Matches 29,801 to 29,844 of 29,844
|| Linked to
||Y ||LEGH, Sir Peter (I34011)
||Y ||LEIGH, James (I34013)
||Y ||LEIGH, John (I34014)
||Y ||LEIGH, Sir John (I34015)
||Y ||LEIGH, John (I34016)
||Y ||LEIGH, Richard (I34017)
||Y ||LIGH, Gilbert (I34018)
||Y ||LIGH, Peter (I34019)
||Y ||LIGH, Robert (I34020)
||Y ||LIGH, Sir William (I34021)
||Y ||SANDBACH, Isabel (I34022)
||Yes ||Family: Unknown / Harriet PARK (F18206)
||Youth ||FROST, Eunice (I5424)
||Youth ||FROST, Grissel (I5425)
||Youth ||FROST, Mary (I39312)
||Youth ||WILKINSON, John (I39819)
||Youth ||WOODWARD, Henry (I39869)
||Youth ||WOODWARD, Robert (I39870)
||Youth ||WOODWARD, Isaac (I39871)
||Youth ||LEIGHTON, William (I40067)
||Youth ||LEIGHTON, Elizabeth (I40069)
||Youth ||BUCHANAN, Katherine (I40783)
||Youth ||TELFORD, Hugh (I41139)
||Youth ||GILKESON, Agnes M. (I41180)
||Youth ||GILKESON, James M. (I41181)
||Youth ||BOOTH, William (I43097)
||Youth ||BOOTH, Sarah (I43118)
||Youth ||BOOTH, Joel (I43119)
||Youth ||BOOTH, Mary (I43121)
||Youth ||BOOTH, Oliver (I43181)
||Youth ||BOOTH, Rebecca (I43183)
||Youth ||BOOTH, Anna (I43233)
||Youth ||BOOTH, Jonathan (I43257)
||Youth ||THORP, William (I43347)
||Youth ||GRAY, Jacob (I43587)
||Youth ||HOBBY, Sarah (I43705)
||Youth ||VANDERBILT, Gerritje Jans (I46453)
||Youth ||STRUTT, Ambrose (I46689)
||Youth ||BLANCHARD, Josiah (I46737)
||Youth ||PARADINE, Mary (I46811)
||Youth ||PARADINE, Robert (I46812)
||[Continued from the Notes on Catherine GARRETSON's husband, Morgan MORGAN, Sr.]|
It was not until 1743 that Frederick held its first independent court, and subsequently, as Morgan had continued his position of Justice in Orange County until this time, was re-commissioned as a Justice of Frederick in November of that year. One of the first acts dictated by this new court, was the establishment of West Virginia's first road, directed and overseen by Morgan Morgan which connected his home to the county seat of Winchester, a distance of about twelve miles. As the Report of the Colonel Morgan Morgan Monument Commission says, the road struck out from Winchester "into the wilderness - pointed civilization westward in its onward course," connecting to Morgan's home, which beyond, was nothing "but Indian, buffalo and pack-horse trails".
From the beginning of this roads foundation, it had been of the utmost importance, being a gateway through the wilderness for settlers to their future western homes beyond, as well as a strategic military thoroughfare. "It was the route of young Washington . . . in command as military instructor, etc., of the militia for the northwestern counties of Virginia" . . . , and it was additionally partly traveled by General Braddock and his troops on their way to Fort Duquesne.
It was four years after the foundation of this road that David Morgan, of which Dale Payne wrote of in his Biographical Sketches of the Pioneers, "became one of the earliest pioneers to explore the region of the Monongahela River". It was in 1747 that David, along with Jacob Prickett, Nathaniel Springer, John Snodgrass, and Pharaoh Ryley "assembled on the Cacapon River at Capt. James Coddy's Fort, to await word from Lawrence Washington and Mr. Cresap before proceeding on an expedition to locate land for Mr. Washington and Company". . . . Lawrence was the elder half-brother of George Washington, who was, as Joseph Ellis wrote in His Excellency, "a surrogate father" . . . for the future first president.
The party set out to pay visit to Charles Poke, the famous Indian trader who was then living along the South Branch of the Potomac River, and who too, with David, was at Captain Samuel Brady's funeral. Poke had been one of the earliest traders to penetrate the seemingly endless wilderness of western Virginia and Pennsylvania, and David's party were hoping to interview Charles in regards to the whereabouts of Traders Track Road. Although Poke was not at home at the time of their arrival, his wife was able to give them the information needed for their journey.
In early May, the group had reached the forks of the Cheat River, where they "remained until about the middle part of June, exploring up and down the Monongahela". . . . It was here that they encountered the Mingo Chief, Guyasuta, who with eight warriors, befriended the young surveyors. This is the chief told of in Story of Old Allegheny City, whom "George Washington once called the 'Great Hunter'". . . . Tradition has it that Jacob Prickett inquired from Guyasuta the name of a nearby stream, and after the chief declared that it had no name, Prickett claimed the stream in Guyasuta's honor. It became known as "Guyasuta Creek for many years" . . . , though eventually gave rise to the name Ten Mile. It is additionally ironic to note that later Guyasuta would come to play a role in the defeat of General Braddock's 1755 expedition, of which both David and Jacob Prickett were soldiers, and it was there that Keziah Shearer, a daughter of Henry Batten's, had claimed that David received "a big scar on his cheek from the fighting". . . .
The year following this exploration of the Monongahela, David, along with sixteen year old George Washington, were appointed to assist "George William Fairfax on a surveying expedition of the Fairfax holdings in the Shenandoah Valley". . . . Their work constituted the northern line of the Fairfax estate, which also doubled as a portion of the boundary between Virginia and Maryland. Additionally, it is believed, as disposed by one Joseph Hartley, an old friend of David's, that he "was a first class surveyor and surveyed most of the tracts [in the Monongalia region] in early times". . . . Unfortunately however, many of these surveying records were presumably destroyed in the Morgantown courthouse fire of 1796.
It was in 1757 that George Washington had first ran for a position in the Virginia House of Burgesses for Frederick County, only to lose to Hugh West and Thomas Swearingen, a son of Thomas Swearingen "of the ferry," and husband of Mary Morgan, a daughter of Captain Richard Morgan of Frederick. However, Washington and Col. Thomas Bryan Martin had come to defeat West and Swearingen in the following year, and we subsequently find that while David Morgan cast his vote in Washington's favor, his father, Col. Morgan Morgan, had voted against the future president, rather preferring West and Martin.
In Charles S. Morgan's Biblical record, earlier mentioned within this sketch, it sets fourth that Morgan had "died colonel of his county" . . . , and the inscription on Morgan's original tombstone, made shortly after his death, confirms the honorary title. Of this position, the Morgan Morgan Monument Commission referred to Garner and Lodge's History of the United States, discussing Virginia's colonial system of government, which claims:
At the head of the county was a lieutenant who corresponded in a rough way to the Lord Lieutenant of England, was sort of a deputy to the governor and bore the honorary title of 'Colonel.' He was commander of the county militia and as a member of the Governor's Council exercised other important non-military duties. . . .
It was in 1753 that Lord Thomas Fairfax, Earl of Cameron, had succeeded Morgan as the county's chief Justice, and it was on March 8th of that year, that now being the presiding officer of the court, "administered the oath to Col. Morgan, qualifying him to his military commission of Lieutenant-Colonel". . . . It was thus that Morgan's rank was second only to George William Fairfax, the Colonel of the County at that time, son of Lord Thomas Fairfax, and George Washington's closest friend. Additionally, George Fairfax's sister, Anne, had married Washington's elder brother, Lawrence; Washington himself, as his letters permit us to assume, would later fall "passionately in love with his best friend's wife" . . . , the young Sally Fairfax. It was four years later, being 1757, that upon Colonel George William Fairfax's death, Morgan succeeded in becoming Colonel of his county, and this, the last major feat known of Morgan's life, was a position that he held until death.
The end of this sketch, of course, ends with Morgan's life, being in 1766, the same year his son Zackquill had settled in Monongalia County, and later came to found Morgantown, West Virginia. Priscilla Kingston had wrote that Morgan "lived a pattern of piety and good citizenship until the advanced age of seventy-eight," and while under the roof of his son, Rev. Morgan, he "breathed his spirit into the hands of his creator" . . . on November 17th of that year. Subsequently, Morgan was buried in the cemetery of Morgan's Chapel, and his wife, Catherine, who survived Morgan by seven years, was later buried at his side.
Nearly one-hundred years following Morgan's death, after the western counties of Virginia had separated during the Civil War, Morgan was credited with having many "firsts" within the state. Today, West Virginia acknowledges Morgan as having been its first white settler, the first civil officer, the first judicial officer, the first commissioned military officer, the first road engineer in supervision of the state's first public enterprise, the first licensed tavern keeper, and the official sponsor of the first church. On April 17th, 1923, the West Virginia State Legislature passed a bill providing for the erection of a monument to Col. Morgan Morgan near his place of burial. Governor Ephraim F. Morgan, a sixth-generation descendant, had appointed a commission to carry out the provisions of the act, which is thus the same commission which was so often quoted throughout this sketch. Consequently, the monument was unveiled and dedicated on September 13th, 1924, forever in remembrance of Morgan's sterling and steadfast character.
|GARRETSON, Catherine (I9881)
||[Notes on Richard BENNETT, continued]|
William Stone, who is more often referred to in the records as "Captain" than as "Governor", reached the outer harbor of Providence (now Annapolis) on the evening of March 24th and came within range of the gains of a Puritan vessel called the "Golden Lyon", commanded by Roger Heamans. Heamans fired a shot upon Stone's boats, much to that captain's surprise, who sent a messenger to him to know the reason. Stone's men soon passed out of the range of these guns and landed on a peninsula on the south side of the Severn where they encamped for the night. The next morning at daybreak, the same being Sunday, March 25, 1655, Captain Stone advanced against the Puritan boats with the black and yellow colors of Lord Baltimore flying in the wind. They were shouting, "Come on, you Puritan rogues, you Roundhead dogs, we will show you what Lord Baltimore will do to you."
Captain Heamans of the Golden Lyon fired two shots upon the advancing Cavaliers, killing one of them and forcing the others to retreat out of range. Captain Fuller, commander of the Puritans, trained in the tactics of their leader Cromwell, resolved to surprise the Cavaliers, and accordingly embarked on his boats and landed a force of about 120 men in their rear. He formed his forces and pitched his colors, those of the Commonwealth of England, hoping that the sight of them might cause the enemy to parley and prevent bloodshed.
The Cavaliers, however, fired upon the standard and killed the standard bearer, William Ayres, formerly one of the early settlers of Isle of Wight, who had transplanted himself to Maryland only to fall in the Puritan cause.
Thereupon Captain Fuller ordered his men to charge, which they did, shouting, "God is our strength," and the Cavaliers answered "Hey for St. Maries." But the Cavaliers could not endure the shock of this charge and were very effectively routed. About forty of them were slain on the field and the rest were captured, among the captives was Governor Stone--only four or five men escaped. This is said to have been the first battle ever fought on American soil between Americans.
Captain Fuller called a court martial which condemned ten of the captured to death, one of whom was Governor Stone. After four of them were shot, one of them being William Eltonhead, Lord Baltimore's messenger to Governor Stone, the others were reprieved.
The Puritan party by this victory secured for themselves the whole Province of Maryland over which they ruled for several years. Richard Bennett very soon after this battle voluntarily surrendered his office of Governor of Virginia and on March 30, 1655, left for England, ostensibly as Virginia's agent. It is very probable that his main purpose was to see Cromwell and explain the Maryland situation to him, for while there he acted in the interest of the Maryland Puritans by endeavoring to have Lord Baltimore's claim to Maryland abrogated by the Lord Protector whom he interviewed personally about the matter and recited all the woes and provocations of the Puritans.
However, Cromwell took no action on the Maryland question, probably weightier subjects occupied his attention and added to his indifference of Colonial affairs.
Bennett seems to have been something of a diplomat, for, growing tired of waiting for Cromwell to act, he addressed himself to Lord Baltimore in a conciliatory spirit and after protracted negotiations secured from him on behalf of the Puritans about all for which he had contended. In substance, Lord Baltimore, on November 30, 1657 agreed to forgive and forget the Battle of the Severn, confirmed the patents of land of the Puritan settlers, and granted their right of religions liberty as it had been proclaimed in 1649. Thereupon the Puritans peaceably surrendered the government of Maryland to Lord Baltimore.
It might be said that this was the climax of the Puritan movement in the Southern States. A movement which had its beginning in England in 1593 by the hanging of John Greenwood, Henry Barrow and John Penry. The forces set in motion by the suffering of these martyrs of the Ancient Church in the name of religious liberty was at last bearing fruit in a new land. These Maryland Puritans were really the successors of the Ancient Church of London and Amsterdam. Introduced to this country through the efforts of Edward Bennett, the surviving elder of that church, they finally came into power and secured all for which they had suffered. But after the achievement of their object, both in the South and in England, the Puritan movement declined. In fact, most of the Puritans of the South, even Richard Bennett, as will be shown later, turned Quaker. And the reaction from the severe and straight laced regime of the Puritans in England was very violent. Probably Richard Bennett while in England sensed this cooling reaction and that may be a reason for his making peace with Lord Baltimore.
Yet who will say that the Puritan movement did not aid in destroying in England the idea of the divine right of kings and gave to all Englishmen a fuller measure of liberty?
Richard Bennett must have left England very soon after he and Samuel Mathews signed the articles of agreement with Lord Baltimore, for we find him a member of the Governor's Council in Virginia on April 8, 1658. He was a member of the Council in 1666 and also as "Major General Bennett" was one of the commissioners appointed by Governor Berkeley to treat with the commissioners of Maryland and Carolina concerning a cessation of tobacco planting. The commissioners of these three colonies met at Jamestown July 13, 1666, and agreed to permit no tobacco planting in their respective colonies for the following year. The so-called similar "New Deal" measures of our day are therefore not "new".
On that same day the Council in a letter to Lord Arlington, the Secretary of State, advised him that "the quantity of tobacco is so great and the price so small we cannot live by it. Have more growing than can be carried away in three years."
In a letter written June 13, 1667, to Lord Arlington the Council complained that Lord Baltimore made void the agreement for the cessation of tobacco planting."
On July 18, 1666, Secretary of State Thomas Ludwell of Virginia wrote to Lord Arlington and said, "As to military government the country is divided into four provinces, one being under the Governor and the other three being under major generals, one being Richard Bennett (one of Lord Arlington's family). Each major general having two adjutants and each county having one regiment of foot under the command of a colonel, generally a councillor."
In 1667 a Dutch fleet of four vessels invaded the Capes and committed depredations on the shipping lying in Hampton Roads. Richard Bennett, as major general, headed the forces against them.
Richard Bennett and Captain Thomas Godwin, Speaker of the House in 1676, were neighbors and merchants in Nansemond. They seemed to have early learned the "Yankee" method of trading, for on May 12, 1671, Lord Ashley, one of the Lord Proprietors of Carolina, wrote Sir Henry Chicheley, Governor of Virginia, that "The Lords Proprietors of Carolina had fallen into the hands of two men of Virginia who instead of being in debt to the Lord Proprietors have the proprietors in their debt, Richard Bennet and Thomas Godwin."
In 1672, William Edmundson, a Quaker, and George Fox, founder of that Society, visited Nansemond and converted Richard Bennett to their creed. Most of the Puritans both in Maryland and Virginia seem to have turned Quaker about this time.
"Edmonson also visited Governor Berkeley, seeking some relief for friends who 'were great sufferers in the spoiling of their goods'. He found the Governor very 'peevish and brittle', and 'I could fasten nothing upon him with all the soft arguments I could use.' It was in this connection that General Bennett drew a picture of Berkeley, summing up his case in a nutshell. 'He asked me if the Governor called me a dog or a rogue, and I said, no, he did not call me so. Then he said, you took him in his best humor, they being his usual terms when he is angry, for he is an enemy to every appearance of good.'" (Bell)
Richard Bennett made his will in Nansemond the 15th of March, 1674, and same was probated the 3rd of August, 1676. He remembered the Quakers very liberally in his will, leaving to the wife of Thomas Taberer, to William Yarrett, Elizabeth Outland, and Thomas Jordan of Chuckatuck, leading Quakers, 2,000 pounds of tobacco each.
* * *
[Notes on Mary Ann UTIE]
(1) Source: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Ancestral File ®, Copyright © 1987, June 1998, data as of 5 January 1998.
|UTIE, Mary Ann (I8977)
||[Notes on Robert LIVINGSTON, continued]|
The ship was ready to sail in the latter part of February, 1696. She first came to the coasts of New York and New England to procure a full complement of men, and to look into the haunts of pirates. After securing a crew she sailed for the East Indies. Not successful in taking pirate ships, Kidd himself became a pirate. His captures in the eastern seas soon became notorious, and made his name a terror to honest merchantmen. Fletcher was aware of his presence near New York when collecting his crew, and after he sailed wrote to the Lords of Trade that Kidd had shown his letters-patent for the suppression of piracy, and had collected a crew of notoriously bad fellows, and added: "It is believed that if they are not successful, it will not be in Kidd's power to control them; they will have money per fas aut nefas." It was afterward reported, and Kidd alleged in his defence that the crew mutinied and forced him, in order to save his life, to commit unlawful depredations on the commerce of the seas.
Bellomont, smarting under the exposure of his connection with Kidd, and the use made of it by Fletcher and his political enemies, charged Livingston as the author of all the trouble and scandal. He said that Livingston introduced Kidd to him, visited his house with him, made all the arrangements, and drew up all the papers with his own hand. When Kidd made his appearance on the coast in the early summer of 1699, Bellomont was in Boston. By a decoy letter he induced Kidd to visit Boston, where he was arrested. Bellomont, in his report to the Board of Trade did not spare Livingston. He said that Livingston had hurried to Boston to embezzle Kidd's rich cargo, and get released from his bond. He went further, and said that he now suspected him of complicity with Kidd. In this he wronged his old friend. Livingston, aware of these reports, and of Bellomont's great irritation, went to Boston to vindicate himself from unjust charges. He appeared before Bellomont and his Council, and successfully acquitted himself. His explanations seem to have been entirely satisfactory to Bellomont, although he did not withdraw his injurious aspersions made to the Board of Trade. Of these Livingston at the time had no knowledge, or he doubtless would have secured their modification, if not withdrawal. Afterward Bellomont treated him with courtesy, and corresponded with him as usual on Indian affairs and other public business. But his self-love was wounded. He did not regard Livingston as his warm personal friend as of old, nor henceforth "the best man in the province." He was disposed to say ill-natured things of him. On one occasion he said: "The soldiers in Albany are worse used than here, to Livingston's only satisfaction [Livingston yet furnished subsistence], for he pinched an estate out of their poor bellies." At another time he said: "Graham has only one friend in the province, Livingston, who has not quite so much cunning as he." He never could forget the exposure of his unfortunate connection with Kidd. It preyed on his mind. He could not forgive Livingston. At last he resolved to remove him from the Council, and it was to have been done the night before his sudden death. This saved Livingston for the time.
After the death of Bellomont, Lieutenant-Governor Nanfan being absent, the administration of the government devolved upon the Council, of whom two members were anti-Leislerian. Livingston, knowing that Bellomont had not regarded him as a friend for some time before his death, and aware of his intention to suspend him, now joined the minority against the party with which he had been affiliated some four years. He knew quite well that a new governor would soon be appointed, that in all probability he would be a man of opposite politics, and he was now preparing himself to be one of the governor's party. When Nanfan returned, and assumed control of affairs, he found means to conciliate him, and make himself useful to his administration. He had addressed a long letter to the Lords of Trade, in which he was lavish in praises of the late governor, but slyly insinuated some things to his prejudice, just enough to give the impression that, notwithstanding all his protestations of honor, and his declamations against the corruptions of his predecessors, he had had an eye to his own interests. It was the custom of the Five Nations, Livingston said, in their conferences, to make presents in exchange for those they received. The greater the presents they received, the more beaver skins they gave, which were always treated as the governor's perquisites. At the last conference held by his late Excellency, so great and valuable were the gifts of the governor presented in his own name, but chargeable to the revenues of the province, that the Indians were fairly taken off their feet. They had not expected so much, and did not come prepared to reciprocate. They felt themselves obliged in honor to procure more beavers. With the presents the Earl had given them, they went to the traders and bought beavers, which the next day they laid at the governor's feet.
Soon afterward he wrote again. He said that he had intended to embark for England on urgent private business, and public as well: first, to vindicate himself before the Lords of Trade from the aspersions of Lord Bellomont as to his connection with the pirate Kidd, and the embezzlement of his cargo; second, to procure a settlement of his claims, for he had exhausted his estate in subsisting the troops, and was now forced to borrow money at ten per cent. True, the Earl had granted him warrants on the treasury in liquidation, but had immediately afterward procured an order in Council stopping payment; lastly, he wished to confer with their lordships upon certain schemes he had suggested in a previous letter for the better security and protection of the colony. But he had been constrained to defer his voyage, because Lieutenant-Governor Nanfan wanted his services in his approaching conference with the Indians, and thought his presence essential. The convention with the Five Nations had been held, and was a great success. Large presents were exchanged, of which the poor province bore, as usual, the greater part of the expense. Besides the one hundred. and thirty beaver skins contributed to Nanfan's private purse, they gave to the king a deed for their hunting-grounds lying north of the lakes Ontario and Erie, and east of Lake Huron. Livingston modestly took to himself some credit for the success of the negotiations. Nanfan seemed so pleased with his services, that, on the asking, he certified to his valuable assistance, and recommended the Lords' favorable consideration of his peculiar circumstances, that he might obtain speedy relief in the payment of his claims and restoration to his offices.
After Nanfan had closed his public conference with the Indians at Albany, a delegation of the principal sachems visited him in the fort. Their business apparently was to confer with him more particularly as to some of their relations still held as prisoners in Canada, notwithstanding the peace. In reality it was to demand that Livingston should be sent to England as their agent, and represent their wishes to the throne. They said that they not only desired that effectual means should be taken to release their friends from prison, but that the influence of the French priests in seducing their people away from their country should be counteracted by English clergymen residing among them. Send Livingston without delay, they said, "and then we are in hopes we shall have a good issue of our business."
The Indian agency was ridiculed by the old partisans of Leisler, who said that it was not so much the request of the Indians, as of Livingston made through them. It was one of his old tricks to lessen his own expenses, and procure more consideration abroad. Their old prejudices were aroused. Nanfan, as the brother-in-law of Bellomont, was soon in full sympathy with them. Their distrust of him grew with what it fed on?rumor and dislike. In October following, the Assembly enacted a law requiring him to account for the money he had received as collector of excise and receiver of quit-rents, and authorized the seizure of his property as a defaulter. This act and other legislation of a like nature aroused the anti-Leislerian party. They had been shut out from public employment, and now their estates were attached. A petition to the king, reciting their grievances and asking relief, was widely circulated, and received a long list of signatures. It was believed by Nanfan and his party, not without reason, that Livingston had taken an active part in the agitation, and in all probability was its chief promoter. To punish him Nanfan suspended him from the Council.
Although he had turned against the party by whom Bellomont and Nanfan were supported, and had joined his old friends in their vigorous address to the throne, he was not implicitly trusted. He had to take other measures to regain their confidence. His friends in England had kept him informed as to all matters relating to the province, and had given him notice that Lord Cornbury would soon be governor of New York, and that he was not a Leislerian like Bellomont. He trimmed his sails accordingly, and joined in an address of congratulation to be presented to his lordship on his arrival.
In Lord Cornbury's first conference with the Five Nations, July, 1702, Livingston was recognized as Secretary of Indian Affairs, and acted in that capacity. But from the first he was not a favorite with Cornbury, who in after years gave public expression to his dislike. He was not restored to the Council, and was treated with marked neglect. His dalliance with the Leislerians had much to do with his present position. He was not trusted by either party. He now had little hope of satisfactorily adjusting his affairs with the government. He returned to the project which had been laid aside at Nanfan's solicitation, and now resolved on his deferred voyage to England. His great success on his former visit gave him encouragement. Moreover, he could conceal his true motives under the veil of an Indian agent. True, he had no governor's commission, but then, was it not well known to the Lords of Trade, that the Five Nations had urgently requested such a commission for him ? Did they not know that the Indians had begged him to present their condition to the throne, and ask for relief? Did they not know of the Indians' appeal for ministers of the gospel to give them religious instruction?
He sailed from New York on June 2, 1703. The voyage, like the first, was unfortunate. On the English coast, near the British Channel, his ship was captured by a French privateer. The captors, after plundering it, allowed the ship to be ransomed. Livingston lost some valuable private papers, but concealed a package sent by Lord Cornbury, which he sent to the Board of Trade with a pathetic letter detailing his misfortunes. He resorted to his old tactics after his shipwreck. After relating the incidents of the capture by the privateer, he says: "I have been a servant of the crown twenty-eight years, and have launched out all the small fortune I have, besides incurring considerable debts, in victualling her Majesty's forces. To secure the payment of what is due me from the crown, I was constrained to leave my family and business, and have now met with this disaster."
On his arrival in London he shrewdly addressed himself first-to the affairs of the Five Nations. In his memorial to the Lords of Trade, after alluding to their wishes to have him act as their agent, he shows how useful they have always been to the colony, and were still. "They fight our battles, and are a living barrier against the encroachments of the French. In the wars they have suffered exceedingly by the loss of men, both in battle, and by the French priests, who have seduced large numbers of them to leave their country and live in Canada. They now earnestly appeal for protection, especially against the influence of the priests. They desire religious instruction, but prefer Protestant teachers. Let Protestant missionaries be sent among them, and they will be gladly welcomed. Their people will be taught the true religion, and they will no longer permit French priests to reside among them." He then passes to a brief statement of the condition of the province, interspersing it with praises of Lord Cornbury, who was a cousin of Queen Anne, then on the throne. He makes no allusion to himself, his services, or his affairs.
The Lords of Trade advised him to consult with the Bishop of London, who put him into communication with the Society for Propagating the Gospel in Foreign Parts, by whom he was invited to attend a missionary meeting to be held at the Archbishop's palace. His negotiations resulted in securing two clergymen of the Church as missionaries to the Indians. He was thus engaged apparently a full year, devoting the entire time to the affairs of his constituents, the Five Nations.
In August, 1704, he again memorialized the Board of Trade. It was now on his own individual business. He asks that his suspension from the office of secretary by Governor Fletcher may be annulled, and he be "restored to the capacity of receiving his salary, according to the recommendation of the late Lord Bellomont, now amounting to eight hundred and seventy-five pounds sterling." The Lords of Trade took his memorial into consideration. They found his statements to be true, and that notwithstanding his suspension, he had since been serviceable in Indian treaties. They made a favorable report to the queen, who by order in council removed the suspension, and restored him to all his rights under the commission.
So far, well. But he was not yet satisfied. His other commissions from the king in 1695 had been discredited. No one of the governors, not even Bellomont, had caused them to be respected. He now wished them confirmed, or new commissions issued by the queen. He believed her sign-manual would be respected, especially by the present governor, Cornbury, who prided himself on his near relationship to the sovereign. He waited and worked nearly a year longer. His patience and efforts were rewarded with success. On September 29, 1705, the queen issued her mandate :
"I hereby restore, confirm, constitute and appoint you, Robert Livingston, to be our town clerk, clerk of the peace, clerk of the common pleas, in our county and city of Albany, and the secretary, or agent of the government of New York to the Indians."
He returned home. But Lord Cornbury and the Council did not respect his new commission more than the old. He was under a cloud which the sun of the queen's favor could not lift. He first presented his credentials to Lord Cornbury, who ordered them in October, 1706, into the hands of the secretary of Council, with directions to examine King William's commissions, together with the proceedings of the Council thereon, and lay the papers before the governor and Council. The secretary made haste slowly. It was not until September, 1708, that the business was ready for the action of the Council. The queen's commission was then ordered to be recorded in full. Livingston now presented a formal request to have his salary paid, or adjusted. The Council refused, alleging that the office of secretary was useless and burdensome; and ordered that it should be so represented to the queen. All the members of the Council were agreed in this disposition of the petition, except Peter Schuyler, who did not vote. . . .
Within a month after the arrival of Cornbury's successor, Lord Lovelace, Livingston addressed to him a memorial, reciting a history of his case, requesting him to make himself acquainted with all the facts, and recommend him to her Majesty for relief. Lovelace consulted his Council, who again objected to the utility of the office of secretary. Of course no action was taken. Livingston asked them to reduce their objections to writing, and furnish him with a copy. This was a preliminary step to further proceedings. But Lovelace died before he had time to make a thorough investigation into all the matters involved. The recognition of the office, and the payment of the salary were again deferred. It was a sore disappointment.
Robert Hunter, the next governor, was a warm friend of Livingston. They were both Scotchmen, and as men of their nationality in the colony were very few, they formed and maintained a lasting friendship. Through Hunter's partiality his fortune was largely advanced. The governor had been directed by the queen to settle a colony of Protestant Germans, who had been driven from their country by the religious wars of Europe, and were in search of a new home. He bought of Livingston six thousand acres of his manor on which to locate them, and then gave him the contract of furnishing their supplies. In various other ways he proved his friendship to Livingston's advantage. There were times when he had grave doubts of his fidelity and honor, but Livingston's explanations were always accepted, and the friendship continued. Even after he returned to England his kindness to him was useful. He bore testimony to the government, that Livingston had been very serviceable to him, as well as to Burnet, his successor; and he commended him for favorable consideration.
During the brief administration of Lovelace, Livingston had been elected to the Assembly from Albany County, and at its second session, in September, 1710, he succeeded in procuring an act relieving his estate from sequestration under the law of the Assembly passed in Lieutenant-Governor Nanfan's time.
In less than six months after Hunter had assumed control of the government, the Council took into consideration the accounts and claims of Robert Livingston, and after a full investigation they audited them for payment. Although this was done, payment of his salary was not made for a year afterward. The sachems of the Five Nations now came to his assistance. In a convention at Albany they made an urgent request, that Governor Hunter should lay the business before the queen, and seek to have his salary as secretary paid in full.
Hunter's partiality to Livingston, and his dealings with him, occasioned remark in England. They were criticised before the Lords of Trade, who considered the subject of such grave importance that they ordered an investigation. Lord Cornbury, now the Earl of Clarendon, was summoned as a witness. He did not appear, but wrote a letter to Lord Dartmouth, in which he severely commented on Hunter's transactions with Livingston, and gave utterance to his old dislike. These proceedings placed Hunter on his defence. His agents in London presented an admirable argument, which settled the question in his favor. They say of Livingston, that "he has always been known as a careful, industrious, and diligent man, who by these more than by other means hath got a considerable estate." "He honorably cleared himself from the charges of fraud and peculation." "His offers for subsistence (for the Palatines) were reasonable, for his facilities to provide supplies were better than others, having a brewery and bakery on his premises near the Palatine settlement."
The Assembly of 1714 passed a money bill for the relief of public creditors. All claims of whatsoever nature, except those named in the act, were repudiated as fictitious, and were never to be paid. The prohibition in this act of the legislature had reference to Livingston's claim for salary as secretary, for interest, and unliquidated balances for the subsistence of the troops, for which payment had been refused for twenty years, notwithstanding the directions of King William and Queen Anne. Livingston was not the man to rest quietly under such a rebuff. The man who could endure starvation and shipwreck, who could make two voyages to England, running the risks of perils by sea and of public enemies, who could remain away from his house and business many successive years to obtain justice, was not the man to be so suppressed, and defrauded of his rights without another struggle. He was fertile in resources.
The year before he had applied by petition to the governor for a new patent of his manor, in which it should be permitted to have a representation in the Assembly. The petition was laid on the table by the Council. Now, by an arrangement with the governor, it was taken up, and favorably considered. A new patent was issued, 1715, which contained the privilege he sought. The next year he took his seat in the Assembly, as the representative of his manor.
Hunter had dissolved several assemblies because they had not passed the acts he recommended, and had in other ways annoyed him. At last, in 1716, one was elected, a majority of whose members were willing to follow his directions?an assembly devoted to his interests. Of this body Livingston was a leading and influential member. At its session in 1717, he procured the passage of an act attaching his whole manor to the county of Albany. Before that half of it had been within the bounds of Dutchess County. The same law provided for the election of certain town officers, and for the payment of its member just as others were paid. He then introduced a money bill authorizing an issue of bills of credit to the amount of forty-one thousand five hundred and seventeen and a half ounces of plate, equal to 41,517-50/100 Spanish silver dollars, to be applied to the payment of such of the public creditors as had been omitted or excluded from the act of 1714. Under his manipulations, and by favor of the Governor, this bill was passed through the Assembly and Council, and received the approval of the executive. Of this large amount of money Livingston received enough to liquidate all his claims. It was now twenty-two years since his first visit to England, since the governor and Council had refused to pay what was due him. He had finally triumphed over all opposition, and compelled a recognition of his claims. The act had not been passed without difficulty. He had been obliged to make some concessions to public opinion, and to the opposition of the minority in the Legislature. He promised to make no further claims forever on the government for his salary as secretary.
Livingston was elected speaker of the Assembly in May, 1718, and held that position for seven years, when age and infirmities obliged him to resign. The House was devoted to the politics of Hunter and of his successor Burnet, and was not dissolved, until the new members, elected in place of those who died, reversed the majority. It had a longer existence than any other colonial assembly.
His manor and politics occupied so much of Livingston's attention after he became speaker, that the duties of his several offices had to be performed by deputies and clerks. In 1720, at the age of sixty-six, he thought it time to retire from the offices he had held so long in Albany. But with his usual thrift and Scottish shrewdness, he wished the salaries and fees to be retained in his family. They had laid the foundations of his estate, and been its chief support for nearly fifty years, until they seemed a part of it. Why should they now pass into the hands of a stranger? He took Governor Burnet into his confidence as to his son as his successor, but did not give him any hint about the salary, only about the office of secretary. Burnet had not been in the country long enough to know the ins and outs of Livingston's character. He had had a good report of him from Hunter, and probably knew that he was now serving as secretary without salary according to the arrangements of 1717. Did he dream that the question of salary would be revived ? Perhaps not. He fell into the trap, at all events.
In November, 1720, Burnet wrote to the Lords of Trade: "Robert Livingston, speaker of the Assembly, desires to have his son Philip, a worthy and capable man, appointed to his place as secretary of the Indian affairs. This I earnestly recommend, because Robert Livingston was always serviceable to Brigadier Hunter, and has been of the greatest use to me both in the Assembly and in Indian affairs. The act prohibiting the pernicious trade (with Canada) is chiefly owing to him." Philip Livingston was appointed the following year.
The prohibitory act referred to was a favorite measure of Burnet, as a means to divert the fur trade from Canada to New York. English goods for the Indian trade were cheaper and better than the French. The Indians preferred them, and the Canadian merchants found it to their advantage to procure them from New York and Albany to supply the demand. Burnet believed that if this trade could be broken up, the far Indians from the west and northwest would bring their furs directly to Albany, to exchange for English goods, and in this way the trade would be enlarged, while the English influence over distant tribes would be superior to that of the French. Livingston was early informed that Hunter in all probability would not return, and that Burnet would succeed him. He also had hints of Burnet's proposed policy. Shortly before his arrival, he addressed a memorial on Indian affairs to President Schuyler, in which he took strong ground in favor of prohibiting the Canadian trade. He urged Schuyler to take the initiative, and place a guard at the carrying place (Fort Edward) to prevent the transportation of goods. At the first session of the Legislature after Burnet's arrival, the prohibitory bill was introduced and owed its enactment to Livingston's influence and activity. Burnet was greatly pleased.
As time passed, he made himself more and more serviceable. Burnet was vain of his literary attainments, his pedigree, and more than all, of his personal appearance. His vanity was his weakness. Livingston, a good judge of men, was not slow in learning how best to serve himself by ministering to the governor's foibles. So well did he stand in Burnet's estimation, that on one occasion, after holding a conference with the Indians at Albany, he induced the governor to adjourn the Council to his manor-house on the Hudson, and there finish up his business. Their friendship did not last through his term, as it did with Hunter.
After five years of intimacy, Burnet began to regard him very differently. He complained that Livingston had secured for his son the offices which he resigned, and a salary for secretary of one hundred pounds payable from the quit-rents. This was unreasonable, for the money derived from the quit-rents could be used to better advantage in other directions. It gave him no solace to recollect that he had enabled, by his recommendations, "old Livingston" to secure the places. Livingston was no longer "my serviceable friend"?he was now "old Livingston." He was no longer speaker, and now it appeared to Burnet, that when in that position "he made a show of, rather than render any valuable service, for at the present session of Assembly, he tried to procure another important colonial office for a member of his family." The truth was, that the confidence of the people and of the Assembly had been gradually drifting away from the governor. Livingston had resigned his speakership, and Adolph Philipse, whom Burnet had removed from the Council, was elected in his place. Burnet had lost his popularity, and no one could help him. In mortification and chagrin he turned against his old friend.
The exact date of Livingston's death is not known. He resigned the speaker's chair in 1725, on account of failing health. In November, 1727, he gave evidence before a committee of the Assembly. His name does not again appear in the records. He probably died in 1728. . . .
Few men in the colonial days were more successful than Robert Livingston. A younger son of a poor exiled clergyman, he came to this country with nothing but his hands and his brains on which to depend for future advancement. In less than a year after his arrival in Albany he was in possession of an office which gave, in fees, a respectable income. Other offices were created by Governor Dongan apparently for his sole benefit. The first, he held for nearly fifty years, when he resigned it with the others into the hands of his son. He was successful as a trader when he chose to invest in merchandise. As a government contractor, none could compete with him. By economy in his expenses, he accumulated money, and having money he had good credit with business men when he found it profitable to use it. On his manor he erected flour- and saw-mills, a bakery and a brewery. With these appliances he was thoroughly equipped for the subsistence of troops, or other bodies of men. He could furnish supplies cheaper and better than any of his contemporaries, and make more money. His prosperity made him the envy of competitors, who spared no pains to disseminate distrust and suspicion, so that government officials were ready at times to accuse him of peculation. Yet there is no evidence on record that he did not adhere to the letter of his agreements. He was a fine penman, and a neat accountant. The bills he rendered to the Government are specimens of neatness and accuracy. His great ambition was to secure an estate equal to the largest. He may have been prudent to meanness, but that he was dishonest in his transactions, is hardly possible. His motto seems to have been, "economy in expenses, honesty in business." By these means he obtained what he desired, ?an estate large for the times, which became within the next two or three generations the second largest in the State. His descendants for some generations were as noted for their intelligence, wealth and patriotism, as their ancestor was for his accumulations.
|SCHUYLER, Alida (I10529)