INTRODUCTION

     The County of Westchester, from its advantageous position and fertile soil, was always considered one of the most important portions of the Province of New York, and for many years before the English conquest was a source of bitter conten tion between the Dutch and their neighbors of the Colony of Connecticut.  The very names of the regions are a lesson in history and geography.  To the Dutch advancing from the west it was known as the “Oost Dorp," or the east village, while by the English coming from the east and extending their boundaries it was called the Westchester.  To this place came new settlers not only from New England but from all parts of Long Island.  This new class of inhabitants were all united in the desire to have Westchester considered a part of Connecticut.  Among them were men from Southampton, L. I., who afterward became very prominent.  One of these, Richard Mills, was one of the earliest settlers in that village, and was the first town clerk and schoolmaster.  About 1651 he left Southampton and settled in Newtown, but shortly after removed to Westchester.  Here the schoolmaster found himself in hot water.  The whole region was debatable land, held and occupied by the Dutch and claimed by the English.  He soon became one of the recognized leaders of the English faction.  Their machinations against the Dutch government were so public and notorious that Peter Stuyvesant sent a band of soldiers and arrested the leaders of what he termed the “English thieves," and put them in prison in New Amsterdam, and among these was Richard Mills.
     Now there may be some philosophical enough to believe that

"Stone walls do not a prison make,
Nor iron bars a cage,"

but the schoolmaster was not one of them.  A few weeks in this unpleasant position brought him to his senses, and he addressed a piteous letter to Peter Stuyvesant, or as he calls him “My Dear Lord Steveson" asking for release.  But the individual called by the veracious Diedrich Knickerbocker “Peter the Headstrong " turned a deaf ear to the complaints of the schoolmaster, and he continued to languish.   Soon after he wrote another letter to the High Court at Manhattan "praying for relief, and stating that he had been tenderly brought up from his infancy, and that confinement in their prison would “perdite” (destroy or endanger) his life unless he were speedily released, and urging, as an additional inducement, his intention "to go about his affairs to Virginia" as soon as freed from prison.  He was soon after released on condition of his agreeing to do nothing against the Dutch Government; but the English accounts state that his sufferings caused his death, “which happened soon after.”  Such was the unhappy fate of the first town clerk of the oldest English town, and the first English schoolmaster in the Province of New York.  In 1710 Richard Mills of Cohansey, in New Jersey, speaks of himself in a deed as being “grand son, and sole heir at law of Mr. Richard Mills formerly of Westchester.”  It would be interesting to know if he has any descendants living.
     Another prominent citizen was Capt. William Barnes, who came from Southampton.  He was a son of Joshua Barnes, a very early settler in that town, and from him and his nephew Joshua Barnes many families of that name are descended.
     Although after the conquest the original Dutch settlers were soon outnumbered by the English, yet there still remained a large population of that race, who clung to the ancient language and customs of their ancestors.  This was especially true of the region embraced in the great manor of Phillipsburgh, which was owned by Fredrick Phillipse, the “rich man of New Amsterdam," and his descendants down to the end of the Revolution.  The lands in this tract were held by tenants, mostly on life leases, and upon the death of the tenant the land and improvements reverted to the Lord of the Manor, unless he saw fit to continue the heirs in possession.  This is alluded to in many of the wills.
     The great manor of Cortlandt, the property of Stephen Van Cortlandt, was also divided into farms and held by tenants, but mostly on long leases.  In other parts of the county, as in the town or Borough of Westchester, lands were held in fee simple, and this accounts for their large population .
     his accounts for their large population.  The region now embraced in Greenwich was always claimed as a part of the Province of New York, and the contest between the two colonies concerning it lasted for years.  To retain this tract and give nothing in return for it exercised all the shrewdness and cunning for which the inhabitants of Connecticut have always been noted.  As a final settlement of the controversy, Connecticut gave in exchange a strip of land one mile, three-quarters, and twenty-seven rods wide, and sixty-eight miles long, extending from near the middle of the east line of Westchester County, to the line of Massachusetts.  This tract was known as the “Oblong” or “Equivalent Lands."  It was sold to a number of capitalists, who divided it into square lots of 500 acres each.  These lots were soon sold to actual settlers, who were attracted by the fact that they could buy their land in fee simple, and at the time of the Revolution there were more inhabitants on the “Oblong" in proportion to its extent, than in any of the great manors.  In preparing the following abstracts of wills the writer has been actuated by a desire to omit nothing that can throw any light on genealogy or real estate.  The descriptions of parcels of land are given in the words of the will.  As regards personal property the writer makes a distinction between articles of permanent and lasting value, and those that are transient and perishable.  If a man left to his children or wife articles of silver ware, as a tankard, a porringer, or spoons, or a Bible, or a sword, —the fact is carefully noted, as these articles may still be in existence, and treasured as valued heirlooms.  But if he left to any of his heirs five pounds, a cow, or a feather bed, we conclude that the money is spent, the cow dead, and the bed worn out.  Such things are mentioned under the general name of “legacies."  It has also been our object to omit nothing that can throw any light on the manners and customs of the time.  The religious element in the wills is to be especially noticed: the testator leaves his body to the ground, and his soul to God who gave it, in full confidence that at the “Last Great Day” the former will be raised again by the “mighty power of God.” We have no hesitation in expressing our opinion that the “Know all men by these presents,” of the present time, is a very poor substitute for the “In the Name of God, Amen,” invariably used in the ancient times.
     In the wills of Jews, the expression “In the of our Lord” is omitted in deference to the wishes of the testator.
     Among the early Dutch residents, a funeral was an occasion of enjoyment rather than of solemnity.  Ardent spirits were freely dispensed to those attending, and a lavish entertainment was frequently provided.  To the English population a pompous funeral was a thing greatly desired, and not unfrequently was a source of expense which weighed heavily upon the family.  One of the most interesting wills in this book is that of a Quaker who states that he has frequently “borne his testimony" against such things during his life and now "bears his last testimony."
     In early times the eldest son was supposed to be heir at law to all lands, and some especial legacy was very frequently left to him for the purpose of preventing such a claim.
     Where the names of executors are omitted in these abstracts, it is in cases where their names already appear in the will.  Where the witnesses are omitted it is when they are well-known persons whose names very frequently occur.
                                                                     WILLIAM S. PELLETREAU.
                                       SOUTHAMPTON, L. I.

< CLICK HERE to RETURN to TABLE OF CONTENTS >