-65, 466-68, wcco.

 

20Loyalist Papers, XXIX, p. 117.

21Deed, Dennis Wortman to Nathan Whitney, Esq. of
Cortlandt, June 13, 1771, Deed Book Aber H, pp. 466—68,
WCCO.

 

bf

 

 

 

193

Sr., Gilbert Drake, and Joseph Sherwood——were equal to his.
Except for Sherwood, they all began adult life as tenants.
But each took a different path to climb the social ladder.
Apparently, one achieved it by a combination of both wealth
and ability.

Budd, a descendant of the first settler in the Town
of Rye, rented a farm of 220 acres from the Beekmans during
the 17405 at a yearly rent of £3.10, two fowls, and one day's

2 He did

work. He kept the lease until his death in 1761.2
not own any estate other than his "tenant farm," dwelling
house, and some movables. But neighbors addressed him as
"Esquire," the title by which he referred to himself in his

One would be at a loss to explain his recognition
as "Gentleman" except for ability.

Seven years after John Hyat leased a 331-acre farm
from the Beekmans in 1749, he, together with Philip Ver
Planck (Assemblyman from the manor) and Pierre Van Cortlandt,

was appointed by the colonial Assembly as Commissioner of

the Public Highways in the manor. He also served as a

 

22Calendar of Hist. Mss., XL, p. 129, NYPL; "List for
Gertd Beekman Mann Cortland. . .," Van Cortlandt Papers, NYHS;
Budd's will, September 18, 1761, NYHS. Coll., XXX, p. 234.

23As for his neighbor's calling him "Esquire," see
Solomon Lane's will, May 9, 1759, NYHS. Coll., XXX, pp.
319—200

 

194

Justice of the Peace.24 The expansion of his estate closely
paralleled his political preferment. In 1757 he added an-
other 230 acres to his estate by purchasing a lgagg (for
£62.10.9) from a fellow tenant, Andrew Barton.25 There is
no evidence, however, that he ever held any real estate in
fee simple. Yet he was wealthy enough to provide his three
sons-—John Jr., Joshua, and Silvanus--with moderately large
leaseholds in the manor. And he died in 1760 as a "Gentle~
man. "26

In contrast to Budd and Hyatt, who earned their live—
lihood from the soil, Gilbert Drake was a tenant-merchant.
Until 1772, when he took a lease of 220 acres from Gertruyd
Beekman, he was a tenant of the neighboring Philipsburgh
Manor.27 He and his partners, Joshua Delaplaine of New

York City and Samuel Drake of the Philipsburgh, dealt in

 

24Lease, the Beekmans to John Hyatt, V1942, No. 2,

SHRL; the act passed on April 1, 1756, The Colonial Laws, IV,
p. 79; "Account of the settlement of Joshua Hyat's Rent with
Pierre Van Cortlandt," dated June 4, 1782, V1680, SHRL.

25Lhase, Barton to John Hyatt, November 5, 1757,
V1945, SHRL.

 

26Hyatt's will, April 22, 1760, NYHS. Coll. xxx, p.

244. As for his tenant status, see Gertrudy Beekman's will,
Mss., 12695, NYSL.

 

27Lease, the Beekmans to Gilbert Drake, Esq., Manor
of Philipsburgh, May 6, 1772, V2205, SHRL; Deed Book Aber H,
PP. 272—74, WCCO.

   

 

 

 

 

195
mill and farming equipment in Westchester and Orange Coun-
ties.28 In 1767 he purchased a lot of 204 acres for.£700

from an heir of Elizabeth Skinner and erected grist and
saw mills on it. A decade later, he sold this pr0perty for
£3,000:29 By 1770 he had established himself among the
social elite and henceforth was referred to in deeds as
"esquire!" In 1775 he was elected as the Chairman of the
Committee of Safety in Westchester County.30
Joseph Sherwood's success was achieved differently.
He was already a freeholder, owning about 200 acres, when he
was elected Justice of the Peace succeeding John Hyat, Sr.
in 1760. 'He also succeeded Hyat as one of the Commissioners

of Highways for the manor in 1765.31

In 1773, he bought a
lease of two farms from Joseph Anthony, which the latter had

purchased from John Wright, Jr., for 5%50 nine years before32

 

 

28Gilbert Drake's order on Joshua Delaplaine, Joyner,
of New York City, April 5, 1759, Misc. Mss. T., NYHS; Joshua
Delaplaine Papers, passim, NYHS.

29Deed Book Aber G., pp. 663-64, Aber I, pp. 172—73,
WCCO. As for his other land and business transactions, see
Deed Book Aber H, pp. 186—87, 272-74, 378-80, Aber I, pp.
232-33, WCCO.

30Calendar of Historical Manuscripts Relating to the
War of the Revolution in the Office of Secretary pf State, 2
vols. (Albany, 1868), I, p. 133; Rivington's New York Gazet-
teer, May 11, 1775.

31Deed Book Aber H, pp. 182-83, WCCO; Deed Book 27, p.
125, OSS; "Deposition of Lawrence Huff against Joseph Sherwood,
a justice of peace for the manor," May 13, 1760, Calendar of
Hist. Mss., LXXXVIII, p. 12, The Colonial Laws, IV, pp. 895-96.

32"Rent Rolls of the Warrens. . .," Warren Papers,

Univ. of London.

   

 

 

 

196

The career of several tenants clearly attests to
prevailing fluidity of social classes in the manor. That
some already well-to-do people like Gilbert Drake and Jo-
seph Sherwood took leases shows that a tenancy was not re—
garded as a stigma to social resPectability nor as an ob~
stacle to political advancement. In other words, the manor
provided tenants with a kind of social opportunity that the
colony in general afforded to the people and accomodated
their aspirations.

That manorial tenants were not living in poverty under
"quasi-feudal" conditions in underscored by the speculative
activities of many renters. New Hampshire patent records
yield evidence that at least twenty-one tenants of the manor
(without counting their immediate relatives) Speculated in
land within the jurisdiction of the New Hampshire government.
In 1763, fourteen tenants, namely Silas Smith, Walter Ward,
Samuel Frost, William Borden, Joseph Strang, Nathan Whitney,
William Horton, John Baily, John Maybee, Samuel Jones, Capt.
Annanias Rogers, Joseph Veal, John Veal, and Bartlet Brun-
dige were granted about 320 acres each in Mansfield, later a
part of Stowe, Vermont.33 The same year, five other tenants,
Nathaniel Merrit, Peter Montross, Abel Weeks, Benjamin Green,
and Simon Brady, each obtained about the same amount of lafid

in Stowe.34 The next year, Seth Whitney, another tenant,

 

33

34Ibid., pp. 461—64; Town Records of Stowe; Land Re—

cords of Stowe, 2 vols., passim.

Batchellor, N. H. State Papers, XXVI, pp., 514—18.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

197
speculated in the Township of Lincoln, for which he paid

James Avery £5 for his "expense and labor."35

The New Hamp—
shire government charged a fee of.£100 for each of the three
grants.

These speculative ventures, however, were unsuccess—
ful. The 24,000 acres in Lincoln to Seth Whitney and sixty—
two others, were forfeited to the Governor and Council in
1772 because of grantees' failure to comply with the condi—
tions of the grant. Peter Montross, Simon Brady, and Abel
Weeks sold a part (100 acres) of their rights in Stowe for
$5.7, $5.6, and $6.7 respectively at vendues in March and

7

April, 1771.3 And Silas Smith, Joseph Strang, and John

 

Baily sold for an unknown sum their rights in Mansfield to

Jacob Watson of New York City in the 1780's.38

But the re—
maining shares of all the major speculators were put to sale
by the Stowe and Mansfield town authorities for tax delin-

quency. According to Stowe town records, the town land tax

reached $1.1.3. per share by 1789. To defray town expenses

 

35Batchellor, N. H. State Papers, XXV, pp. 234—37.

 

36Isaac W. Hammond, Documents Relating to Towns in
New Hampshire, 22 vols. (Concord, 1883), XII, p. 229, 361,
40

O

 

37Town Records of Stowe. 1

38Mansfield Proprietors Book of Records, Book I,

passim,

 

1‘} T..- “1...“. .

 

 

 

 

 

198
such as the division of land, making and repairing bridges
and roads, the vendue of "delinquent proprietors' lands" was
held from time to time until 1800, when the liquidation of
the tenant speculators’ rights was completed. Even though
the town record claims that the town had notified the affec—
ted proprietors of their tax delinquency status well in ad—
vance of the vendue, it is doubtful if the proprietors actu—
ally saw the notice which was published in a Vermont news—
paper.39 The township of Mansfield also in 1828, after a
series of vendues, made final the extinction of the shares
of proprietors such as Nathan Whitney, John Veal, Capt.
Annanias Rogers, and William Borden for the tax defaults

4O Conflicts of interest between

amounting to £12.80 each.
the actual settlers on the one hand and Speculators and ab—
sentee landlords on the other, common in colonial history,
ended in Stowe and Mansfield in favor of the actual settlers.
The relevance of the story of tenant land Speculation
to this study lies in the failure of the tenants to settle
on the newly acquired land. Nowhere in the well—preserved
town records of Stowe and Mansfield is there an indication
that any of the tenant speculators or their relatives moved
to the new towns. It would seem logical that if relation—

ships between landlord and tenant were actually "quasi—feudal,"

 

39Town Records of Stowe.

4OMansfield Proprietors Book of Records, Book 2, pp.
33—40, 164—74.

 

 

 

 

 

 

199
oppressive, and unbearable as some historians have argued,
the tenants would have left the manor immediately after se—
curing their land grants in order to find new homes com-
pletely unhindered by "quasi-feudal" encumbrances. They did
not settle in Mansfield or Stowe, however, but let their
lands slip into the hands of other settlers. This bolsters
our conclusion that leasehold conditions were not Oppressive
and suggests that tenants may have had too much at stake to
leave the manor.

This discussion of prosPerity and social mobility of
the manor points to another important question: How did they
manage to become well—to—do? In other words, what conditions
were there conducive to attaining such prosperity? Besides
the generous economic opportunity as the result of the abun—
dance of land and high wages for labor, there was ohe factor
of immediate importance for the tenant welfare. That was the
necessity for improvement on the virgin and primitive land.
Without improvement, the land was not worth much. In fact,
this improvement constituted one of the important bases of
the tenant property.

According to Governor Bellomont's observation, an
acre of land in New York in 1699 cost .f4.10 to "clear it
from the woods."41 This figpreq, of course, did not include

the cost of building orchards, dwellings, barns or other

 

41Earl of Bellomont to the Lords of Trade, August
24, 1699, N. Y. C01. DOCo, IV, PP. 549, 553—54-

 

 

 

 

nouns;
Gonna?
nouns?
resonance
nob finch
monks?
hoodsaon
mound?
Pdamavhoo
na> mfiansm
Pdddaphoo
has nnaasm
#dfloapnoo
has naannm
PdflwHQHOO
ss> annnnm
vdasavhoo
no> mannsm
PddoHPHoo
so> msflanm
fiwHHd?
dflfixwmm
flwhhdg
nouns?
fimhhd?

dnoawnmg

 

 

wmhfi
wmha
mesa

wmha
omva
wmha
wmba

wmha
wmha
wmha
wmva
wmha
mmha
wmha
Nmna
thH

orba
OVNH

daom
open

CON

pm. em

w OHH
we. OH.0¢
0*. oHH
ww. NmH

a cm

a me

a N
am. th
ww. OmH

a w
mwe ONH

a om
ww. NHeNmH
av. oooH.No

a em

a a
me. OOH

domsoq Amcadomv

snow odao>

.Honofi one aw cocoa no mPQoSoPOHmEH mo cadmil

xIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlllll----------

hphwm ddnmoh
Eschamm owaooa
Haosom mesons

woo? humom
spasm ooanm
PMOHW Hwflfidm
none seasons
resonenoo
flm> ohaoflm
annaaenoo
nm> ouhowm
posoaenoo
am> onhowm
apnoaenoo
nm> ohnowm
apnofienoo
no> ounoflm
eosoaenou
no> masons
moon awash
exam snow
HHosEOHo mesons
Hops“: Bones:
horses enonfiao

Hohzm

Hmhalmwba

Hosaono masons
coca bosom
Parana noose
saunas noose
mayhem Phenom
QMMMwHw noosb
spasm neon
meon Hofiasm
enmnom seamen
mmmfinm vnwwahoo
mmsnm HoonH
wswnsm dosoaom
monsoow aowaaflk
PoHHsm omsoow
flovncm soudn4
anon? nd> sonshn4

HoHoona oofivmrh
sonaom .ns

HoHHom

ova oHnt

 

 

 

 

HON

.mmwz .onoaam onoaom mononoaz .Nssa .oH nonsooon

.dhohsm Edwaaflz c? PwQsHPHoo ns> ohhowm “amwz .mnomsm puma
HasmssomlaaonmssOIpnohsm .Pfloa finch ow pnshsm Hofiaom .omsoH
nonwz .oH rem .anoaom eonasnom mqmwz .opnaaenoo na> snow

90 Boom Hoevoa “mmwz .vasfisuoo ns> mach mo Moom Pmflooom
“ssoa> .mwoa> .HOmms .ponaaenoo nos onnoam to room phrases

as no
asaxoom HoNH mp. 00» .Hh .vohm anon
nosroom a mm. oH.Hom mnnrmsoe snow
muonnsg ebe s a howaok swede?
xoqoam Ho> Nth w ooN w
pnnsom Hahn mm. Han phenom manonoaz
vdqsavnoo
nos snow ones a sea noonoo rashes
HoahSAom Oth N Go nssnom nons<
sonar; seas as.o one seasons gnomes
nonnos Nona a mo sooner Henson
nouns? Hoba w ONH condom Eofifiafla
awasavnoo
dab. flea. @th M. 0V :wPHHB mac:
waow pomoog Ampnflomv
whoapasa ofioa know odas> Hohsm

um¢OH5°m

wohm szamoh
«sarcasm snob
homao? Hoqum
Hodhm noooh

smog Moflupcom
was sowHHflB

Haonhoo Hoflmom
mamboww finch

.ns .rnmans snow
phones Henson
hno>¢ .HE

sooflana snow

HOHH¢M

 

 

 

 

202
facilities. Since the value of labor progressively increased
as the years passed, it is highly probable that the cost of
improvements also went up. If a tenant cleared ten acres of
land, it meant that he had acquired the vested interest of
3M5 in the land by the 1699 standard. The more he improved,
the greater the value of his lease became. Even the re-
quired planting of apple trees in orchards eventually com—
pensated the tenant since a good apple tree generally was
rated at 7d. The tenant's improvements also raised the value
of soil and it was partly because of this that the manor land
was on the average valued £3 per acre, while unimproved land
in other areas was rated at only 2s to 38 per acre.

Despite the fact that twenty—nine cases of the im—
provement sale by the lessee were in Table 14, it iS impOs—
sible to ascertain the worth of the improvements they had
made during certain spans of time because of the Paucity of
information on the date each of them took a lease. Table 14
makes it clear that the extent of improvements varied Widely
from one individual to another. However, comparing the
length of the lease with the value of improvements Support a
view that, with slight exceptions, the longer one held the
leasef“greater its value become. So, in the course of time,
the increment of improvements' value grew and reached eXtra—
ordinary amounts. John Hyat, Jr. declared in 1796 to Pierre
Van Cortlandt, one of the heirs of Gertruyd Beekman, that

several people were willing to offer him £1,400 for his legs
e

 

 

 

 

 

203
with improvements on it.42 Simon Brady paid the landlord
in 1792 only £500 for the farm of 385 acres worth.£l,000 in—
cluding its soil right, because his improvements were "of

more value than £500."43

Sometimes, the improvements' value
was compensated in land instead of cash by a landlord who
wanted to sell the soil right before the lease tenure ex~
pired. For example, as Table 14 shows, William and Hendrick
Lent received from the heirs of Samuel Bayard land totalling
111 acres of well improved land with tenements when they
quit—claimed to the landlord the lease of 1,234 acres which
their father John Lent had rented for "three lives in 1733?4
The improvement as a source of property and profit
also manifested itself in land transactions in which the

former tenant was the seller. Henry Scot, a tenant of Philip

 

Van Cortlandt and his heir from 1747 to 1758, bought, in the

last year of his tenancy, two farms of 482 acres in North

 

ierre Van Cortlandt to son Philip, March (?),
1796, V1783, SHRL.

43Stephen Van Cortlandt (son of John) to Simon Brady,
May 12, 1792 and June 21, 1792, Stephen Van Cortlandt to
David Montross, June 21, 1792, Letter Book of John and
Stephen Van Cortlandt, NYPL.

44See the back side of the lease to John Lent,
father of William and Hendrick Lent, May 1, 1733, Bayard-
Campbell-Pearsall Land Papers, NYPL; The New York Egzette
and The Weekly Mgrcury, May 16, 1772.

 

 

 

204
Lot No. 6 for $819.9, one of which was his lease. Four
years later, the executors of Scot's will sold the same

5 The tre—

premises for £1,400, a profit of nearlyi600.4
mendous difference between his purchase prices and sale
price within such a short period was perhaps due to the
value of his improvements which had not been included in
his purchase price° However, Scot's profit as a result of
his improvements was small compared to the case of Daniel
Lobdill. Lobdi11,who had been in possession of a lease of
123 acres for some time, bought its soil right- from the
heirs of Stephen DeLancey for.£184.l7 in May, 1773. In the

following year, he sold it for £460.46

In Lobdill's case,
improvements on his lease were worth more than its soil
right. These are only a few of the many examples to show
that the lease and its improvements played a considerable
part in uplifting the economic well-being of the tenants in
the manor.

However, an impetus to Spur the tenant to cultivate
his lease and subsequent growth of its improvement value
would have been negligible if farming had not been lucrative
and geared to the production of saleable surplus for a mar—

ket. In view of the size of leases, large personal estate

 

45Deed Book Aber K, pp. 250—52, Aber H, pp. 501—62,
WCCO; "Estate of Philip Van Cortlandt, dec'd," V1836; Henry
Scot's will, November 2, 1761, NYHS. Coll., XXX, p. 126.

46Deed Book Aber H., pp. 518-20, 520—24, wcco.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

205
holdings of the tenants, and cash—rent payment, there is no
doubt that tenants engaged in commercial rather than sub—
sistence farming. Receipt books of Pierre Van Cortlandt
and others holding stores reveal a variety of farm goods
that the tenants raised. Among them, the most conSpicuous
ones were wheat, flax, corn, and oats, besides livestock.
Peter Hasenclever, who, as an agent of a certain company in
1763, came to the Colonies to undertake commercial farming
and iron works, provided an insight into the workings of
the farming operations.47 In the report of his activities
in New York and New Jersey after his failure, he touched in
detail upon the costs for a gentleman—planter of producing
wheat and flax as follows:48

A° ExPences to cultivate an Acre of
Wheat in New York

Plowing an acre 3 times at 53 each——- £O.*15. 0
Once harrowing an acre --------------- £0. 5. 0
1% bushels of seed at 55 per bushel-- £0. 7. 6
Mowing, housing, thrashing, cleaning

& carrying to market, N. Y. C. ——————— £0. 15. 0

An acre of middling good land may produce
from 10 to 14 bushels, & on an average
12 bushels, which costs a gentleman who

 

 

pays all expences £2. 2. 6
And, on an average, he may sell the

bushel at 55, which is ——————————————— £3. 0. O
profit &0. 17. 0

 

47Deed Book 17, pp. 287-95, 346, oss.

48The Remarkable Case of Peter Hasenclever, pp. 89-
91°

 

 

206

B. Account of the EXpences to raise a
Ton of Flax in America fit for Ex-
portation, which required 10 acres

 

 

of Land

plowing 10 acres twice, at 55 per acre—£5. O. 0
20 bushels of seed at 45 6d per bushel—£4. 10. 0
Harrowing 10 acres at 55 per acre —————— $2. 10. 0
pulling flax on 10 acres, at 75 per

acre i3. 10. O
watering & drying the flax from 10 acres

at 7s‘per acre—— £3. 10. 0
Breaking & Swingling, Supposing each

acre produces 224 Lb° Swidled flax at

3d, per Lb, is per ton ——————————————— £28. 0., 0

According to Hasenclever's account, a gentleman-
planter could make a profit of 17s per acre from raising
wheat andwf9 from ten acres of flax. In terms of percentage,
he would get a return of a handsome seventy-four per cent
from his investment in each. However, his above account
for a gentleman—planter's undertaking should be aCcepted
with a great reservation to understand the nature of tenant
farming. Although his view on this matter was particularly
reliable because of the fact that he actually engaged in com-
mercial farming in the Manor of Cortlandt and in Orange County,
he was talking about commercial farming on the part of a
gentleman-planter, not a tenant farmer.

Above all, an ordinary tenant did not have to depend
upon hiring expensive labor, as a gentleman did, for "plowing,"
"harrowing," ”moving," "housing," "thrashing," "cleaning,"
"carrying," "pulling," "watering," "drying," "breaking," and
"swingling." Other than his own labor and the labor of his

usually large family, the tenant could dispense with the large

 

 

 

 

 

207
expenditure for labor which constituted more than eighty
per cent of the cost of production. Therefore, it can be
reasonably assumed that the profit the tenant reaped from
the production of wheat and flax was much higher, nearly
800%, than that of the gentleman.

Thus, the lack of social discrimination against the
tenant and fluidity of social classes were matched by econ-
omic rewards for his occupational endeavor. Tenancy as an
institution could not and did not hamper his human desire
to get ahead socially and economically, as the above dis-
cussion amply demonstrates. After making due allowance
for the fact that a tenancy was something less thanéfree-
holder, his status was not so bad as many historians made
him out to be. However, because of his being a tenant and
dependent in part upon a landlord for his livelihood, he was

sometimes subjected to a force over which he had no command—

 

ing control. At that juncture, he had to react to the force

somehow. We shall see how he reacted.

L

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER VII
THE TENANT UPRISING OF 1766

"The New York tenant rebellion of 1766," according
to a recent account, "is one of the most dramatic examples
of internal social conflict during the era of the American

Revolution."1

Since the uprising affected in a small way
the Manor of Cortlandt, it falls within the scope of this
study. 'However, to avoid the confusion currently surround-
int the so-called "tenant rebellion," it is necessary to
explain what the uprising in Dutchess County was all about,
how the manor riot took place, and how widespread it was.
Although the identification of those who partici-
' pated as primarily tenants helps to underscore the theme of
class conflict upon which many historians of the colonial
period have dwelt, it is nevertheless inaccurate and mis—
leading. Indeed, some writers on the subject have cautious—

ly avoided using the word "tenant." Oscar Handlin described

 

1Lynd, "The Tenant Rising at Livingston Manor," p.
163. See also, E. Wilder Spaulding, New York in thg Critical
Period, pp. 77~8; Elisha P. Douglass, Rebels and Democrats;
The Struggle for E ual Political Ri hts and Ma orit Rule
During the American Revolution (Chapel Hill, the University

of North Carolina Press, 1955 , p. 58.

 

208

 

 

 

 

209

the clash as one between "farmers and landlords."2 And
Dixon Ryan Fox,_slthough somewhat confused about the identi—
fication of those who participated in the uprising, dis-
cussed the uprising in terms of a Contest between westward-
migrating New England farmers and speculators on the one
hand and such New York landlords as Roger Morris, Beverly
Robinson, Philip Philipse, and the Livingstons on the other.

The evidence strongly suggests that the status of
both the leaders of the rebellion and their followers was
somewhere between that of tenants and freeholders° The am-
biguity of their position was largely a result of long—
standing boundary disputes between New York and the neigh-

boring colonies of Massachusetts and Connecticut° "Yankee"

 

farmers and speculators, seeking new lands and encouraged

by their colonial governments, for many years had been mov—
ing into what are now the eastern parts of Dutchess and
Westchester counties. They had brought with them New
England titles or informal leases from the Wappinger Indians,
the original owners of the area, which were in conflict with
the claims of a number of New York proprietors to all lands

twenty miles eastward from the Hudson. The New York

 

2Oscar Handlin, "The Eastern Frontier of New York,"
New York History, XVIII, No. 1, January 1937, pp. 50-75;
Irvin Mark and Oscar Handlin, Introduction, “Land Cases in
Colonial New York, 1765—1767; The King v. William Prefider-
gast," New Yorkpgpiversitv Law Quarterly, XIX, No. 2, Janu—
ary 1942, pp. 165-69; Dixon Ryan Fox, Yankees and Yorkers
(New York, 1940), Chapt. 5.

 

 

 

 

 

 

210
landlords, determined to protect their claims, had attemp-
ted as early as 1718 to have the boundary-line disputes
settled in their favor. Ebenezer Willson and P. Fauconier,
representing their landed interests, had written to Peter
Schuyler, a New York landowner, at that time to suggest
that the following steps be taken:

. . o the line being to be run between New England

and us; that the same be Speedily done, and done

as it ought, two are of opinion, that a Sume not

exceeding $300 ought to be made up among the own-

ers of the Several 9 Tracts of land adjoining to

the said line, we say 9 exPosing that some body

above Coll. Renslaer, or Mr. Hendrick Ranslaer ‘
joineth wit; if 9 to make upizm, if 10. £300 . .

. to be contributed; viz by the Patroon $30. by Mr.

Hendrick.£30. by Coll. Beekman.i30. by Adolph

Philipse £30. by Coll. Cortlandt £30, and by Heath-

cot, Walters and others in Westchester county i30--
more to be presented to the Governor, to ingage him
to press the doing of it, and to insist in our be-
half for to have the 20% that there must be, between
Hudson river and Connecticut & to be extended so
farr, . . .ye those New England people will certain-
ly oppose wth all their might, and the Governor can
not be eXpected to insist for,. . .since that be-
come due than there is allready nor in respect to
his own, since no new tract can be gained to be
patented, . . .and that it is our interest to pro-
cure it yet, since we main gain or loose at least
five of six miles or ground allong our lands, wch
may and must be of a considerable value & conse-
quence, . . . Mr. Fauconier hath carried it all-
ready so farr, that all the owners so farr as . .

. (7) Westenbook are agreed thereto. . . .3

The efforts of these landlords to consolidate their holdings
against the claims of the New England colonies finally re-

sulted in 1731 in an agreement between New York and Connecticut

 

3P. Fauconier and Ebenezer Willson to Peter Schuyler,
October 1, 1718, Burton Historical collections, Detroit Pub—
lic Library.

,___.‘._._._~m—;I.nf;,r;e ,5, _ o n ,_ _ _-_7». _. '_.l , limp ,, Al- , , ,7

211

whereby the boundary line was fixed "20 miles" east of the
Hudson." In 1757 the Lords of Trade intervened in the con-
troversy between New York and Massachusetts and drew a line
continuing the New York—Connecticut line.5

The dispute would not die, however, and Massachusetts
Continued to press its territorial ambitions by siding with
the settlers and with the Wappinger Indians against the
claims of New York landowners. Thus, the General Court
granted between 1760 and 1762 at least ten townships, each
six miles square, in areas of the Housatonic Valley claimed
bymiivingstons and the Rensselaers.6 Massachusetts also en-
couraged tenants living on Livingston lands to apply to her

for patents as a step toward establishing a prima-facie

 

4Deed Book 11, pp. 4—18, 083.
5Doc. Hist. N. Y., III, pp. 827-29.

6Massachusetts Bay General Court, Acts and Resolves,
Public angPrivate, of the Province of Massachusetts Ba .u.
o, 1692-1786, 21 vols. (Boston, 1869—19225, XVI, APP. XI,
pp. 482, 533, 551; XVII, App. XII, p. 242. Hereafter these
Acts will be referred to as Acts and Resolves. These
grants were made in accordance with what the Massachusetts
authority had been practicing in previous years. As for
their previous grants of land in the areas claimed by the
New York landlords, see Ibid., XIV, App. IX, pp. 241, 263,
379, 453, 476, 543, In this connection, it is to be noted
that even Cadwallader Colden, Lieutenant Governor of New
York in his private correSpondence, doubted the validity
of the claim of the Livingstons over more than 200,000
acres of land. See Colden to (unaddressed), May 20, 1767,
The Letters and Papers of Cadwallader Colden, 9 vols.,
1918—1937, NYHS. Coll., LVI, for the year 1923, p. 120.

 

 

212

claim to the New York landlords' holdings. Legally, Massa-
chusetts authorities construed these Livingston tenants as
squatters.8 The General Court, moreover, supported the
claims of the Wappingers at Stockbridge to 240,800 acres of
1andc-the area between the Hudson and the Western boundary
of Connecticut--by granting them permission in 1765 to sell
lands west of the boundary of 1757 and confirmed sales and
leases which the tribe claimed already to have made.9 These
acts on the part of the Massachusetts General Court demon-
strate that it did not recognize the boundary line set up
by the Board of Trade in 1757 as the limit t6 her westward
expansion.

Unlike the Livingstons, who had been involved in

suits against settlers from Massachusetts since 1752,10 the

 

8Acts and Resolves, XV, App. X, pp. 16, 28; Gover-
nor Moore to the Earl of Shelburne, February 24, 1767, N. Y.
Col. Doc., VII, pp. 910-11.

 

 

9Acts and Resolves, XVIII, App. XIII, pp. 70—71.

10See "A Geographical, Historical Narrative of Sum-
mary of the Present Controversy Between Daniel Nimham. . .
and . . .Legal Representatives of Colonel Frederick Philipse
. . British Museum, Landsdowne Mss., vol. 707, fol. 43;
fol. 26, p. 15; fol. 45, p. 44; fol. 46, pp. 45—46. Its
transcripts are at the Library of Congress. Hereafter the
volume will be referred to as Geog. Hist. Narr. An excel-
lent study of Oscar Handlin on the subject proves that the
claims of the Philipses over the 205,000 acres of land were
fraudulent. See Handlin, "The Eastern Frontier. . . .,“ p.
54. As for the summary of the Indian controversy, see Re-
port of the Lords of Trade on the Petition of the Wappinger
Indians to the King, August 30, 1766, N. Y. Col. Doc. VII,
pp. 868-70.

 

 

 

213
Philipse heirs, Philipe Philipse, Roger Morris,and Beverly
Robinson,had done nothing to make their patent good in fact,
as well as in name, before the commencement of the Seven

Years' War.11

They brought in the Supreme Court ejectment
suits against six settlers who had received leases from the
Indians in 1761 and against fifteen others in 1764 and 1765.12
The Indians, in a later petition to the Board of Trade, would
claim that the Philipse heirs had waited purposely until after
they and many of their White tenants in Dutchess County had
joined English forces involved in the Seven Years' War to
begin evicting the settlers and replacing them with their
own tenants.13 The Wappingers also maintained that they had
sold Adolph Philipse only 15,000 acres, which was but a
small portion of the estate claimed by the heirs.14

While the trials on some of the Indian tenants were
going on, both the Philipses and Nimham, the Indian chief,
representing both the Indians and the white settlers, in
February, 1765, presented their cases to the Court of Chan-

cery consisthg of Lieutenant=rGovernor Cadwallader Colden

 

11See Philipses—Gouvernour Land Titles, nos, 13 and
14, Columbia University Library.

l2Geog. Hist. Narr., Vol. 707, fol. 26, p. 50.

13Report of the Lords of Trade on the Petition of
the Wappinger Indians to the King, August 30, 1766, N. Y.
Col. Doc., VII, p. 868.

14Geog. Hist. Narr., Vol. 707, fol. 27, p. 7; Ms
Minute Books of the Supreme Court, 1756—1761, p. 250, Hall
of Records, New York City.

 

 

.\
a
. n\
.\
C o
o . n
n\
o
n
e
n
C
.
n e
V e\
C
I. n\
Q
n
r r
o
I v
n.
n o
.

 

 

 

 

214

15 Whatever the validity of the

and the governor's Council.
Opposing claims may have been—-and Colden was sympathetic

toward that of the Indians—-the Court after a terse hearing,

on March 6, 1765, decided in favor of the Philipses.16 At

the same time, the Court also ordered the arrest of four of

the tenants and advisers of the Indians——Samuel and Daniel

Munroe, Joseph Croe, and Stephen Wilcox--for the high misde—

meanor of "Disinhersion" of the Crown. Two days later,

three of them had been arrested and jailed in New York

City. The Supreme Court shortly thereafter upheld the

Philipses' cases against the white settlers.l7 \

Involved in the trials and hearing were not only

the interests of the white settlers with Indian titles and

 

15Philips-Gouverneur Land Titles, no. 13; Geog. Hist. .
Narr., fol. 30, pp. 13-14.

l6Colden to Secretary of State Conway, June 24, 1766,
N. Y. Col. Doc., 1775, NYHS. Coll., 1877, X, p. 115; Philips—
Governeur Land Titles, no. 13.

17Geog. Hist. Narr., fol. 31, pp. 15—16. After the
Indians lost the trial, Nimham with the approval of Sir Wil—
liam Johnson, the British Superintendent for Indian affairs,
went to England and managed to gain the sympathy of the Bound
of Trade. However, the trial of the Indian case in New York
in March, 1767 finally resulted in the defeat of the Indians
in spite of the moral support for the Indians of the Earl of
Shelburne, the head of the Board of Trade, and Sir William
Johnson. See Sir William Johnson to the Earl of Shelburne,
April 1, 1767, N. Y. Col. Doc., VII, pp. 913—14; Governor
Moore to the Earl of Shelburne, January 13, 1767, Ibid.,
XII, p. 890; Geog. Hist. Narr. £01.38, p. 30; fol. 42, p.

7.

 

 

 

215

Indians and the New York landlords with land adjoining the
New England colony, but also the jurisdictional question
between New York and Massachusetts over the territory east
of the Hudson. Acceptance of the Indian titles by New York
would have meant that she would connive at the scheme of the
Massachusetts westward expansion that had been for long us—
ing the Indians and their tenants as a vehicle to promote
it. It would have also Spurred Massachusetts to further en-
croach upon what New York considered as her legitimate ter-
ritorial jurisdiction. This issue alone was perhaps suffi-
cient for the members of the New York courts to reject the
cases of the Indians and their tenants.

In early March, the Philipses, armed with writs of
ejectment, started to dispossess the white tenants of the
Indians who had most vigorously Opposed them and to persuade

others to accept leases from them. Those who refused were
18

 

evicted without compensation for their improvements.
News of the landlords' treatment of the settlers and of
their lease terms they had offered quickly spread through the J

eastern part of Dutchess County.19 Other settlers feared the i

 

18Testimony of James Dickerson at the trial of Prend— t

ergast, the principal leader of the settlers' uprising of
1766, "The King v. William Prendergast," p. 172.

19The lease terms offered by the Philipses were re-
ported to be one year lease and penal bonds of $1900. This
was the lease given to a tenant—at-will in colonial New
York. Philipse—Gouverneur Land Titles, no. 14.

K3“

 

 

 

 

216

same thing would happen to them unless they resisted the
landlords by force, and in early April, 300 disgruntled
farmers rallied to the call of William Prendergast (or
Pendergast), William Finch, and the other tenants of the
Indian tribe for armed resistance.20 They publicly de—
clared that "those who had been turned out of possession"
by the landlords "had an equitable Title but could not be

defended in a Course of Law."21

They pledged to defend
their titles by force, reinstate the dispossessed settlers,
and to "stand by each other with lives and fortunes" until
they had exacted a reasonable settlement from the Philipses.
They also announced that they were "willing to submit arbi—
tration," but would not pay rent in the meantime.22
From the above discussion it is evident that those

who revolted were hardly tenants. In the eyes of the land—
lords, of course, they were tenants, or at least tenants—to-
be, since they were living on what the proprietors consid—
ered to be their own land. The New York government, in or—

der to defend its own jurisdictional claims against those of

of the neighboring colony, also considered them tenants of

 

20"The King v. William Prendergast," passim.

21Testimony of Moss Kent, Ibid., p. 175.

22Testimonies of Ebenezer Weed, Moss Kent, Daniel
Ball, Joseph Bates, Samuel Tower, Ibid., pp. 175, 177, 187,
188, 189.

 

hen?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

217
the Philipses. The farmers,0nn the other hand, had never
recognized the Philipses' title and accordingly resisted
attempts to tenantize them. The rioters previously had
never paid or received demand for rent. Nor had they ever

been registered on rent rolls of the Philipses.23 Accord—

 

ing to Lieutenant Governor Colden, who was versed in the land
problems of New York, the cause of the riots was that the
Philipses and Livingstons had "harassed the Farmers in their

24 (Ita-

neighborhood with expensive and ruinous law suits."
lics added.) The rioters were thus pawns in the boundary
controversy between New York and Massachusetts.

Every social movement tends to become more radi—

cal before it has run its course. It tends also to in-
clude within its ranks diverse elements with mutually con-
flicting views and objectives. This was true of the up—
rising of 1766. Thus rioting occurred near the northeas-
tern corner of the manor and aroused some of the tenants
of the arrogant John Van Cortlandt to tnansform their
long-simmering discontent into open defiance against him.
As we saw in a previous chapter, John Van Cortlandt had

charged exceptionally high rent and granted short tenure of

 

lease, a practice in sharp contrast to those of the other man—

or proprietors. Adding to his tenants' irritation was the

 

23Testimonies of George Hughson and James Livingston,
Esq., Ibid., pp. 181, 191; Beverly Robinson to James Duane,
September 9, 1766, Duane Papers, microfilm in 3 reels, reel
1, p. 157, NYHS.

24The Colden Letter Books, NYHS. Coll., X, p. 115.

 

 

 

 

218

harsh and stinging language he had used in scolding them for
defaults in lease performance.25 He had, moreover, fre—
quently raised the rents of many of his tenants, who now
seized upon the breakdown of authority resulting from the
Stamp Act crisis and the rioting in Dutchess County to try
to redress their grievances against him.

The incident that immediately provoked some of John
Van Cortlandt's tenants into riot was an effort on his part
to retrieve back-rent and to remove certain tenants whose
leases had exPired. The tenants who were to be evicted were
Daniel Cornel and Isaac Wright. Cornel was a tenant—at—will,
whose back—rent amounted to $50 by the end of 1763. In the
middle of January, 1764, the irate Van Cortlandt instructed
his agent-tenant, Joseph Golden, who also had sixty acres
of freehold in North Castle, to order Cornel either to deliv—
er his possession bond (one-year lease with penal sum of
ei1,000 in case of default) or to pay his back—rent.26 Sur-
rendering the possession bond meant loss of lease. Two
months later, Cornel paid i38.18.9, a part of his back—rent,

27

to the landlord. At the same time, he seems to have

 

25See Chapter V.

26John Van Cortlandt to Joseph Golden, January 19,
1764, Letter Book of John Van Cortlandt, NYPL. As for
Golden's land in North Castle, see his claim for compensa—
tion for his loss of property during the Revolution. Loyal—
ist Papers, XXIX, p. 275.

27Entry on March 30, 1764 in Journal (c) of John
Van Cortlandt, NYPL°

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

219
entreated Van Cortlandt to let him retain his lease, the
improvement of which was worth.i150. But Van Cortlandt was
adamant. In June, 1765, Golden, having paid the landlord
.i40, a part of the improvement money of Cornel's lease, en—
tered and took over the premises.28

The case of Isaac Wright was somewhat different from
that of Cornel. Wright had leased farm No. 9 from John's
father, Stephen Van Cortlandt, for the tenure of fifteen
years in May, 1748. His lease stipulated that he would pay
the annual rent of i3 after five years. When the term of
lease expired in 1763, John Van Cortlandt refused to renew
the lease, alleging that Wright had failed to pay during the
9

past three years rent amounting to .i9.2 The real reason,
however, seems to have been that Van Cortlandt had found a
person named Simon Brady who was willing to pay £20 annual
rent, $17 more than Wright had been paying. Thus he re-
moved Wright in favor of Brady.30

In early April, 1766, as the rioting in the neighboring
county gained momentum, Wright, Cornel, and some of the

other discontented tenants directed their wrath toward

Brady and Golden. According to John Van Cortlandt, Cornel

 

27Entry on March 30, 1764 in Journel (c) of John
Van Cortlandt, NYPL.

28Entry on July 30, 1765 in Journal (c) of John
Van Cortlandt, NYPL.

29Reeeipt Book of John Van Cortlandt, NYHS.

30Journal (c) of John Van Cortlandt, NYPL.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

220
"venomously" held his former lease after turning Golden out
of it. And with the help of a Captain Joshua Bishop, whose
identity is unknown, the manor rioters also dispossessed
Simon Brady and put Isaac Wright back into his former lease?1
Upon hearing that his estate was engulfed in violence, Van
Cortlandt, living in New York City, on April 11 rushed to
the office of the Attorney General of the province and paid
him $3.4 to prosecute "Cornel and the Ryeters that Disposed

(sic) Joseph Golden."32

The Attorney General issued a bench
warrant for the arrest of Wright, Bishop, and Bartlet Brun—
dige, another of Van Cortlandt's tenants, who were regarded
as "three of the principals" in the riot. They were ar—
rested and sent to the New York goal.33
Most government officials and landed magnates con-
sidered this measure a sufficient warning against further
violence. It was reported that Captain Bishop became "faint

when he was called before the Court," and this incident

caused Pierre Van Cortlandt at Croton to hope that the

 

31John Van Cortlandt to Joseph Golden, May 24, 1766,
Letter Book of John Van Cortlandt, NYPL; Pierre Van C rtlandt
to a relative, April, n.d., 1766; Pierre Van Cortland {to
Mr. Travis, April 22, 1766, V2098, SHRL.

32See Journal (0) of John Van Cortlandt, NYPL.

33Governor Moore to Secretary Conway, April 30, 1766,

Governor Moore to Earl of Shelburne, December 22, 1766, N.Y.
Col, Doc., VII, pp. 826, 886; The New York Gazette, Septem-
ber 1, 1766.

 

 

 

221

"affairs may be in a better situation."34

Subsequent events,
however, proved otherwise. In fact, the punitive measure
seems to have made the manor and Dutchess rioters united and
desperate° If there had been discord between the Dutchess
rioters, it was swept away by the blunder of the government.
During the early stages of the rioting, there had
been some reluctance on the part of the Dutchess rebels under
Prendergast to associate themselves with the cause of the
manor tenants. According to the testimony of Moss Kent at
the later trial of Prendergast, the Dutchess rebels had
"looked on Cortlandt Manor rioters to be wrong and would not

connect themselves with them."35

Although Kent did not ex-
plain why this was so, it can be assumed that the Dutchess
rioters considered their cause different from that of the
manor tenants in that they were not tenants in the ordinary
sense of the word, and that their object was only to protect
"the equitable title" they believed they held to their lands.
They probably considered the manor rioters "wrong" because

of the latter's refusal to perform lease obligations to which
they had agreed. It was fundamental tenet of the Dutchess

rebels that one should pay just and legal debts.36

 

34Pierre Van Cortlandt to Mr. Travis, April 22, 1766,
V2098, SHRL.

35"The King v. William Prendergast," pp. 175-76.

36

Bhid., passim.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

222
The cleavage between the two groups, however, dis-
appeared after the jailing of the three rioters. Symbolic
of the change in the attitude of the Dutchess rebels toward
the manor tenants was their enlistment, in the middle of
April, of Bartlet Brundige——who had been released on bail
shortly after his imprisonment—~as an interpreter and advis—

or to the Indian chief Nimham.37

It might be that the Dutch—
ess farmers changed their minds with resPect to the cause of
the manor riot because of the willingness of Brundige to
serve them, or Brundige proposed his service to them in re—
turn for their helping the manor riot. Or, apart from the
case of Brundige, the Dutchess farmers possibly came to the ;<
realization that they needed whatever help they could get from
the elements dissatisfied with the existing order of things.
Later that month, they announced that they were being support-
ed by the "inhabitants of some other counties. . . and by
great numbers of the Connecticut peeple bordering on West—

38

chester." And a Dutchess farmer named John Stewart later

testified that "they had associated themselves with those of

the Manor of Cortlandt (and) agreed to defend the Whole."39

 

 

 

aaEJohn Van Cortlandt to Joseph Golden, May 24, 1766,
Letter Book of John Van Cortlandt, NYPL; Governor Moore to Earl
of Shelburne, December 22, 1766, N. Y. Col. Doc., VII, p. 886;
Geog. Hist. Narr., vol. 707, fol. 38, p. 30, fol. 42, p. 37.

38Governor Moore to Secretary Conway, April 30, 1766,
N. Y. Col. Doc., VII, p. 826.

 

39Testimony of Semeon Bundy, "The King v. William
Prendergast," p. 176.

 

 

 

 

223
(Italics added.)
In any event, the now-united rebels perhaps all of
300 strong and led by William Prendergast, William Finch,
and Samuel Munroe, Jr., gathered on April 29 near the house

of Joseph Golden, Van Cortlandt's agent and tenant, at

40

North Castle. Their objectives were to break into the

New York City jail and release the two manor rioters still
confined there, and then either to secure from John Van

Cortlandt "a grant forever of his Lands" or to "pull down

41

his House in Town." On their march to the city, they ex?

pected to be met at King's Bridge by several other companies

which were "coming down the North River road to join them."42

Before starting the march from North Castle, Samuel Munroe,
Jr. warned the terrified Mrso Golden, whose husband had already

run away, to remove all her household goods, because "he be-

lieved the mob on their return would pull down" her house.43

Nothing was done then, however.

40"Proclamation of Henry Moore," in The New York Ga-
zette, May 5, 17660 The information about the gathering of
the rebels was offered by Benjamin Randolph of Cortlandt Man-
or before the Mayor of the city of New York. See Council
Minutes, XXVI, p. 4, NYSL.

41Governor Moore to Secretary Conway, April 30, 1766,
N,_Y, Col. Doc., VII, p. 826. The Journals of Capt. John
Montresor, ed. and ann. by G. D. Scull, NYHS. Coll., XIV, p.
363;(hereafter his journals will be referred to as Montresor
Journals); The New York Gazette, May 5, 1766.

42

 

Council Minutes, XXVI, p. 5, NYSL.

43The New York Gazette, May 5, 1766.

 

 

 

 

 

 

224

In the late afternoon of April 29, the Westchester
and Dutchess insurgents, having met no resistance, arrived
at King's Bridge as planned. Their numbers had increased to
500.44 There Prendergast began calling his followers the
"Sons of Liberty" as a tactic of identifying their movement
with the one by that name in the city which had developed in
opposition to the Stamp Act. They apparently "expected to
be assisted by the poor people" there.45 To solidify the
unity of the rebels, Prendergast proclaimed that:

If any person or persons offended. . .we the Sons

of Liberty He should be dragged to the next place

of Mud and Water and there be Mobbed as long as

they should think proper and from thence be car-

ried and Tied to a White Oak tree and whipped. . .

and then carried out of the County and there

kicked as long as they tho' proper.46
After resting at King's Bridge, they proceeded towards the
city that night.

Meanwhile, the residents of the city had become
alarmed by rumors that the rioting farmers would "set the

47

city on fire in several different places at the same time."

 

44Entry on May 1, 1766 in the Journal of Capto Mon~
tresor, NYHS° Coll., XIV, p. 363.

45Testimony of Moss Kent, "The King v. William
Prendergast," p. 175; Governor Moore to Secretary Conway,
April 30, 1766, N. Y. Col. Doc., VII, p. 826.

46Rwarimony of Samuel Peters, a Justice of Peace,
"The King v. William Prendergast," p. 183.

47Governor Moore to Secretary Conway, April 30,
1766, N. Y. Col. Doc., VII, p. 826.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

225

Those who were most upset by anarchistic country "Sons of
Liberty" were, ironically enough, such leading members of
the city's "Sons of Liberty" as John Cortlandt himself,
John Morin Scot, an attorney who later was to sit on the
bench at the trial of Prendergast, and Peter R. Livingston,
the fourth hLord—to—be" of the Manor of Livingston.48 Their
reaction led Captain John Montressor of the British army to
remark sarcastically that the "Sons of Liberty (are) great
opposers to these Rioters as they are of opinion (that) no
one is entitled to Riot but themselves."49

Governor Henry Moorea acted quickly to meet the threat.
He ordered both the regular troops and city's militia units
to be "in readiness" and took "every other precaution."
April 30, he issued a proclamation offering a reward of £100
for the apprehension of Prendergast, £50 for William Finch,

and the same amount for Munroe. He also urged the civil

 

48Edward Floyd DeLancey, ed., Thomas Jones History
of New York during the Revilutiggary War, And of thg Leasing
Events in the other Colgpies at That Period, 2 vols. (New
York, 1879 , I, p. 109. John Van Cortlandt's radical activi-
ties as a prominent member of the Sons of Liberty in the city
were such that he was later elected to the New York Provincial
Congress in 1775 and 1776. See The New York Gazette and The
Weekly Mercury, May 29, 1775, November 13, 1775 and April 22,
17760 William Smith, former Chief Justice of New York, said
that John Van Cortlandt was "formerly violent for Liberty &
aggt. Independency for which he is now.one of the most intem-
perate Advocats." See William H. W. Sabine, ed., Historical
Memoirs of William SmithJ frgm412 July 1776 to 25 July 1778

(New York, 19585, p. 118.

49Montresor's Journals, p. 363.

 

i'l'

 

 

 

 

 

226

officers of Dutchess and Westchester Counties to exert

50

themselves to put down other rioters.
The rebels, upon entering the city the next day,
sent a committee of six to negotiate with the Governor,

Moore refused to listen to them and ordered the militia to

51

attack the main body. The rebels, unable to enlist any

support in the city, fled before a shot was fired. Some

were captured, while others escaped to Connecticut and Mass—

52

achusetts. The farmers' revolt had been effectively end—

ed, although a few diehard elements continued the struggle
in Dutchess County and the Livingston and Van Rensselaer

53

manors for some time.

 

50Council Minutes, XXVI, p. 5, NYSL; The New York
Gazette, May 5, 1766; Montresor's Journals, p. 365; Gover-
nor Moore to Secretary Conway, April 30, 1766, N. Y. Col.
Mo, VII, P. 826.

51Montresor's Journals, p. 363; Geog. Hist. Narr.,
vol. 707, fol. 31, p. 16; fol. 32, p. 17.

52Those who fled to the New England colonies were
well sheltered and protected by the latter. See Governor
Moore of New York to William Pitkin, then Governor of Con-
necticut, July 21, and August 6, 1766, The Pitkin Papers,
1766-1769° Connecticut HistoriCal.Society Collections, XIX,
for the year 1921, pp. 14-15, 26-27. See also Governor
Moore to the Earl of Shelburne, February 24, 1767, N. Y.
Col. Doc., VII, pp. 910-12. This patronizing attitude of
the New England authorities toward the rebels is not sur-
prising in view of the fact that the former, particularly
Massachusetts, was as much responsible for the outbreak of
the uprising as the New York landlords and the white set-
tlers with Indian titles.

 

53Montresor's Journals, pp. 366—81. At the end of
June, 1766, Pr dergast and some of his associates were ar—
rested, made to stand trial on July 29 and given a death

 

 

 

 

 

 

227

The rout of the Dutchess and Westchester rebels also
put an end to the riot in the Manor of Cortlandt. A week
after the showdown between the militia and the rebels,
Joseph Golden reported to John Van Cortlandt that he had re-
turned to the leasehold from which he had been expelled by
Daniel Cornel and the other rioters a month before. John
Thomas, the judge of the Inferior Court of Westchester County,
also informed Van Cortlandt that Simon Brady had been re—
stored to his farm.54

As affairs in the manor returned to order with the
aid of the very authority that he, as a prominent leader of
the Sons of Liberty, had tried to disrupt, John Van Cortlandt
vigorously sought to dislodge the trouble-makers among his
tenants. On May 24, 1766, he directed Joseph Golden to use
every means to distrain cattle owned by Augustine Rogers, who
owed a back-rent of £10, and those of Bartlet Brundige, who
owed $39.5.4, including four years' rent and bond. Besides
securing the back-rent, Golden was empowered to terminate the
two leases. To make sure that Golden understood his instruc—

tions, Van Cortlandt emphasized at the end of the letter that

 

sentence for Prendergast and a light punishment for his asso-
ciates on August 14, 1766. Then, in September, he received a
reprieve from Governor Moore, and finally, a royal pardon
three months later. The New York Gazette, August ll, 18, 25,
September 1, 1766; Earl of Shelburne to Governor Moore, Dec-

ember 11, 1766, NI Y. 901. Doc.m VII, p. 879.

54John Van Cortlandt to Joseph Golden, May 24, 1766,
Letter Book of John Van Cortlandt, NYPL.

 

 

 

228

"you will not fail seizing the cattle of Brundige to secure
the Rent (1) do suppose Rogers has grane(sic) in the ground
to secure the Rent." Finally, he added his "Hope (that) all
the Good Tenants are well."55

There were a great many tenants who had not taken the
side of the mobs. In fact, only Isaac Wright, Daniel Cornel,
Brundige, and Rogers seem to have been actively involved in
the riots. Of the others, some quietly sympathized with the
rioters, others were neutral, and some opposed the violent
measures. Most significantly, however, rioting in the manor
was confined to the estates of John Van Cortlandt; other parts
of the manor were not affected. The only targets of the man—
or rioters were John Van Cortlandt, his agent, Joseph Golden,
and Simon Brady, who had taken over the farm of one of the
rioters.56

Irving Mark, in his study of the agrarian problems
of colonial New York, was incorrect in stating that "the
Westchester men. . .threatened to pull down the city homes

of Pierre Van Cortlandt and of Lambert Moore."57 (Italics

 

55Entry on November 6, 1766 in John Van Cortlandt's
Journal shows that his agent, in order to retrieve the back—
rent of Brundige, distrained and sold the thirteen sheep
owned by the latter for £5. See John Van Cortlandt's Jour-
nal (c), NYPL.

56See also Pierre Van Cortlandt to a relative, April,
(n.d,) 1766, V2098, SHRL.

57Mark, Agrarian Cgpflicts, p. 139. See also Elisha
Douglass, Rebels and Democrats, pp. 58—59.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

229
added.) He apparently based this statement on a remark found
in the diary of Captain Montresor that the Westchester men
would "pull down Mr. Cortlandt's house in town and also one

"58 It could not have been

belonging to Mr. Lambert Moore.
Pierre Van Cortlandt to whom the diarist referred. Pierre
Van Cortlandt did not own a house in the city until January
1775 when he bought for £2,000 a house and lot on the east
59

side of Bowerly Lane in the city. All of the manor rioters
were tenants of John Van Cortlandt and had no reason to harass
Pierre. If they had had grievances against Pierre Van Cort—
landt, they would have attacked his home at Croton, on the

Albany Post Road about four miles west of the scene of riot-

ing. Throughout the turmoil, however, Pierre remained at
his home, keeping well informed of what was happening. In
response to a request from the Livingston family for inform—
ation about the manor affair, he wrote: '
The Last mob or Ryot here In the Manor was when,
Pendegrass & Bishop Took out of possession, one

Simon] Brady on Coflusin! John (Van) Cortlandts
land & put in Isaac Wright, Since which have heard

 

58Mgptresor's Journals, p. 363.

59Deed, Richard Varick to Pierre Van Cortlandt, Janu- '
ary 5, 1776, Van Cortlandt-Van Wyck Papers, Misc. Land Papers
Box 1, NYPL; I. N. P. Stokes, Iconography of Manhattan Is- ’
land, 6 vols. (New York, 1895-1928I, VI, pp. 150—51. Pierre
Van Cortlandt did not have an inherited house in the dity.

gfifiLPhiliP Van Cortlandt's will, August 21, 1746, V1837,

 

 

 

 

 

230

nothing from the Eastward only am Creditedly

Inform'd that Pendgrass publicly Said by way

of proclamation, that he bid Diffiance to any

officer or person that should molest or Distrub

any of this men at their perril & that he wod

Vindicate them at all Events, and believe his

Interest here in tge manor Is more then gener-

ally Expected. . . 0 (Italics added.

This letter, written after the last riot in the manor, makes
it perfectly clear that John Van Cortlandt's estate was the
only part of the manor that was gaffected."

Had disaffection in the manor been wideSpread, it is
likely that Pierre Van Cortlandt‘s house would indeed have
been a principal target of the rioters as Irving Mark claimed.
For he was both a landlord in his own right and the agent of
a number of the other manor proprietors, including the
Beekmans, the DeLanceys, the Warrens, Peter Kembel, and
Philip Van Cortlandt, the eldest son of Stephen Van Cortlandt
(Pierre's older brother).61 That such was not the case is
hardly surprising, however, in view of the liberality of
most lease terms in the manor and the prosperity of most ten—
ants which have been discussed in previous chapters.

62

Contrary to common viewpoint, the rioting in the

Manor of Cortlandt was an extremely limited and short—lived

 

6OPierre Van Cortlandt to a relative, April, (n.d.)
1766p Pierre Van Cortlandt to Mr. Travis, April 22, 1766,
V2098, SHRL.

61See Chapter V.

62Mark, Agrarian Cgpflicts, pp. 136—39; Handlin,
"Eastern Frontier," pp. 69—71. They seem to think that the
manor riot was wide-spread.

 

 

 

 

 

 

231

disturbance (it lasted about three weeks), which resulted
from difficulties between one landlord, John Van Cortlandt,
and a handful of his tenants. Elsewhere in the colony, the
causes were morecomplex and included the conflicting claims
to land of the Wappinger Indians and several New York pro—
prietors, the conflicting jurisdictional claims of New York
and Massachusetts, and conflicting titles and leases result-
ing from these disputes.

The common interpretation of the events of 1766 in
New York as a classic example of class conflict between land-
lords and tenants has been grossly overstated. Not even the
poor in New York City identified their interests with those
of the rebellious farmers or sought in any way to aid them.
Nor did many of the participants in the rioting conceive of
themselves as being involved in a class conflict. Prendergast,
one of the principal leaders of the rebellion, reportedly re—
fused the offer of friends to help him escape from jail, say—
ing that "if he should escape without any other inconveniences,
it would be attended with the Loss of his Property in the Gov—
ernment, which would reduce his Family to poverty and Want."
His friends agreed with this reasoning and thereupon aban-
doned their schemes for his release.63 Their concern for
property was as great as that of the landlords they were oppos-

ing; they were as bourgeois in their intellectual orientation

 

63The New York gazette, geotember 29, 17660

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

232
as the landlords. They were not social revolutionaries, nor
a propertyless mob.

The Manor of Cortlandt weathered the short-lived
storm of social discontent and returned to the routine pat—
tern of life as it had existed before the riot. However,
the ensuing Revolutionary ferment brewing outside the manor
was not discriminating in allowing the manor to remain long
at peace. The manor, like other towns in the colony, would
soon be subjected to a travail accompanying a violent poli—

tical contest between the mother country and her colonies.

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER VIII
THE MANOR IN THE REVOLUTION

After the riot of 1766, the manor was politically
in the doldrums for nearly a decade. The pitched arguments
between Whigs and Tories over a variety of constitutional
points were too academic and too subtle for ordinary inhab-
itants of the manor. Being farmers, they were basically
conservative. They exhibited a remarkable degree of apathy
to the political issues of the day which generated so much
emotion and controversy in New York City. Thus, the majors
ity of manor residents, like the people in the other agrar-
ian counties, ealmly ignored an invitation from the City
Committee of Correspondence in 1774 to appoint a manorial
committee to coordinate the colonial cause against British
imperialism.1 However, this lack of response to the patrio-
tic call from the center of agitation seems to have emanated
more from traditional indifference than from serious objec—
tion to the American cause per se.

Political apathy on the part of the manor residents

toward pending constitutional issues was further strengthened

 

adolden to the Earl of Dartmouth, July 6, 1774 and
August 2, 1774, N. Y, Col. Doc., VIII, pp. 470, 486; Riving—
ton's New York Gazetteer, February 16, 1775.

233

 

 

 

 

 

234

by the absence of leadership and agitation in the manor,
Pierre Van Cortlandt, by virtue of his being the manor re—
presentative in the General Assembly, was the person most
likely to assume such leadership, but he remained largely
inactive. Although in most cases he voted with the Whig
minority members in the Assembly, he never once initiated
a motion on a subject relating to the rights of the colon-
ists.2 He was a typical moderate Whig asserting the American
cause on the one hand yet nevertheless looking toward an even—
tual accomodation between the mother country and her colonies.

Van Cortlandt's moderation was markedly in contrast
with his neighbor Frederick Philipse, the "10rd" of Philips—
burg Manor and a leading Tory Assemblyman from Westchester
County at large. While Van Cortlandt was quiet and his voice
was never heard on political issues, Philipse was vocal and
active.3 The Van Cortlandt's moderation mas often regarded
by some people as a sign of his faltering faith and opportun-
ism; it tempted Governor William Tryon to try to convert

Van Cortlandt to loyalism. One day in 1774, the Governor

 

2Peter Force, ed., American Archives: Consisting
of A Collectigp of Authenticgggcords. Spgte Papers, Debates,
and Letters and other Notices of Public Affairs, 4 ser. 6
vols.; 5 ser. 3 vols. (Washington, 1837-535, 4th ser. I, pp.
1302-220 The Archives will be referred to as Force, £2;
Archives.

 

31bid., 5th ser., III, pp. 1205-07, 4th ser., I,
PP. 1302—220

 

 

 

 

 

 

235
and his company paid an over—night visit to Van Cortlandt's
home at Croton. The next morning, Tryon proposed a walk to
Van Cortlandt, and together they climbed up the top of a
hill overlooking Croton Ferry. There, Tryon observed "what
great favors" might be conferred upon Van Cortlandt if he
took the loyalist side.4 No evidence, however, is available
to indicate how Van Cortlandt reacted to the Governor's
tempting hint. Be that as it may, it is probable that Van
Cortlandt's moderation played a part in sheltering the manor
inhabitants from violent political controversy for a consid—
erable period.

The relative calm was broken rather suddenly in Feb—
ruary, 1775,when one manor resident of loyalist sentiment,
exasPerated with his fellow residents' "inattention to poli-
tical matters," wrote "AN ADDRESS TO THE INHABITANTS OF
CORTLANDT." In it, he urged them to wake up from their leth—
argy and take action by vigorously expressing their loyalist
sentiments in public, because, he felt, "sentiments alone
will not be of sufficient validity to justify the loyalty of
your hearts." By action he meant signing their names to a
paper entitled "Association" which included such sentences
as "We have no business with Congresses and Committees," "We
declare our firm. . .attachment to. . .George the Third,"

and "we will a no re ard to an resolves, or restrictions
P y 8 y a

 

4Philip Van Cortlandt, "Autobiography," Magazine of
American Histor , May, 1878, II, pp. 17—24.

 

 

 

 

 

but such as are enjoined us by our CONSTITUTIONAL DELE-
GATES."5

On March 9, the above "ADDRESS" drew a sharp chal-
lenge in the local press from a person who signed himself
"B. E." "B. E." admonished the manor people not to be de-
ceived by what he thought was a "serpent-like" scheme to
destroy the "liberties of their fellow-countrymen." But, at
least he agreed with his opponent that the manor farmers
were suffering from their habitual nonchalance about public
affairs. Thus, "B. E." called upon them to "rise from your
lethargy, assume the dignity of freemen; smite the serpents
that have spread their poisons round you; burn your associa—
tions; with dauntless intrepidity, join the sons of freedom,
who are only temporal guardians of the human race."6

After these two rounds of propaganda appeared in the
newspaper, the controversy momentarily died down. They may
have caused a brief stir but it is doubtful that they made
any lasting impression upon the farmers who were engrossed
in their seasonal labors. The crystalization and articula-
tion of Van Cortlandt manor's political consciousness in the
cause of either party had to wait for something more imme-

diate and tangible to occur.

 

5Rivington's New York Gazetteer, February 16, 1775.

6Ibid., March 9. 1775.

 

237

The long hybernation of manor farmers in their shell
of political indifference was matched by the inaction of
Whig leaders in Westchester County. Indeed, up until March,
1775, the Whig leaders had not made any sustained efforts
to keep Committees of CorresPondence functioning at town
levels. They even allowed the die-hard Tory, Frederick
Philipse, to assume control in the County convention which
was held for nominating delegates to the Continental Cong-
ress in 1774.7 Under these circumstances, it was perhaps
inevitable that there was no concerted action among the
County Whig leaders to promote their cause. Even the influ-
ence of the Whig Assemblymen, Pierre Van Cortlandt and John
Thomas, one of the representatives from the County at large,
was neutralized from 1770 to 1775 by their own moderation
and by the active Tory Assemblyman Philipse and Isaac Wilkins,
who represented the Borough of Westchester.8

However, as the colonial relationship with Great
Britain deteriorated as a result of a series of events, such
as the Boston Tea Incident and subsequent application of pun-
itive measures by the British authority against the Colonies,
revolutionary passion ran high. By early 1775, County Whig

leaders began to recognize the need for organizing their own

 

7"Extract of a Letter from New York, January 26, 1775,
to a Gentleman in Annapolis," Force, Am, Archives, 4th ser.,
1, pp. 1188-89.

81bid., pp. 1289-322.

 

 

 

 

238
ranks and joining their strength with other counties in New
York. Thus, on March 16, when the Committee of Inspection
of New York City and county sent a Circular Letter to the
various Whig leaders in Westchester County recommending that
they call, "without delay," a County Convention to appoint
delegates to a proposed Provincial Convention, the latter
quickly responded.9 This Provincial Convention was to ap—
point Provincial deputies to the Second Continental Congress.
Those who received the Circular Letter met on March 28 at
White Plains and decided, after some deliberation, to call
a County Convention of the "principal freeholders." On
April 11, the Convention, well-attended despite the boycott
of the County Tory elements under the control of Philipse
and Wilkins, successfully appointed several delegates. One
of the delegates was young Philip Van Cortlandt, the eldest
son of Pierre. At the same time, the Convention expressed
hearty thanks to the Whig minority of the General Assembly,
and "particularly to John Thomas and Pierre Van Cortlandt. .
. for their firm attachment to and zeal, on a late occasion,
for the preservation of the Union of the Colonies and rights

and liberties of America. The Convention was a victory

 

91bid., 4th ser., II, pp. 137-38; The New York Ga—
zette and The Weekly Mercury, March 20, 1775.

 

loForce, Am. Archives, 4th ser., II, pp. 314-15, 321-

24; Journal of the Provincial Congress of the State of New
The Journal will be hereafter cited as Journal of the Pro-

vincial Congress.

 

 

 

 

 

 

239
for the Whigs.

The significance of the Westchester County Conven-
tion of 1775 does not lie merely in the victory of the Whigs
over the Tories in the County; for the first time, Westches-
ter County linked itself to the main stream of the revolu-
tionary movement by sending its own deputies to the Provin-
cial Conventiondeora important for this study, the Manor of
Cortlandt through Philip Van Cortlandt drew abreast of the
pace of the Revolution.

The shots fired at Lexington on April 19, 1775, and
the subsequent collision of British army contingents with
Massachusetts militia damped the lingering conciliatory spi-
rit of most of the Whigs in the New York colony. Moderation
now seemed out of place. Commenting on the climate of
opinion in New York after Lexington, Gouverneur Morris of
the Borough of Westchester remarked in May, 1775 that "Not
one month ago° . . Whiggism was branded with Infamy. Now
each person strive to shew the excess of his zeal by the

11

madness of his actions." The wild mood of the people para-

lyzed governmental machinery and plunged the colony into a

state of anarchy.12

 

llCharles Lee Papers, NYHS. 0011., Iv-VII, (1871-
74), IV, p. 178. See also John Collins at New Port to the
Commanding Officer of the Provincial Army at Cambridge,
Force, Am. Archives, 4th ser., II, pp. 400—01.

12Jones, Histor of New York, I, p. 41.

 

 

240

As the royal government betrayed its weakness, the
revolutionary Committee of Inspection of the City and
County of New York assumed control over the area. Then it
took a momentous step in the history of the colony. On
April 26, three days after the news of the Lexington arrived
in the city, the Committee met and unanimously resolved that
"a Provincial Congress be immediately summoned."13 On April
28, a Circular Letter was sent to the counties requesting
them to send deputies to the Congress to be held in the city

on May 22.14

This attempt to set up a Provincial Congress
was momentous in that the Whigs were now prepared to set
aside the government represented by the royal governor and

replace it with a revolutionary body-politic to run provin-

 

cial affairs.

The Whig leaders in Westchester County held a meet-
ing at White Plains on May 8 and elected "a Committee of nine-
ty persons" for the County. This newly established committee
under the chairmanship of Gilbert Drake of the Cortlandt
Manor, a wealthy tenant of the Beekmans, in turn nominated
eleven deputies to the proposed Congress. The meeting con—

15

firmed the nomination. The deputies were Gouverneur

 

13Force, Am. Archives, 4th ser., II, p. 400.

14Ibid., p. 428; Jones, History of New York, I, p.

 

39-41 0

 

15Rivington's New York Gazetteer,May 11, 1775; Calen-
dar of Historical Manuscripts Relating to thgiWar of the Re—
volutigg, in thg office of thg Secretary of Stats, 2 vols.
(Albany, 1868 , I, p. 64.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

241

Morris, Robert Graham, Lewis Graham, and James Van Cortlandt,
all from the Borough of Westchester; Stephen Ward and Joseph
Drake from Westchester; Philip Van Cortlandt of the Cort-
landt Manor; James Holmes of Bedford; John Thomas, Jr. of
Rye; David Dayton of North Castle; and William Paulding.16

The County Committee was a county counterpart of the
Provincial Congress which thus anticipated a recommendation
from the Provincial Congress for such an organization three
weeks later. The Whig leaders in the County were rapidly be-
coming front-runners in the colonial cause. Establishment
of the County Committee was followed by the mushrooming of
sub—dommmittees from various towns in the County just as the
Provincial Congress had recommended.17 Evidence shows that
the manor had at least three sub-committees for the West,
Middle, and East Wards.18

Uncertain is the question of whether or not Philip
Van Cortlandt, one of the deputies from the County to the
Provincial Congress, was firmly committed to the idea of

American Independence, even though he proved himself to be

 

16Journal of the Provincial Con ress, I, p. 8; Force,

 

17Journal of thgrProviggial Cgpgress, I, p. 18.

18Cornelia Beekman at the Manor of Cortlandt to
Philip Van Cortlandt, November 12, 1775, Van Cortlandt—Wan
Wyck Papers, NYPL.

 

 

 

 

242
an intimate member of the extremist faction led by John

19 All

Morin Scot and Alexander McDougal in the Congress.
this time, his father Pierre has been conspicuously with—
drawn from the County political scene. He was certainly
known as a warm advocate of the American liberties as the
citation of the County Convention of April 11 well illus-
trates. But his posture with regard to the colonial cause
at this time was full of ambivalence and uncertainty. While
the County was seething with revolutionary ferment after the
Lexington incident he, the only one from the Whig ranks in
the General Assembly, was seen joining his Tory colleagues
petitioning General Gage not to take a step which he feared

20 No

would inevitably lead to the break-up of the Empire.
less damaging to his credit as a Whig leader in the manor was
the fact that he permitted the loyalist "ADDRESS" of February
1775 to the manor to go unchallenged for more than four months
by the manor's own residents.

At last, on June 19, 1775, an answer to the "ADDRESS"
did come anonymously fromA"An Inhabitant" of the manor, pos-

sibly Pierre Van Cortlandt himself. "An Inhabitant" said

that he had waited "with great impatience" for some able

 

19Journal of Provincial Con ress, I, pp. 26-27, 38,
48.

20Members of the General Assembly of New York to

General Thomas Gage, May 5, 1775, The Letters and Papers of
Cadwallader Golden, NYHS. Coll., LVI, for the year 1923,
PPo 291-930

 

 

 

 

 

 

243
hand from the manor to demolish the argument of the "ADDRESS.”
To his regret, remarked he, "yet none has appeared to sound
friendly alarm to the very indolent inhabitants." (Italics
added) Therefore, he declared, this deplorable dituation
compelled him to take up a pen to frustrate continuous "in—
roads on the liberties of the people," even though the former
scheme of the Loyalist Association had once been'flisconcerted

21 The author was

by some lovers of loyalty and Liberty."
still thinking of the colonial struggle in terms of the dual
standards of loyalism to the British Crown and American li—
berty. The word "independence“ must have been as yet a

dreadful word for the author as well as for most other Ameri—

cans to pronounce.

 

Soon, the apathy of the manor residents and the moder-
ation of Pierre Van Cortlandt would be overtaken by the pro—
gress of events outside the manor. In accordance with the
resolution of the Continental Congress, on May 31 the Provin-
cial Congress put the colony in a state of defense by urging ‘
the people to arm themselves and, "if necessary, to form
themselves into Companies."22 This measure was followed by

23

the organization of militia at the provincial level. In

 

21Force, Am, Archives, 4th ser., II, p. 644.

22Journal of thg Provincial Congress, I, p. 21.

23For e, Am. Azchives, 4th ser., III, pp. 133, 139,
213, 223, 235, 239, 262, 438, 466, 543,625, 627, 629, 639—
41, 644, 653, 660.

 

244

early June, the project for fortifying strategic areas along

24

the Hudson was instituted. As the battle of Bunker Hill

was raging, the Provincial Congress turned down the Concilia-

25

tory Plans of Lord North. The Continental Congress raised

an army with George Washington as its Commander—in-chief.26
On September, the Committee of Safety of New York advised

the Committees of the various counties to disarm all those
who refused to subscribe td“"association" which had been pre—

27

pared earlier by the Provincial Congress. On October 19,
Governor Tryon, now extremely apprehensive of his personal
safety, took refuge on the Halifax Packet of the Royal navy.
A rumor spread that British men-of—war were about to shell
New York City.28

Meanwhile, Pierre Van Cortlandt’s attitude underwent

 

 

24Journal of the Provincial Congress, I, pp. 20, 31;
Am. Archives, 4th ser., II, 1265-69, 1276386; Elipht Dyer
to Joseph Trumbell, June 3, 1775, Joseph rumbull Papers,
Connecticut Historical Society, Hartford, Conn.

25Journal of the Provincial Con ress, I, p. 20.

26w. c. Ford, et., eds., Journals of the Continental
Con ress 1774—1789. 34 vols. (Washington, 1904-375, II, p.
83.

27Force, Am! Archives, 4th ser., III, p. 186.

28Ibido' Po 10540

245

a significant change. Sometime between May and July, he
turned away from the inhibition which had kept him in the
ranks of the moderates and became very active in extra-legal
activities. In June, he gave "full approbation" to his son
Philip's acceptance of the rank of Lieutenant-colonel in the
Continental "rebel" Army.29 In the latter part of July,
Pierre Van Cortlandt gladly accepted his appointment by the
County Committee as a delegate to the Provincial Congress,
substituting for Gouverneur Morris, and he even sat in that
extremist nest, the standing Committee of Safety.30

Whig leaders in the manor also became very active in
organizing their fellow farmers. Their first notable accom—
plishment was in reorganizing the militia forces as the Pro-
vincial Congress had directed. By September 20, they complet-
ed the election of thirty-two new officers for the eight
Company districts in the manor. These newly reorganized
Companies, known as the North Battalion of Westchester County,
were placed under the command of Colonel Pierre Van Cortlandt.
At least five of these officers, namely, David Haine, John

Drake, Joshua Drake, Peter Carman, and Joseph Horton, all

freeholders, had not signed the Whig-supported "Association"

 

29Journal of thp Proviggial Con ress, I, pp. 62, 96;

Philip Van Cortlandt, "Autobiography," pp. 19-21.

3oForce, Am. Archives, 4th ser., II, 1778 ff.

 

 

 

 

246

31 That these five officers

until the day of their election.
had so long delayed committing themselves to the patriotic
cause seems a measure of the wide—spread political apathy in
the manor. Also, the fact that they at last came around to
the "Association" was a tribute to the efforts on the part
of the manor Whig leaders to enlist as many people as they
could in their cause.

As the struggle between England and her colonies in—
tensified with no prospect of compromise, and as the mili-
tancy of the Whigs became more pronounced, men found them-
selves in a situation which compelled them to choose one side
or the other. Every person over seventeen years of age was
told to sign the Whig ”Association." If anyone refused to
sign it, he would then be regarded as a public enemy or
traitor. Thus, it became increasingly clear that neutrality
was a luxury in which one could no longer indulge, unless he
was prepared to risk the wrath of both Loyalists and Whigs
in the manor. Indeed, by early October, the manor was al—
ready torn apart into the two camps. Violence and terrorism
became the order of the day.

The Tories in the manor, under the leadership of Cap-

32

tain Samuel Merrit, a tavern—keeper, Nathan Whitney,

 

 

”Calendar of Hist. Mg. rel. to the War of the Rev.,
1’ P0 1580
32

As for his identification as tavern-keeper, see
Nicholas Bayard's advertizement for the sale of land dated
May 13, 1771, Nicholas Bayard Papers, NYHS.

 

 

247

Esq.,33 a wealthy tenant of the Warrens, and Jeremiah Travis?4
a well-to-do farmer, organized to protect themselves against
the Whigs. They now felt that "their lives whare [Sic] not
Safe among the wiggs." In late October, they distributed a
paper among the manor Tories for their signature, which, they
said, would be sent to a British man-of—war for a supply of
arms and ammunition. The Tories' scheme to arm themselves
was soon detected by the Whigs. About forty manor minutemen
under Ezekiel Hyat,35 a tenant of the Beekmans from Peekskill,
captured "Mr. Cais [or Chase] and Green" and, on November 7,
carried them before the Committee there. The news that the
two Tories had been captured "flew like wild fier," which
instantly occasioned about 100 Tories in the manor to con-

gregate at Captain Merrit's tavern where they threatened to

 

march to Peekskill. Colonel Samuel Drake, Commander of

 

33As for his tenant status and property holdings,
see Account Book of Pierre Van Cortlandt, V2301 and V1689,
SHRL; Loyalist papers, XXIX, p. 117.

Book Aber H, pp. 448-49, 452-53, 455-56, 456-57, Aber I, pp.
360-61, WCCO; Forfeited Estate Papers, Claim against for-
feited estates, 1784-90, Box 1, NYHS.

1
34As for his property holdings and debts, see Deed I

35As for Hyat's tenant status, see the Beekmans'
lease to William Borden, May 1, 1756, V2198, SHRL. Accord-
ing to Robert Borton, Hyat raised a company of forty minute-
men in rifle dress with black gaiters. See Borton, History
of Westghgster Count , II, p. 667°

248

Westchester County Minutemen and resident of the manor,36
ordered Philipsburgh Minutemen to come to the defense of the
Peekskill Committee. However, one minuteman company under
Major Jonathan G. Graham from the Philipsburgh manor was
opposed by the Tories at the tavern. The out-numbered min-
utemen made a retreat to the Croton Ferry in the hope that
there they would find reinforcement. Soon, they were joined
by a detachment under Captain John Relyea37 from Philipsburg.
The irate Pierre Van Cortlandt in a firm voice told them to
break through the Tories by any means. In the meantime, the
Tories, delighted at the first taste of victory, marched "in
all haste" toward Peekskill. Before they reached there, the
now strengthened company of Major Graham overtook them. But,
when Major Graham and his company arrived at Peekskill, much
to their surprise. they were met by a company of about 250
Tories under Nathaniel Merrit, a tenant in the Cortlandt

Manor.38 That night, with the help of about eighty or ninety

 

36Journal of the Provincial Con ress, I, p. 304, 331;
Calendar of Hist. Mss. rel. to the War of the Rev., I, pp.
234, 241.

37Ibid., p. 159.

38Merrit was reported to have had "an advantageous
lease at Peekskill," but we were unable to identify his land-
lord. Loyalist Papers, XXIX, p. 333. He seems to have been
a favorite of Frederick Philipse, who, in 1774, recommended
the former for the office of Justice of the Peace in West—
§§ester County. Calendar of Hist. Mss., CI, pp. 67, 80,

SL

 

hhhhhh

 

 

 

 

 

249
"stanch" Whigs at the house of John Mandavel ("boatman"),
Major Graham managed to "keep the Committee from the fury
of the Tories."39
The next morning, after Pierre Van Cortlandt had
left his home for White Plains to attend the election of

4° the

County delegates to the second Provincial Congress,
manor Tories with arms and clubs gathered "in greater number"
at the tavern of Samuel Merrit. One of the Tories stood up
and declared that "they would disarm" all the Whigs in the
manor and send them to the British man-of-war. They actu-
ally disarmed several Whigs. When they heard that John Van
Tassel of Rykes Patent and a member of the County Committee
was going to White Plains, they pursued him ”With drawn
_swords," but failed to capture him.41
‘It did not seem that the violence of the manor Tor-

ies was going to abate. Taking a grim view of the manor

situation, the County Committee decided, on November 8, to

 

 

39The incident so far described is based on a let-
ter written by Gilbert van Cortlandt and others at the Man—
or of Cortlandt to Philip Van Cortlandt, November 13, 1775,
Mss. N. 11326, NYSL.

 

4°Calendar of Hist. Mss. tag: to the War of the Rev.,
1, PO 1889

4lCorne1ia Beodman to Philip van Cortlandt, Notem-
ber 12, 1775, Van Cortlandt—van Wyck Papers, NYPL.

 

 

 

250

dispatch a part of the Southern Battalion of Westchester
County under the command of Lieutenant-colonel James
Hammond of the Philipseburgh Manor to the Cortlandt Manor.
Still unsure of the adequacy of the militia thus dispatched
to suppress the Tory forces the Committee sent for a thou—
sand Connecticut militia to assist Hammond.42 0n the next
morning, the County militia launched a vigorous campaign of
Tory-hunting. Several scouting parties of the militia were
reported to have caught thirty Tories "at one haul." And
the manor companies of Captain John Hyat, a tenant of the
Beekmans, and Captain Nathaniel Delivan captured eleven
Tories "in one trap." The campaign of the County and manor
militia was so swift in movement that the manor Tories were
subdued and their leaders Samuel Merrit, Nathan Whitney,
and Jeremiah Travis were arrested before the Connecticut
militia arrived on the scene.43

Nevertheless the crack-down on the Tories by the mi—
litia in early November was not sufficiently thorough to
root out all the Tory elements in the manor. In the follow-
ing years, the recouped Tories continued to harass and ob-

struct the Whig cause, despite such Whig precautions as

 

42Gilbert Van Cortlandt and others to Philip Van
Cortlandt, November 13, 1775, Mss. No. 11326, NYSL; Cornelia
Beekman to Philip Van Cortlandt, Nomember 12, 1775, Van
Cortland-Van Wyck Papers, NIPL.

43"List of Westchester Tories," Calendar of Hist.
Mss. rel. to the War of the Rev., I, pp. 188, 341, 455.

 

 

 

 

251

disarming the Tories or obliging them to give bonds of £100,
or even £500, depending on their estates, to insure at least
their neutrality, if not their loyalty to the Whig cause.44
On some occasions, the Tory menace was so serious that
Pierre Van Cortlandt's presence at his Croton home was re-
quired to counter it. For instance, on January 23, 1776,
Van Cortlandt, who was then serving the colonial cause as
the Chairman of the Provincial Committee of Safety, had to
ask for a leave of absence from the Committee to look after
manor affairs. The members of the Committee, "conceiving
his attendance there will be of use to the public tranquil-
ity in that part of the country, consented to his depart—
urea . . ."45

The seriousness of the Tory threat in the manor was
undoubtedly founded on their numerical strength. Precisely
how many loyalists there were is impossible to say. But the
records strongly suggest that the Tories outnumbered the
Whigs. The most dramatic illustration of their numbers was
the November Incident in which the County Committee had to

ask for the help of not only the County and manor militias,

 

442Ezekie1 Hawley, Chairman of Salem Committee, to

the Provincial Congress, June 22, 1776, Ezekiel Halley and
Joseph Benedict, sub—committee of the Manor of Cortlandt
and Salem, to the Provincial Congress, June 24, 1776,

Journal of the Provincial Congress, II, pp, 196-92.

45Force, Am. Archives, 4th ser., III, p. 1068.

 

 

eouwo Hm.llbo%opwm¢m we awe xenon

Zeao

mmaflow Kouuwé
Zoewofl flwwéuoq
monoswow anodwu
zeérobwow Kouuwe
wobueawu roiwm
Hassbm fiodwu
acmoww rwofl
woéon maker
mofluw mum»
moonwow mmmruofl
Us4w9 QoUom
Homes Naomwwwé
bcuoroa robs
Havoc robe
Meson robs
wwowme 0:HH%
meowWou ozunw
thom Manama
QoHoner woiwou
connopwfim moo
Qomour chmou
Swwwwoa muw%
Qcmoww wswwom
mounm wmwwow
wwwo cones
vodwm mfimwwm
movmwow wsum%
wwvoué duaso

oooswoéwob

HumWooon
weHBoH
waulotbofi
wceeswb
wmniou

3

:

Q-iré-Q

meEoH
:

=

wHwonBwaw.

menses
3

a

a
«V

wwHBoH
wawloabou
meEoH
.-
a
£ofl<ou
wueonBwér
o

 

maoésm

macarowmou

embebe

duoofiownou

amoeba

muoowowmon
3

eobebd
w
a
a

.V
wuoowowmon
genome
wHooWOHmoH

3

=
-

a

w

a
sobpbé
wuoorowmon
eobwbé

.-

4

&
muooUowmoH

a

Nmn

iowwfir
wwow

.-
.-
wwwu
wwor

NDHH
.-

a
moon
.-

3

mean
.-

rmbmwoum Mu
We 19m demoed

are imHHobm

.v

w. mowflwwon

are flounomu

gown <. oouawwbmé

Home fioeem
a

 

 

 

 

fiwwwwea iwwwwwam
HoWH floon

aeaom owodéonécb
wwwwww.wswaw
Hosea aroma
ZMoWoHeo <Homobvnumr
wwwuwe ueflwowm
woaou mammowoum
Hmooo wHoua
copay Koumeb. Mu.
has: flown
mevuwow manomm
modem ammom

gosh ommob

Hofib Qowflob
aommdwob ommom
Qwaom oo4oae
homowr oouWHwb
mouoawor Kefidoo
wodou mevoo
mnemouwow mama
swwwwos wawon
Swwwwms ZonoB
More oHoaob
Komom moon
wenflome meadow
HOWH Ewwwon
Umbwow Uo<oo
zwéwmbwow méebdofl
gomwew woodman
hesom meowroflu
Upbwow meodobm
horn seamen
meson eno<wam
monoWWew eHm4wmw

womiou
:

revouou

»
meHBoH

.-
rmwomou
wrwmwowmb
Henson

3

.-
.v

wonaou
.-

a

rwuonou
.-

weHBoH

&
o

womaon
onBoH
4

 

echoes
mucosowmon

w

a
wuoorowmon
echoes

a
wuoowcwnou
genome
wHooronoH

.-

mv
duoorowaon

w
eoBmU&

¢4dwflf¢'¢exfir¢-¢Nflr¢'é

mnommowmou
a

§~
wfloorowmou
a

a

Nmu

mewm
2

teen

wmwm
°

ween

are bovwboowm

eve <oH wwobon

gown 4. Condwwuaé

menu 4. nouawwbmé

 

 

 

 

unsavowaoa euodwmm
ZoUHBme eHodwm
mosfiow euwdwm
cannon wcumrmonw
fiwwpwoa eupdwm wpuaou mmoorowmofi w
Qoflpérpb fluwmrd = :
wuobowm mosses wwwwl = :
convoudou

«bro-ow
w4ww

:93 Haw-‘7“)
an.
H

momuoom" <95 ocuéwebmat<mu swam wewoum. zwmo. been wewonm. wax H. zawrn
wounowaom wmdwéom wmvonm. wax H 959 N. ZNmmm oowobmwu om mwmé.
Koo. wow. so éro Son cm are wo<.. H. v. amwm rowmwwmd wewoum.
N<HH. pm. my. Hmwlwq. Homlam. Hoolww. NNHN. mm. mum. mad. HHN.
wwum :Momsw wmwonm.: Kemmmowsmoéém mwméouwoew moowosw ooHHooéwoum.
<I<H. Mamas monwom. <. v. Hymn oeHHmaou wewoum. HH. wommwse zwmmw
boom woon. wmmmwa. ficoo“ are emu bwmfi ow are no:b¢% om flomnowomsou
. . .Hddo. ZMMEW =mxoawmoewosu am More Keno: Ho Monmobm we flows!
aromaou oo:fl¢% obwwwéom an dWo moHdmoo ow arm obo5%.: <NmaoH.
mmwb. woo mHmo quwocm Howmo wwwoum own Home HoHHm Honéwum we
ere Semen ed mmwb.

 

 

Mme

eevwo Hm.llsrwmm w: are Kouon

zeao

wwonuo 49b oouawoumé

Momow enedwm
memowr boo
bvumrea w¢H94
Qomowr menmbm
HmoWHoH m4msd
Herb mwmé. 9H.
Updwm Eomauomm
wvobonou steam
Hoaom wuodofl
herb Kobmwdow
Qomoww onomwos
mobnw wsuwum
ewoswm méumflm
Hmobonou wowm
mmvuwow ceases
Zesrmbwow mweé
owmmwom mowmmé
Updwm wowboou
fiwwwwwa wownoou
gown wmodon
woaon wswm
momesm vomneoé
womou wommoww
Moscow mmdwwebm
oowow moHH. mum
rméron wamwosda
Qommo rooW<oom
meson menace
horn Kooabo
arcane Koa¢

Ooocwwéwob

muculWooon
onaoH
3

=

mmowIWoodoH
weHBoH
3

muovIWooon
wr4wwoweu
.—

woméamb
mmHBoH
-.

w
weHEoH
mmmmwou
menses

a
reconofi

3
meSoH

a
reuoHoH
wwwmwowob
bevoaoa

w

w
oonmdewuon
becomes

3

maesco
duooWoHnoH
.-

eoflwbe
.-

enthuses:
:

=

.-

a
Mnoorowmon

3

Hobmué
a
finooropmom
mv

aobobe
a
aobeua
wuooWOHmoH
”a

Gowwér

wwor

flown
=

wwow

flown

wwar
--

robmwoum Mm
Wm 49m sonobé

are woowamflm
3

Herb 4. nouéwmbmé

eve woowambm

eve moowaebm

wwonno 4. oouéwwume

wwonuo 4. oouawmbmé

uosom mwoow
woueuawb aefiwou
garb muopuaefl
Hflméflm Seances
moasow EHHmeEm
banned wncdu
meson amuse:
genes nonwoueou
morn cooWfi
meadow doww<en
deuwow voww<mb
Zméwmuwow bowwden
mwwooaé UHoWo
aorb vaWo
moorso UHoWo
meadow UHmWo
mouawufim moflmwbwon
mesflow Newmra
Umbwow newbm
newoc movvw
momowr menace
umsom Nmouwrws
bvueres ream
meadow vomHoboo
meVond beefiionm
more a. KMHHoH
season ZMoUon. an.
Hmoeo Zouaob
Ueuwow wwummpww
mewuow icon
ocomwwr wanna
mowosob wasp!
awacm wcmonHm
mwnoob mower

deBoH
\V

\V
wawdflwmré
a
Henson
:

3

a
wmusou

.—

.-
mwcwIWoowon
wousou

4
mwOwIWooon
wmuaon

3

my

4
Henson
3

a
weHBoH
wrovIWooon
wousou

.—

2
w
Henson

 

~3-9 no

eobWbé

my
mnoowowmou
3

=

w
Mnoorowmou
.-

-

eouobs

muoorcpmon
a

wuoowowmon
.-

=

w

w
wuoorowaow

2

a
duooWonoH
w

4

a
wnooWOHQoH
=

echoes
wuoorchoH
HY

muoLWonon
Nmm

down

wPMH
wwow

flown
.—

wwow
3

was?

wean

awow

wwor

wwouno 4. noaéwobma

are woowambm

 

 

 

 

bvnewps m5w¢r meuaou wHochHmoH flown
meson eewwon : = ‘ wwor
bonuses $099 = = =
Qomoww 4QWH. Q8. : : wowu
wwHwa 4mm ocuéwebmé wrowIWooon : wwor
conbowwfim wéoobnoa KMHHIotboH : =
meanoomu

memaom ow are ooaawedoo mum wwmmw ooaawmuwcu Hon anooéwbm
oommwwueowom. H44¢IH44m. N 4ch.. ZHmm. OOHH.. Awwmalmmv. b4HH.

aw. MN. mwu. NNmIN¢m newcomem ow mwme. Koo. wow. so arc ion 0%
duo No4.. H. mm. Hmm. haw“ Qomflumw 0% Arm wuo4wuowmw oob Homo.

H sum HH. wmmmwaw awe aux rwma 0% are cashew cw somaowomdou.
.H4No. ZHMb" 4mm oouéwoumél4ob 44oF wowoam. Ewan. bebm wwwoum
mum roééoum. oeo.. zwwru woom macro. wmwmws. 4000. moo sumo

donozm Hommo wowoum own Home HoHHm Houeéwbm do are BeuOH we
mmwr.

 

 

mmq

 

 

 

258

but also for the assistance of the Connecticut militia in
order to pacify the manor Tories. Furthermore, the private'
and public correspondence of the manor, in sending a petition
in July 1776 to the Provincial Congress for the supply of'two
field cannons for the defense of two large store houses in
the area, declared that they were "surrounded with numbers of
Tories who are daily meditating our destruction."46 Pierre
Van Cortlandt, echoing the observations of the worried pat—
riots, wrote to his son Philip on July 17 that "this manor
abounds with Tories."47

The fact that a large number of manor residents were
disaffected toward the American side presents the thorny
question of what caused their Toryism. The problem is one of
individual motivation under certain circumstances; why did a
man act the way he did at a given moment? Since there is no
written record explaining anyone's reason for taking one side
or the other, it is well-nigh impossible to offer a positive
answer for this puzzle.

Even group behaviour of the manor inhabitants defies
the making of any meaningful generalizations about the pat—
tern of their behaviour. As Tables 15 and 16 show, tenants

in the manor as a social group did not act as a unit; eleven

 

46
I, p. 473.

47Pierre Van Cortlandt to Philip Van Cortlandt, July
17, 1776, Mag. of Am. Hist., 1889, XXII, p. 169.

Calendar of Hist. Mss. rel. to the War of the Rev.,

 

 

 

 

 

259

tenants took the loyalist side and twelve the patriot side.
Probably many more tenants were neutral in this contest, as
the small number of tenants taking either side would seem to
,indicate. Some historians maintained that tenants in New
York invariably took the opposite side of their landlords;
those tenants with patriot landlords turned to loyalism and
those with Tory landlords to Whiggism, this argument reasoned,
because they bitterly resented the exorbitant rents and other
"quasi-feudal" obligations of their landlords and they ex—
pected to have their leases converted into fee-simple estates

48 However,

of their own when the landlords' cause failed.
this thesis does not fit the behaviour pattern of the tenants
in the Manor of Cortlandt. For example, the identifiable
nine well—to—do tenants of the Beekmans continued to support
the patriot cause throughout the War, desPite or because of
the Whiggism of Pierre Van Cortlandt, who was an agent of

the Beekmans, and became their landlord by virtue of his in-
heriting the soil rights of their leases from Mrs. Beekman

in 1776.49 Three other tenants of Van Cortlandt also sided

with him. The two tenants of a British noble, Sir Peter

 

48Lynd, "The Tenant Uprising," p. 167; Lynd, Anti-
Federaligm in Dutchgss County, p. 54; Mark, Agrarian ngflicts,

pp. 13—17, 200-02; George Dangerfield, Chancellor Robert R
Livin ston of New York, 1746—l8l3 (New York, 1960;, pp. 20,
57, 81—82; Beatrice G. Reubens, "Philipsburg Manor," p. 436.

 

49Gertrude Beekman's will, February 20, 1776, Mss.
No. 12695, NYSL.

 

 

.._...

 

 

 

260

Warren, brother-in-law of the loyalists James and Oliver De-
Lancey, went to the Tory side. In addition, two more tenants
took the same side as their loyalist lordlords John Watts and
the DeLanceys. One tenant of patriotic John Van Cortlandt
subscribed to the Whig cause, and the other three, including
Joseph Golden, John Van Cortlandt's agent, took the opposite
side from their landlord. There were two more tenants who op-
posed Whig 1and1ords--Joseph Lyon and Nicholas vredenburgh,
tenants ofPhilip Schuylerand the Ver Plancks respectively.
Another tenant, namely Nathaniel Merrit, became an influential
Tory in Peekskill, but his landlord is not known. All in all,
seventeen of the twenty-two tenants, or seventy-seven per
cent of those whose landlords are identifiable, were on their
landlords' side in the Revolution, while only five tenants, or
twenty-three per cent, rejected the cause of their landlords.

The above figures, of course, do not encompass an ex-
act picture of the tenants' attitude, simply because the number
of tenants actively taking either side constituted a small
fraction of the more than 100 tenants in the manor. Most ten-
ants, whichever side their sympathy might have been on, were
not vocal and active enough to appear in the public and pri-
vate records. Consequently, the inclinations of the inactive
tenants can not be accounted for. Yet, from an examination
of the twenty—odd tenants, it is possible to draw the general
conclusion that tenants in the manor were evenly divided into

two opposing camps and that, more significantly, the majority

 

 

 

 

261
of them followed the path of their landlords in the crucial
political contest between the mother country and her colon—
ies.

The solidarity of the tenants and their landlords
was probably due to the generous lease terms, discussed in
earlier chapters, which produced generally amicable rela-
tionships between the two groups prior to the Revolution.
However, to base a tenant's political behaviour exclusively
on his social and economic relationship with his landlord
would leave much to be desired. For the tenant, like other
human beings, was not just a political puppet manipulated
by economic and social conditions, nor was his response_tied
solely to his relationship with his landlord. Joseph Golden,
agent—tenant of the Whig John Van Cortlandt, turned to Tory-
ism, desPite the fact that he was a great favorite of the
landlord as shown in the manor riot of 17660 Further compli-
cating Golden's motivation was the fact that he owned sixty
acres of land in fee simple worth $60 (after deducting the
mortgage of about 33100).” Did his debt or his freehold
estate have anything to do with his disaffection from the
American cause? One would be hard—pressed to explain
Golden’s Toryism only in terms of either his relationship

with John Van Cortlandt or his being an agent-tenant.

 

5OLoyalist Papers, XXIX, p. 275.

 

 

 

 

 

262

Just as it is difficult to explain their relationship
with their landlords, so it is dangerous to generalize on the
basis of different social classes. An analysis of those pro—
perty holdings which are identifiable shows that of those on
the Whig side, twenty were "rich" and twenty-eight "fair,"
while eight were "rich," twenty-seven "fair," and twelve ”poor"
on the Tory side.51 It may seem at a glance that the Whigs
did not include the "poor." But it is highly likely that some
of the twenty-one unidentifiable Whigs were of the poor class,
because they did not leave deeds or wills showing their pro-
perty. Although it also looks as if the Whigs had more "rich"
men than the Tories, the numerical imbalance of different

economic classes on the two sides was not so striking as to

 

justify calling the Revolution in the manor a class struggle.
To be emphasized in this connection is the fact that until
further careful study is made of such factors as political :
views, family connections, psychological fear, personal rela—
tionships, and the idiosyncrasy of each individual in the rev—
olutionary manor, it is impossible to offer a conclusive
answer for either individual or group motivation.

Whatever reasons there might have been for the manor
inhabitants to commit themselves to either side, the manor was

torn asunder by the Revolution. Erstwhile neighbors were

 

511 have categorized these manor residents into class-
es in the following manner: The "poor" had,i99 or less; the
"fair" 5:100 to £700; the "rich" over 5,700.

 

 

 

 

 

m263

pitted against one another; the friend of yesterday became
the enemy of today. Very soon, the little struggle between
people of familiar faces gave way to the gigantic fight be-
tween two national armies. During the period from late 1776
to 1782, the manor itself became the major battleground and
cross-road of the two hostile forces. The commanders of the
opposing armies regarded the Hudson River Valley as the key
strategic region for the control of "the communication be—
tween the eastern and southern States; and of all the posts

52

in the United States." Because of its geographical location,

the manor was unavoidably exposed to the ravages of the war.53
British men-of—war cruised on the Hudson regularly and bom-
barded the manor indiscriminately. The British army marched
into the manor and set fire to the houses and buildings occu-
pied by the Whigs. In retaliation, the Whigs destroyed the

54

houses of Tories. In this way, the manor suffered enor-

mous physical destruction during the war.

 

52William Abbott, ed., Mgmoirs of Major-Ggpgral Wil-
liam Heath (New York, 1901), p. 207.

 

53Governor George Clinton's speech at the State Legis—
lature of New York, The New York Journal and the General Ad-
vertizer, September 20, 1779.

54Gilbert Van Cortlandt to Philip (?) Van Cortlandt,
December 5, 1777 (?); Pierre Van Cortlandt to son Philip,
June 30, 1779, Van Cortlandt-Van Wyck Papers, NYPL.

 

 

 

 

264

Worse still, the distress of the manor inhabitants
was further augmented by wanton plundering, pilfering, and
other barbaric acts of the opposing armies. The British
and Tory soldiers looted everything they could put their
hands on.55 According to a reliable observer, the armies
more often than not "did not leave as much as an Iron pott."
Their plundering was indiscriminate, for "Tories have been
plundered as much as Wigs [gig]." "Merrit, Field'a,'Hayns,
Barrot, [and] all the Tuttles, have been well strip'd in
and out Doors." After this particular incident, they became

56

One manor resident, namely James Spock,"was

57

"all Whigs."
Robbed of everything Even shoe & buckles." The enormity
of British and Tory pillaging was exemplified by the fact
that during the nine-months period between September 1781
and May 1782 alone, they took sixty-nine horses and fifteen

cattle from the forty-five inhabitants in the south-eastern

part of the manor. Apparently the soldiers turned into

 

 

55Pierre Van Cortlandt, Jr. and Zepha Platt to the
Representatives of the Convention of the State of New York,
August 2, 1776, Journal of thg Proviggial CongressI II,

56Gilbert Van Cortlandt to father Pierre, June 25,
1779, Van Cortlandt-Van Wyck Papers, NYPL.

57Gerard G. Beekman, Jr. to Pierre Van Cortlandt,
(n.d.), 1779; Pierre Van Cortlandt at Rhinebeck to son
Philip, June 22, 1779, Van Cortlandt-Van Wyck Papers,
NYPL.

 

‘u'u va

 

 

265

bandits.58

The manor Whigs and American soldiers seem to have
been no less barbaric and indiscriminate than the Tories and
their British counterparts. Protesting to the Congress of
the United States about the pillaging and destructive acti-
vities of some American soldiers, Pierre Van Cortlandt, repree
senting the New York Provincial Congress, wrote in November,
1776,that "Whenever our troops have marched or been sta-
tioned, they have done infinite damage to the possessions and
farms, and pilfered the property of the people." "The Sol—
dier," continued he, "who plunders the country he is employed
to protect, is no better than a robber." In the protest, Van
Cortlandt quoted one incident in which an American officer
set fire to the court house and other buildings at White
Plains "without any necessity."59 Apparently, however, the
protest did not have any restraining effect on the conduct of
the American soldiers. Gerard G. Beekman, Jr., son-in-law of
Pierre Van Cortlandt, drew, in vivid detail, a picture of the
barbarities committed by the Whig soldiers against the
friendly residents in the manoro One day in June, 1779, a
detachment under Colonel Samuel Drake, a manor resident, came

to Peekskill and started to abuse the innocent people by

 

58"An Account of the No. of Horses & Cattle Stolen
by the Enemy. . .," Alexander McDougall Papers, NYHS.

59Journal of the Provincial Con ress, II, p. 211.

 

 

 

 

 

266

"cutting them and beating them with their drawn swords."
Some of the soldiers put their pistols “to the Breasts of a
woman in Neighbourhood who had [been] laying in but 3 or 4
dgys." Another detachment which came to the Beekman's
house, already drunk, ordered Cornelia Beekman, wife of
Gerard, to "fill their bottles with spirits." When she re-
fused, they threatened to kill her using the most ”scurri-
lous language imaginable." Beekman's little son Pierre,
having been hearing "so much of the enemy's Light horse,"
mistook the Whig soldiers for enemies, when "these fellows
came up to the house with swords drawing & coming on in so
furious a manner." The child was so frightened that his
parents were afraid that he would "get fitts. . . ."60

While the opposing armies were bent on mutual de-
struction, the innocent and distressed bystanders in the man-
or between military lines were continuously subjected to in-
credible depredations. Their houses were desolated, their
furniture broken to pieces, their cattle and horses gone,
their orchards and fences burned, their fields covered with
weeds and wild grass, and the highways and roads destroyed.

"No single, solitary traveller was seen,” remarked Dr.

Timothy Dwight as early as 1777, a chaplain of the American

 

60Gerard G. Beekman, Jr., at Peekskill, to Pierre
Van Cortlandt, June 29, 1779; Pierre Van Cortlandt to son
Philip, June 30, 1779, Van Cortlandtév n Wyck.Papers,
NYPL.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

267
Army, "from week to week, or from month to month."61 An—
other American officer, James Thatcher, encamping in the
manor in 1781, wrote that the "situation is truely deplor-

able and. . . almost incredible."62

The war deprived the
manor of its life, its beauty, its rich harvest, and booming

proSperity that had characterized its earlier scene. Indeed,

 

as far as its physical appearance is concerned, the manor
seems to have almost reverted to its primitive stage before

any settlement had been founded.

 

The only difference between the manor of 1697 and the
manor in the Revolution was the existence of despondent ten-

ants as well as freeholders undergoing the travail of war for

 

the creation of a new nation. Most of them were indifferent
to the moral issue of the cause and were concerned only about
their personal and family safety. The reServoir of their
passion dried up except for the fear which animated them.

63 Thus the manor

They loved no one, but "feared everybody."
inhabitants, overwhelmed by the physical destruction of their
property, were converted into barbarians during the war.

They had to begin all over again with the coming of peace in

1783.

 

61Timothy Dwight, Travels in New England and New 195;,
4 vols. (New Haven, 1821-225, III, p. 491.

62James Thatcher, Military Journal of the American
Revolution, from the Commencement to the Disbanding of the
American hum. o e Hartford, 1862 , Po 6180

63Dwight, Travels, III, p. 491.

 

 

 

CONCLUSION

In the previous chapters, I have discussed the
lordship of the Cortlandt Manor, the relationship of the
tenants and proprietors, the economic and social welfare
of the tenants, and their reactions to important social
and political events. The first two subjects focussed on

the operational aSpects of the manor lordship and tenant-

 

proprietory relationship rather than on the letters of
manor patent and leases. ’

This approach yielded one important conclusion:
that the lordship and leases have been given by some hi-
storians "feudal" or "quasi-fuedal" attributes that they
really did not possess. Contrary to the traditional views,
the lordship was dead as a working institution from the
moment it was granted and the tenant-proprietary relation-
ship was that of a business contract. Thus, unbridled by
feudal encumbrances and assisted by abundant economic op-
portunities that the colony provided, the tenants in gen-
eral were able to advance their economic and social lot,
and maintain a living standard much higher than generally
described. In view of their possession of large personal
estates, they seem to have been entrepreneurs working for
profit, rather than poor tenants barely eking out their

268

 

 

 

269
existence.

The business relationship of the tenants and land—
lords and the prosperity of the tenants precluded possible
class conflict. After all, they both were bourgeois-
minded. This situation largely explains why most of the
tenants refused to join the manor riot of 1766, initiated
by a few discontented tenants who had been personally mis-
treated by the arrogant landlord, John Van Cortlandt. It
also explains why the majority of tenants in the manor,
if they took an active part in the grave contest between
the mother country and her colonies, chose to take the
side their landlords were on, not the opposite side, as
some historians have argued. In this sense, the American
Revolution was not, so far as the manor tenants were con-
cerned, a vehicle to overthrow "feudal" institutions,
which in fact had never existed, but rather an occasion to
express their solidarity with their landlords.

All in all, the nature of the manorial lordship and
of tenant status in colonial New York has been grossly mis-
represented. This misrepresentation may be partly attri-
butable to the gullibility of many scholars who have taken
the manorial patents and lease papers at face value. An-
other factor which probably has affected historical think-
ing is the attitude eXpressed by descendants of the so-
called manorial lords; oftentimes their nostalgia for the

past conjured up the spectre of ancestral glory-~which

 

 

270
actually had not exited—-to make up for their declining
social influence in twentieth—century American society.
Understandably, this inflated the "feudal" aspect of
colonial manors beyond what the historical record war-
rants. In this connection, it should be noted that the
"Order of the Colonial Lords of the Manors" was estab—
lished in the 1910's and thereafter published a consid-
erable quantity of pseudo-historical literature on the
manors. Even nowadays, such descendants of the colonial
"lords" as Mitchel Levitas and Robert David Lion Gardiner
let themselves engage in braggadacio about their lordship
and their glorious "feudal" past and present. To show the
anachronism of such a position, it is fitting to quote sev-
eral remarks from an article written about Robert D. L.
Gardiner for the New York Times Ma azine, June 5, 1966, by
Levitas, who was introduced as "the lord of a manor:"
A royal grant made Gardiner' s Island a lordship
and manor, entitling Lion [Gardiner] to hold
trials and chop off heads (the latter power was
never used), appoint his own ministers and other-
wise rule his domain with absolute authority.
"It's amazing how many people don't realize the
existence of this dynasty," says Robert David
Lion Gardiner, the 16th lord of the manor and
presiding male in an unbroken line of Gardiners
that reaches back 11 generations. "Why, the
Churchills were tailors in Oxford when we were
large landowners in America. . ."
"Now, I'm not in the same class with Rockefeller
money," adds Gardiner, without envy,"but if he
gave a dinner for me I could top it by serving

a dinner for him on gold service for 84..
that's been in the family since the 18th century."

 

 

 

271

"Remember now, these antiques weren't bought at
auction," Gardiner points out. "We owned them.
It's not like the Rockefellers playing at restor-
ing ye olde Williamsburg. They had nothing to

do with that period. We were here: Now isn't
that marvelous?"

And at the Gardiner Manor elementary school, . . .
the lord of the manor grinned like a kid the
other day when students showed him the school
flag: the Gardiner crest on a field of purple.
"Is there anything more feudal than that?” he
asked.

Then, Gardiner constructed his shopping center,

"It was fantastich" he recalls. "These people

worked in the factory, bought my houses and

became walk—in trade for my shopping center.

Now that, my boy, is modern feudalism!"
In any event, it is ridiculous for a man to project feudal-
ism into the past and present conditions which prove to be
immune to it. Apparently, the descendants of the manor

"lords" are more feudal-minded than their ancestors in

colonial New York.

 

 

 

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY
Manuscripts

This study is based almost exclusively on primary
sources. Of various source materials, the Sleepy Hollow
Restorations Library in Irvington, New York, has the
richest collections on the Manor of Cortlandt. The humber
of the Van Cortlandt Papers, all of which are manuscripts
concerning leases, deeds, wills, rent accounts, and af-
fairs in the manor, runs to several thousand. In addition,
the library has other collections on microfilm, on photo-
stat, and in typescript. They are: the Sir Peter warren
Papers, on 10 rolls of microfilm (original manuscripts at
the University of London, London, England); the British
Transcripts, Public Record Offices, Colonial Office, on 18
rolls; the Livingston-Redmond Manuscripts (originals at the
Hyde Park Library, Poughkeepsie, New York), on 8 rolls;
Colonial Williamsburg collections on Pierre Van Cortlandt,
in typescript. These very find collections, together with
the Van Cortlandt Papers, were essential to my inquiry in-
to almost every facet of the manor structure and Operations.

Supplementary material which furnished valuable in-
formation about tenant—proprietary relationships are found
in other libraries and public depositories in New York.

272

 

 

 

273
Among them, the following collections at the New York
Historical Society were most helpful: the Cortlandt Manor
Papers, 1697-1776; the Letter Book of Philip Van Cortlandt,
1713-1722; the Receipt Books of John Van Cortlandt, 2 vols.,
1757-1771; the Warren Papers; the Nicholas Bayard Papers;
the Whitney Papers; the Whitney-Kipp Family Papers; the
Gulian C. Ver Planck Papers, 24 boxes. Equally important
materials on this subject are found at the New York Public
Library; they include the Schuyler Papers, 1758-1798, 32
boxes; the Bayard-Campbell-Pearsall Collections, 1732-1827;
the Journal (c) of John Van Cortlandt, 1764-1772; the Let-
ter Books of Stephen and John Van Cortlandt, 1762-1792, 2
vols.; the Van CortlanthVan Wyck Papers, Letters, Ledgers,
Land Papers, Day Books, 1695-1792, 12 boxes; the Account
Book of Gertruyd Van Cortlandt, 1726-174d.

However, the above rich collections would have been
less useful if I had not consulted Deed Books (11 vols.,
1690-1783) at the Westchester County Clerk's Office, White
Plains, New York; Deed Books (46 vols., 1660-1783) and
Patent Books (17 vols., 1641-1846) at the Office of the
Secretary of State of New York, Albany; Will Books (12
vols., 1760-1815) at the Westchester County surrogate Of-
fice, White Plains; and The American Loyalists (transcripts
of Audit Office Rolls), 66 vols., at the New York Public
Library. These patents, wills, deeds recording sale and

mortgage of land, and other records associated with the

 

 

 

 

 

 

274
Manor of Cortlandt enabled me not only to identify each of
the tenants in the manor, but also to establish their
property-holdings.

Absolutely indiSpensable in reconstructing the man-
or's economic life in relation to the other parts of the
colony were the manuscript records of colonial land grants
and provincial affairs at the New York State Library.

They are: the New York Colonial Manuscripts, 1638-1800,
103 vols.; the New York Colonial Land Papers, 1642—1803, 63
vols.; the Calendar of Historical Manuscripts (English),
1664—1776, 85 vols.; and the Calendar of New York Council
Minutes, 1668-1783, 28 vols.

As for specific events relating to the manor ten-
ants, the Town Records of Stowe, the Land Records (2 vols,),
and the Mansfield Proprietors Book of Records (2 vols.),
all at the Town-Hall of Stowe, Vermont, throw an explana-
tory light on the land Speculation of the manor tenants.

The Alexander McDougall Papers of the New York Historical
Society was very useful in understanding New York Revolution-
ary politics and the extent to which the manor was exposed

to the plundering activities of the British soldiers during
the War. The Philipses-Gouverneur Land Titles, nos. 13 and

14 at the Columbia University Library, and a transcript

copy of A Geographical, Historical Narrative or Summary of

the Present Controversy between Daniel Nimham . . . and

Legal Representatives of Colonel Frederick Philipse. . . .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

275
at the Library of Congress (originals at British Museum,
London), are very important sources of information about
the complex controversy controversy between the Wappinger

Indians and Philipses in Dutchess County in 1765-1767.
Printed Sources

E. B. O'Callaghan and Berthold Fernow, ed.,,Qgg;
ments Relative to the Colonial HiStory of the State of
New York (15 vols., Albany, 1856-1887) provided a substan-
tial portion of material from which my study of the econo-
mic opportunities in colonial New York was constructed.
The Documents, together with E. B. O‘Callaghan, ed., 222:
umentary History of the State of New York (4 vols., Albany,
1849-1851) includes a multitude of letters, reports, and
comments by public and private figures on economic, politi—
cal, social, and cultural conditions in the colony. There-
fore, I feel that these documents must be the major, and
first, reading assignments for any serious student of the
area.

My endeavor to establish the legal status of the
Manor of Cortlandt in the administrative and judicial organ—
ization of the province was greatly assisted by The Colonial
Laws of New York from the Year 1664 to the Revolution C5.vdks.;
Albany, 1894); Journal of the Votes and Proceedingsof the
Colony of New York.,169l-l765 (2 vols., New York, 1746-1766);

Journal of the Legislative Council of the Colony of New York,

 

I" .II: III. |.| ll .I'l

 

276
1691-1775 (2 vols.; Albany, 1861); and Dixon Ryan Fox, ed.,
The Minutes of thg Court of Sessiggs, 1657-1697 (White
Plains, N. Y., 1924).

There are public documents of other colonies that
deserve special mention. Massachusetts Bay General Court,
Acts and Resolves, nglic and Private, of the Province of
Massachusetts Bgy. . ., 1692—1786 (21 vols.; Boston, 1869—
1922) yielded valuable information on the boundary disputes
between New York and Massachusetts which had important ef-
fects upon the local disturbances in the Westchester and
Dutchess counties in 1766. I spent much time scanning

Robert Stillman Batchellor, ed., State Papers, the New

Hampshire Grants, Being Tran§cripts of the Charters of Town-

ships , . . 1749-1764 (40 vols.; Concord, N. H., 1895) and
Isaac W. Hammond, ed., Documents Relating to Togns in New
Hampshire (22 vols.; Concord, N. H., 1883) to determine

the extent of land speculation by the New Yorkers in New
Hampshire and Vermont areas in the middle of the eighteenth
century.

The best contemporary account of the colonial his—
tory of New York, emphasizing its political and economic
aspects, is William Smith, Higtgry of New York from the
First Discovery to 1762 (2 vols.; New York, 1830). Peter
Hasenclever. The Remarkable Case ofgflgsenclever, Merchant.
;_; (London, 1773), though written in defense of his manage-

ment of various industrial and agricultural undertakings in

 

 

277

the colony against what he considered were false accusa—
tions by his employer, contains detailed accounts of the
colonial labor situation, as well as the production cost
of diverse farm goods and their marketing conditions. His
observations are particularly relevant to my study because
of the fact that he actually supervised commercial farming
in the Manor of Cortlandt in the 176015.

DeSpite its title, Hugh Hastings, ed., Ecclesiasti-
cal Records of thgiState of New York (7 Vols.; Albany, 1901-
1916) provides such non-religious material as records of
the property-holdings of many prominent New York inhabi-
tants, their political affiliations, and the economic and
social conditions in different parts of the colony.

Peter Force, ed., American Archives: ngsisting
of A Collectigg of Authentic Records, State Papers, Debates,
and Letters and other Notices of Public Affairs, 4 ser., 6
vols.; 5 ser., 3 vols. (Washington, 1837-1853); Calendar
of Historical Manuscripts figlating to the War of the Revo-
tign, in the office of fig; Secretary of Stats (2 vols.;

Albany, 1868); and Journal of the Provincial Congress of the

" State of New York, 1775-1776-1777 (2 vols.; Albany, I842)

were useful sources of information about the Revolutionary
manor. My debt to the above records is evident by their
frequent appearance in my footnotes. Some Loyalist accounts
of the Revolution and its personnel, for example, Edward

Floyd DeLancey, ed., Thomas Jones' History of New York

 

 

 

 

278

during thg_§gvolutionary War, and of the Leading Events in
the other Colgpies at That Period (2 vols.; New York, 1879)
and William H. W. Sabine, ed., Historical Memoirs of William
§mith, frgm 12 July 1776 to 25 July 1778 (New York, 1958)
discuss the personalities of such enigmatic revolutionaries
as John Van Cortlandt and Philip Van Cortlandt. However,
these works, in view of their Tory sentiments and their hit-
terness toward their opponents, require cross—checking with
other relevant evidences.

Diaries of both travellers and participants in the
War were very helpful in comprehending the enormity of the
physical destruction of the manor and its effect on the
minds of the manor residents during the period. Diaries of
greatest use were: William Abbott, ed., Memoirs of Major—
General William Heath (New York, 1901); Timothy Dwight,
Travels in New England and New York (4 vols.; New Haven,.
1821-1822); and James Thacher, Military Journal of the
American Revolution, from the Commencement to the Disband-

ing of the American Army . . . (Hartford, 1862)°

In the course of this study, I have relied heavily
on several New York newsPapers of the period from 1750 to
17760 Advertisements for the sale of land in the manor by
many proprietors yielded valuable information about the
quality of land, the degree of its improvements, the condi-
tions for sale, and, more importantly, identifications of

the present occupants of the tract concerned. Among the

 

 

 

 

 

279
newspapers used most extensively were the following, at
the New York Historical Society: the New York Gazette
(Weyman‘s), 1759-1767; the New York gazette and ngkly
Mercur , 1768-1783; the New -York Mgrcurv, 1752-1768;
Rivingtgn's New York Gazetteer, 1774-1776.

The New York Historical Society Collections was
one of the most indispensable sources for this study. The
vast number of wills, diaries, letters, and other mater—
ials which fill the eighty-odd volumes of this periodical
defies individual references. However, the following pap-
ers in the Collections were especially useful: "Journals
of Capt. John Montressor," 2 vols., 1881-1882; "Letter

Books of Cadwallader Colden," 2 vols., 1876-1877; "The

 

Letters and Papers of Cadiallader Colen. . . 1711-1775," )
8 vols., 1918-1937; and "Charles Lee Papers," 4 vols., 1
1871-1874.

Secondary Sources

There is no single exhaustive secondary work on
the Manor of Cortlandt. Most of the works are either gen-
ealogical accounts of the Van Cortlandt family or they
were written for the purpose of advertising the Van
Cortlandt Restorations. Typical of books in the first
category is Louis E. De Forest's thirty-three page The van
Cortlandt Family (New York, 1930); in the second category,

Charles Hopkins Brown's thirty-six page Van Cortlandt Manor

V

I III lullll..|.||l ll'.

 

280
(Tarrytown, New York, Sleepy Hollow Restorations, 1965).
The only work outside these categories is E. Marie Becker,
"The 801 Westchester County Freeholders of 1763 and the
Cortlandt Manor Land-Case which occasioned their Listing,"

in the New York Historical Society Quarterly, XXXV, July

1951, No. 3, pp, 283-321. Even though Miss Becker‘s atten-.

tion is focused primarily on land disputes between the
Cortlandt Manor proprietors and some alleged intruders, her
general discussion of the manor structure is quite scholar-
1yo However, the fact that Miss Becker was limited by
paucity of source material on the manor seems to have led
her to make several misjudgements on the manorial lease
practices and lordship.

One of the good narrative works on the history of
Westchester County, in which the manor was situated, is
Robert Bolton, The History of the Several Towns, Manors,

and Patents of the County of Westchester, frgm its first
Settlement to the Present Time (2 vols.; New York, 1881).

 

This work contains a few accounts of the settlement and de-
velopment of the manor, and interesting anecdotes about
events and characters in the Revolution. But the value of
the work to my study was seriously impaired by Bolton's
over-reliance on hearsay passed down to manor descendants
and by my inability to verify his arguments with historical
evidence.

There are several secondary accounts of manorial

 

 

 

281
lordship and tenant—proprietor relationships in the New
York colony. They are: Stephen L. Mershon, The Power of
ihe Crown in the_Vallev of the Hudson (Montclair, N. J.,
1925); Julius Goebel, Jr., "Some Legal and Political
Aspects of the Manor in New York," Order of Colonial
Lords of Manors in America, Publications (Baltimore, 1928),
No. l9,pp. 1—22; E. Wilder Spaulding, New York in the Cri—
tical Period, 1783-1789 (New York, 1932); Carl L. Becker,
The History of Political Parties in the Province of New
Yeah, 1760-1776 (Madison, University of Wisconsin Press,
1909); Rensen J. Lossing, Hours with the Living Men and
Women of the Revolution (New York, 1889); David M. Ellis,
Landlords and Farhers in the Hudson-Mohawk Region, 1790-
l§29 (Ithaca, New York, Cornell University Press, 1946;
Irving Mark, Agrarian thflict in leehial New York, 1711-
;112 (New York, Columbia University Press, 1940); Alexander
C. Flick, Loyalieh in New Yorkghhringithe American Revolu—
2323 (New York, 1901); Staughton Lynd, "The Tenant Rising
at Livingston Manor, May, 1777," New York Historical Society
Quarterly, XLVIII, April 1964, No. 2, pp. 164-66; Staughton
Lynd, "The Revolution and the Common Man," unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Department of History, Columbia University,
1962. Most of the authors of the above works belong to the
socio-economic conflict school of American history. Their
viewPoints on important topics are at variance with my
views. I strongly feel that their theses should be read

with utmost caution.

 

wail—v1 l .l: .I

 

 

 

282

Oscar Handlin, "The Eastern Frontier of New York,"
New York History, XVIII, No. 1, January 1937, pp. 50-75 is
an excellent study of the boundary disputes between New
York, on the one hand, and Massachusetts and Connecticut,
on the other, during the colonial period. One segment of
my chapter seven, "The Tenant Uprising of 1766," owes much
to his monograph. Dixon Ryan Fox, Yankees and Yorkers
(New York, 1940), which deals with the same subject, seems
to be a popular version of Handlin's work.

Robert E. Brown, Middle-Class Democracy and the

 

Revolution in Massachusetts, 1691-1780 (Ithaca, New York,
Cornell University Press, 1955); Robert E. Brown and B.
Katherine Brown, Virginia 1705-1786: Dehecracv or Aris-
tocracy? (East Lansing, Michigan, Michigan State University
Press, 1964); Charles S. Grant, Democracy in the Connecticut
Frontier Town of Kent (New York, Columbia University Press,
1961) were extremely useful in that they provided me with

a method of historical analysis.

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX I

THE ROYAL CHARTER OF CORTLANDT MANOR

Gulielmus Tertius Dei Gratia, Anglae, Scetiae,
France et Hiberniae, Rex, fidei defensor, &c. &c.

"To all to whom these presents shall come, sendeth
greeting; Whereas, our loving subject, Colonel Stephanus
Van Cortlandt, one of the members of our Council of our
Province of New Mark, &c., hath by his petition presented
unto our trusty and well beloved Colonel Benjamin Fletcher,
Captain General and Governor-in-cheif of our said Province
of New York and territories depending thereon in America,
&c., prayed our grant and confirmation of a certain parcel
and tract of land situate, lying and being upon the east
side of Hudson's river, beginning on the north line of the
manor of Philipsburgh, now in the tenure and occupation of
Frederick Philipse, Esq., one of the members of our said
Council, and to the south side of a certain creek called
Kightawanck Creek, and from thence, by a due east line,
running into the woods twenty EngliSh miles, and from the
said north line of the manor of Philipsburgh upon the south
side of the said Kightawanck Creek, running along the said
Hudson river northerly as the said river runs into the

north side of a high hill, which high lands, commonly called
and known by the name of Anthony's nose, to a red cedar tree,

which makes the southernmost bounds of the land now in the
tenure and occupation of Mr. Adolph Philipse, including, in
the said northerly line, all the meadows, marshes, coves,
bays and necks of land an peninsulas that are adjoining or
extending into Hudsons river within the bounds of the said
line, and from the said red cedar tree another due easterly
line running into the woods twenty English miles, and from
thence along the partition line between our Colony of
Connecticut and this our Province, until you come into the
place where the first easterly line of twenty miles doth
come-the whole being bounded on the east by the said parti-
tion line between our and said Colony of Connecticut and
this our Province, and on the south by the northerly line

of the manor of Philipsburgh to the southward of Kightawanck

Creek aforesaid, and on the west by the said Hudson‘s river,
and on the north from the aforesaid red cedar tree by the
south line of the land og Hielph Philipse, and also of a
certain parcel of meadow lying and being situate upon the
west side of the said Hudson's river, within the said high

283

 

 

284

lands over against the aforesaid hill called Anthony's
nose, beginning on the south side of a creek called by the
Indians Sinkapogh, and so along said creek to the head
thereof, and then northerly along the high hills, as the
river runneth, to another creek called Apinnapink, and
from thence along the said creek to the said Hudson's riv-
er, which certain tract of land and meadow our said loving
subject is now actually seized and possessed thereof, and
doth hold the same of us by virtue of sundry grants here—
tofore made unto him by Col. Thomas Dongan, late Governor
of our said Porvince, and whereon our said loving subject
hath made considerable improvement, having been at great
cost, charge and expense in the purchasing the said tract
of land and meadows from the native Indians, as well as in
the settling a considerable number of families thereon,

and being willing to make some further improvement thereon,
doth by his said petition further request and pray that we
would be graciously pleased to erect the aforesaid tract

of land and meadows within the limits and bounds of afore-
said into a lordship of manor of Cortlandt, which reasonable
request for the future encouragement of our said loving sub-
ject, we being willing to grant: Know e, that of our
Special grace, certain knowledge and mere motion, we have
given, granted, ratified and confirmed, and by these pre—
sents do for us, our heirs and successors, give, grant,
ratify and confirm unto our said loving subject, Stephanus
Van Cortlandt, all the aforesaid, certain parcel and tracts
of land and meadow within their within their several and
respective limits and bounds aforesaid, together with all
and every of the messuages, tenements, buildings, barns,
houses, out-houses, stables, edifices, orchards, gardens,
inclosures, fences, pastures, fields, feedings, woods, under-
woods, trees, timber, swamps, meadows, marshes, pools, ponds,
lakes, fountains, waters, water courses, rivers, rivulets,
runs, streams, brooks, creeks, harbors, coves, inlets, out—
lets, islands of meadow, necks of land and meadow, peninsulas
of land and meadow, ferries, fishing, fowling, hunting, and
hawking, and the fishing in Hudson's river, so far as the
bounds of the said land extends upon the same, quarries,
minerals, (silver and gold mine only excepted,) and all
other the rights, members, liberties, privileges, jurisdic-
tions, pre-eminences, emoluments, to the afore recited cer—
tain parcels or tracts of land and meadows within their
several and reSpective limits and bounds aforesaid, belong-
ing or in any ways appertaining or accepted, reputed, taken,
known or occupied as part, parcel or member thereof, to have
and to hold all theafbrmsrecited certain parcels and tracts
of land and meadows within their several and respective lim—
its and bounds aforesaid, together with all and every of the
messuages, tenements, buildings, barns, houses, out~houses,
stables, edifices, orchards, gardens, enclosures, fences,

 

1|

 

I‘ll.|l lull all (1.1.1:

 

285

pastures, fields, feedings, woods, underwoods, trees, tim—
ber, swamps, meadows, marshes, pools, ponds, lakes, foun—
tains, waters, water-courses, rivers, rivulets, runs,
streams, brooks, creeks, harbors, coves, inlets, island of
land and meadow, necks of land and meadow, peninsula of
land and meadow, ferries,fishing, fowling, hunting and
hawking, and the fishing on Hudson's river so far as the
bounds of the said land extends upon the said river, quar—
ries, mines, minerals, (silver and gold only excepted,)
and all other the rights, members, liberties, privileges,
jurisdictions, pre—eminences, emoluments, royalties, ppo—
fits, benefits, advantages, hereditaments and appurtenances
whatsoever to the afore recited certain parcels or tracts
of land and meadow within their several and respective lim—
its and bounds aforesaid, belonging or in any ways apper—
taining or accepted, reputed, taken, known or occupied as
part, parcel or member thereof unto the said Stephanus Van
Cortlandt, his heirs and assignees, to the sole and only.
proper use, benefit and behoof of him the said Stephanus
Van Cortlandt, his heirs and assigns forever; and, moreover,
know ye, that of our further Special grace, certain know—
ledge, and mere motion, we have thought fit, according to
the request of our said loving subject, to erect all the
afore recited certain parcels and tracts of land and mea—
dows within the limits and bounds aforesaid into a lordship
and manor, and therefore by these presents we do for us,
our heirs and our successors, erect, make and constitute
all the afore recited certain parcel and tracts of land
and meadows with the limits and bounds aforesaid, together
with all and every the above granted premises, with all
and every of their appurtenances, into one lordship and
manor to all intents and purposes; and it is our royal
will and pleasure that the said lordship and manor shall,
from henceforth, be called the lordship and manor of
Cortlandt; and further, know ye, that we reposing especial
trust and confidence in the loyalty, wisdom, justice, pru—
dence, and circumspection of our said loving subject,
Stephanus Van Cortlandt, and to the heirs and assignees

of him the said Stephanus Van Cortlandt, full power and
authority at all times forever hereafter in the said lord-
ship and manor, one court leet and one court baron, to
hold and keep at such time and times abd so often yearly
as he or they shall see meet; and all fines, issues and
amercements at the said court leet and court baron, to be
holden within the said lordship and manor, to be settled,
forfeited or employed, or payable, or happening at any
time to be payable by any of the inhabitants of or within
the said lordship and manor of Cortlandt, or the limits
and bounds thereof, and also all and every of the powers
and authorities hereinbefore mentioned, for the holding
and keeping the siad court leet and court baron from time

 

 

286

to time, and to award and issue out the accustomary writs,
to be issued and awarded out of the said court leet and
court baron, to be kept by the heirs and assigns of the

said Stephanus Van Cortlandt forever, or their or any of
their stewards, deputed and appointed with a full and

ample power and wuthority to distrain for the rents,
services and other sums of money, payable by virtue of

the premises and all other lawful remedies and means for

the having, possessing, receiving, levying and enjoying

the premises and every part and parcel of the same, and

all waifs, estrays, wrecks, deodands, goods of felons,
happening, and being forfeited, within the said lordship

and manor of Cortlandt, together, with all and every sum

and sums of money, to be paid as a post fine, upon any

fine, or fines, to be levied of any land, tenements, or
hereditaments within the said lordship and manor of Cort—
landt, together with the advowson, and right of patronage,
and all, and every, the church and churches erected or es-
tablished, or hereafter to be erected, or established in

the said manor of Cortlandt; and we do by these presents
constitute, and appoint, our said loving subject Stephanus
Van Cortlandt, and his heirs and assigns, to be our sole

and only ranger of the said lordship and manor of Cortlandt,
and to have, hold, and enjoy, all the benefits, perquisites,
fees, rights, privileges, profits and appurtenances, that

of right doth belong unto a ranger according to the statute,
and customs of our realm of England, in as full and ample
manner, as if the same were particularly expressed, in
these presents, anything to the contrary hereof in any ways
notwithstanding; and we likewise do further give, and grant,
unto the said Stephanus Van Cortlandt, and to his heirs and
assigns, that all and every the tenants of him the said
Stephanus Van Cortlandt, within the said lordship and manor
of Cortlandt, shall and may at all times hereafter, meet
together, and choose assessors within the manor aforesaid,
according to such rules, ways, and methods, as are pre-
scribed for cities, towns and counties within our said pro-
vince by the acts of General Assembly, for the defraying of
public charge of each respective city, town, and county
aforesaid, and all such sum or sums of money so assessed
and levied to collect, and pay, and di5pose of for such
uses as the acts of General Assembly shall establish and ap-
point; and further, of our said Special grace, certain know-
ledge and mere motion, we do, by these presents, for us, our
heirs and successors, give and grant unto our said loving
subject, Stephanus Van Cortlandt, and to his heirs and
assignees forever, that the said Stephanus Van Cortlandt,
his heirs and assignees, shall and may, from time to time,
from and after the exPiration of twenty years next ensuing
the date of these presents, return and send a manor in every
Assembly after the expiration of the twenty years, to be

 

 

 

287

summoned and holden within this our said Province, which
representative so returned and sent shall be received in-

to the House of Representatives as a member of the said
house, to have and enjoy such privileges as the other repre-
sentatives returned and sent from the other counties and
manors of this our said Province, have had and enjoyed in
any former Assemblies holden within this our said Province,
to have and to hold, possess and enjoy all and singular the
said lordship and manor of Cortlandt and premises, with all
their and every of their rOyalties and appurtenances unto the
said Stephanus Van Cortlandt, his heirs and assignees, to the
sole and only proper use, benefit and behoof of him the said
Stephanus Van Cortlandt, his heirs assignees forever, to be
holden of us, our heirs and successors in free and common
soccage, as of our manor of East Greenwich, in our County of
Kent, within our realm of England, yielding, rendering and
paying therefore yearly and every year forever unto us, our
heirs and successors, at our city of New York, on the feast
day of the Annunciation of our blessed Virgin Mary, the
yearly rent of 405 current money of our said Province, in
lieu & stead of all other rents and services, dues, duties
and demands whatsoever for the afore recited tracts and par-
cels of land and meadow, lordship and manor of Cortland &
premises. In testimony whereof, we have caused the great
seal of our said Province to be hereunto affixed. Witness
our said trusty and well beloved Col. Benj° Fletcher, our
said Capt.-Gen. & Gov.-in—chief of our Province of New York
& the territories depending thereon in America, & Vice—Admiral
of the same, our Lieut. & Commander-in—chief of the militia
& of all the forces by sea & land within our Colony of Connec—
ticut, & of all the forts & places of strength within the
same, in council at our for in New York, the 17th day of June,
in the 9th year of our reign, Anno Domini, 1697. Benjamin
Fletcher, by his Excellency's commando David Jamison,
Secretarya

 

14111rllll.lflifl\fll I:|..I|l: i . n I:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IUN- IV. L IBRQRIES
IIHHIHI\IWHIIHHHIIIHWI
10136921

TE

WI sfg
11111111111111111
"pa 312933