Susannah Vaughton: Caught in the Web of 17th Century Politics? W:Llliam P. Mc Dermott

Dutchess County -Civil War

75

Pleasant Valley 2,343. 141 143 "as near as can be" Poughkeepsie 17,848 1,071 218 "no room to put here" Red Hook 3,964 238 224 "carefully prepared" Rhinebeck 3,289 197 133 (no comment) Stanford 2,323 139 109 "no record kept" Union Vale 1,502 90 85 "list according to law" Washington 2,685 161 52 "records negligently kept"

Total 64,941 3,895 1,877

It can be seen in the previous table that the towns which kept good records do in fact approximate the six per cent level of names. These are LaGrange, Pawling, Pleasant VaLley, Red Hook and Union Vale. Residents of these towns should feel a large measure of pride in their heritage, for it is only through recordedhistory that the heritage can be felt and enjoyed.

Footnote The.author has for some time been engaged in extensive research of various sources in an attempt to produce as many names of the expected 3,895 Civil War volunteers as possible. In contrast to the 1,877names found in Smith's "History of Duchess County", the author has found nearly double that number and now has a list of 3,297 names of Dutchess County volunteers in the Civil War. The six per cent level has now been achieved in the towns of Dover, Pine Plains and Poughkeepsie in addition to those shown previously. The towns of Fishkill, Hyde Park, and Stanford have been significantly improved. Research will continue, and hopefully this list of names can be published in the near future.

.>:::... j

(l

•·••••••••••••• ·q>··.

;i

: J

,t

c-'i

'-:! J£

J

. \ i ""-

"'t

'it / l

• Pawling's Purchase, the lower portion of which became "Fauconnier's Patent" which was then divided into lots in 1721. Courtesy of the New York State Library, Albany, N.Y.

SUSANNAH VAUGHTON: CAUGHT IN THE WEB OF 17TH CENTURY POLITICS?*

Wi.lliam P. Mc Dermott

Politieal favoritism and Leislerian polities may 'have been contributing factors in a controversy whieh surround~d a 17th century Dutchess County land grant. William P. Mc Dermott is a member of the Board of Trustees of the Dutchess County Historical Society.

Susannah Vaughton is an unknown figure in Dutchess County history, yet she was a central character in a struggle over the ownership of a well-known tract of Dutchess County land granted in the 17th century. The period from 1689 to 1705 was a time of considerable politic~l instability. Although non-political in her public life, she neither held public office nor had the right to vote, Mrs. Vaughton's appeals for her deceased husband's land grant occurred during the period of an intense struggle between two powerful forces, the Leislerians and the anti-Leislerians.1 The record which remains indicates Susannah Vaughton may have become entangled in that political struggle. Since she left no personal record of her experiences, the account which follows is an interpretation of real events which, although speculative, is based on documentary evidence from the period. New York Politics 1689 -1705: Brief Review The English conquest of the Dutch Colony in New York in 1664 began a p.eriod of increasing interest in settlement. Although the pace was slow at first, it was a change from the earlier Dutch policy of settling compact areas, such as New York City and Albany, primarily to serve the commercial interests of the principle colonization agent, The Dutch West India Company. Duke James, later to become King James II, had received proprietorship of New York Colony from his brother King Charles II in 1664. In order to increase his personal income through levying annual rents for each 100 acres of settled land, James directed the governors.of New York Province to increase settlement through grants of land to individuals or partnerships. Granting land, a slow process for the first two decades of English rule, finally gathered momentum under Catholic Governor Thomas Dongan (1683-1688). Dongan's land grants were also motivated by his interest in *Paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Dutchess County

Historical Society held on June 273 1981.

77

78

William P. Mc Dermott

increasing his personal power in the colony. As a result he granted land to a few individuals already regarded by many as the successful new aristocracy in New York. This approach contributed to the discontent within those merchants who were not favored. Jacob Leisler was amo~g the latter group.

Changes in power in the colonies and England increased an already complex New York political scene. The death of King Charles II in 1685 brought James to power. While Charles II was considered arbitrary in his use of power, the arrogance of his brother James II stirred fear and anger within many in the government and the populace. For example, in 1686 James drew the New England colonies together into a single entity, the Dominion of New England, governed by one governor. His decision in 1688 to extend this dominion to include New York angered New Yorkers. Not only did they see their chance for representative government slip further away, there was a growing belief Catholic officials of the.new larger dominion would be unduly influenced by Catholic interests.2 As a result of this annexation Governor Dongan was recalled. New England's Governor Edmund Andros' responsibilities were extended to include New York in August 1688. Administrative responsibility for New York fell to Lt. Goverµor Francis Nicholson.

The birth of a son to King James II heightened tension in England. The new he1r to the throne displaced his protestant half-sisters in the line of succession thereby guaranteeing continuation of Cathlic control. This event set the stage in 1688 for the Revolution in England which resulted in the overthrow of King James II. William of Orange and his wife Mary, daughter of King James II, seized control and returned England to rule under a protestant crown. The reaction in the colonies was swift. The following April Boston citizens arrested and imprisioned Governor Andros and seized power. Lt. Governor Nicholson fled New York leaving the government with no one at the helm. Into this void stepped Jacob Leisler, an avowed "antipapist", who was connected to the older Dutch elite whose dissatisfaction with English rule continued as a low grumble beneath apparent acceptance.3 Concerned about the ·defenselessness of the colony, the militia appointed Jacob Leisler.,Captain of the fort on June 8, 1689. Shortly thereafter he became commander in chief of the province proclaiming William and Mary to be the proper rulers over the province thereby recognizing

Susannah Vaughton

- 79

their right to the throne. After Leisler gained control of the colony in the summer of 1689, his administrative talents became apparent immediately when he gathered representatives from most of the towns in the provin~e to form a government. By August 15, the government was again in operation. A ten man committee of safety· acted in all legal, military and administrative matters even to the point of imprisoning or exiling the opposition. Jacob Leisler became the symbol of all the underlying dissatisfactions among those who had been out of power and were disenchanted with the English style of rule. While some historians refer to Leisler's position of control as self appointed, there was in fact a letter of authorization received from King William.which essentially empowered the individual "Preserving the Peace and administring the Lawes in our said Province".4 Leisler was the man in that position having been appointed by ~he committee of safety. After receiving that letter in December 1689, Leisler regarded himself as the appointed head of the government. This act set the stage for political struggle for the next two decades between groups which became known as Leislerians and anti-Leislerians. Finally the old Dutch had found someone to rally around. However, Leisler's domineering and demagogic personality soon isolated him from many of his supporters. W,hen the newly appointed Governor Slaughter arrived in New York on March 19, 1691, Leisler refused to surrender the fort to him believing the new governor was acting contrary to military rules when asking for a change in command after dark. This incident became the overt reason for disposing of Leisler. However, it was his style of power, the dissatisfaction of thos~ who had recently lost power and the diminishing strength of his supporters which were the true reasons for his demise. Leisler's trial for treason was swift and the order for execution was particularly cruel, symbolizing the fear and hatred he had generated.5 His execution brought a very brief period· of power to a close but left in its wake a continuing struggle. He was seen by some as a martyr, a position strengthened four years later when he was pardoned by the British Parliament. It was these political conditions which the present writer believes affected the outcome of Susannah Vaughton's appeal for her deceased husband's land.

The Controversial Land Grant The controversial tract of land is located in Hyde Park bounded on the west by the Hudson ·River, on the south and east by the Crum Elbow Creek, and on the

80

William P. Mc Dermott

north by an east-west line which runs approximately midway between two roads now known as North Cross Road and South Cross Road.· The north line touches the Hudson River slightly north of Esopus· Island near the creek which flows into the Hudson. This tract is sometimes referred to as the "Hyde Park Patent 11 .6 The Vanderbilt estate is one of several well-known river estates included in this tract.

The first official reference to the land grant occurred during Governor Fletcher's administrationwhen Susannah Vaughton, widow of Michael Vaughton, petitioned the governor's thirteen man Council on behalf of her son. On.April 2, 1695 she appealed to the Council to disapprove the request for a patent from Widow Pawling for the land which Susannah believed was jointly owned by her deceased husband and his deceased partner, Henry Pawling.7 The request was referred to a three man committee, all members of the governor's Council. Although their recommendations do not appear in the Council minutes, the outcome was decided in Widow Pawling's favor. The language of the approval is important for it provided the basis for future controversey. "The petition of Widdow Pauling was read and granted [for her].Patent for the land according to the Indian bounds provided the same do not exceed four thousand acres the qui trent to be twenty shill. 118 This simple decisi_on on which seems to have closed the matter, in fact opened the door to a number of other appeals related to the grant. Another decade would· ~ass before the matter was finally settled.

Before any grant of land could be awarded, a license from the governor to negotiate with the Indians was required. It appears the disagreement between the two widows was based on the license issued by Governor Dongan. Mrs. Vaughton in one of her appeals apparently produced a license from Governor Thomas Dongan dated November 2, 1686 which permitted Michael Vaughton and Henry Pawling to purchase a parcel of land in Dutchess County from the Indians.9 Although this specific document is not part of the record, pavid Jamison, a lawyer who was Clerk of the Council when Widow Pawling received the patent, testified that Governor Dongan's intent was to award half of the patent to Michael Vaughton. 1O It appears Jamison, as Clerk of the Council, had examined the license and therefore was able to testify about its contents and intent. What was Governor Dongan's intention? Obviously this can not be known directly but he appears to have had a

Susannah Vaughton 81

paternalistic admiration of Michael Vaughton. Theymet in 1683 in London shortly before Thomas Dongan left to become governor of New York Province. Dongandescribed Michael Vaughton as "a pretty ingenious young man" who had "offered his services to come along with mee". Vaughton was unemployed at the time but apparently Dongan was impressed enough to have "promised to help him [Vaughton] with a little mony when he stood in need of it' 1 • 11 Less than a year after arriving in New York, Dongan appointed Michael Vaughton Clerk of the New York Market and Collector of Excise on Long Island.12 Also before the end of 1684 Governor Dongan ordered Vaughton, as commander of the sloop James, to seize vessels in Long Island Sound engaged in unlawful traffic.13 Two years later Dongan characterized Vaughton as an "honest" man.14 Based on Governor Dongan's attitude toward Michael Vaughton and his expressed promise to help him, it seems likely Dongan intended Vaughton to receive half of the land granted to Henry Pawling's widow in 1695.15 If that was the case why was the patent, which had not been applied for earlier as was sometimes the case during that period, granted only to Widow Pawling? Mrs. Vaughton's close association with the Leislerians is believed in this writer's opinion to be a principle reason. Although the government admitted the execution of Jacob Leisler was a mistake and the British Parliament passed an act in 1695 which cleared his name and res~ored his estate, the Leisler name and his followers continued to stir unfavorable reaction and fed the fires of controversy for more than a decade after his execution.16 Benjamin Fletcher, the governor in 1695 when Leisler was exonerated, was antiLeislerian as was his Council. In fact eleven of the thirteen Council members had direct contact with Jacob Leisler during or after Leisler's tenure as Lt. Governor of New York .. Two had been arrested in chains and imprisoned by Leisler (Nicholas Bayard and William Nicolls). Two others were ordered arrested but escaped (Thomas Willet and Stephen Van Cortlandt). Seven, including Bayard and Nicholls, were named by Governor Slaughter to the special court which tried Leisler and sentenced him to death (Chidley Brooke, John Lawrence, William Pinhorne, William Smith and Stephen Van Cortlandt). Four had lost their seats on the council when Leisler took control of the government (Nicholas Bayard, Frederick Philipse, Stephen Van Cortlandt and John Youngs). And finally Peter Schuyler was mayor when Leisler brought troops to Albany in 1689 to pressure the reluctant Albanians into acknowledging his control over New York Province. Only

82 William P. Mc Dermott

Gabriel Monviele, who apparently made himself comfortable on both sides of the political fence, had a positive experience with Leisler, having served in his administration as a member of the Admiralty Court. The remaining member of the council, Caleb Heathcote, did not come to New York until 1692, the year after Leisler's execution for treason. However, eleven years earlier, Susannah's husband Michael was one of several witnesses· against George Heathcote, Caleb I s· uncle, who had been charged with violating the revenue laws of the Province. 17 How successful could Susannah Vaughton, daughter of Jacob Leisler, have been when her appeal was presented to the anti-Leislerian council at the same time Jacob Leisler's name was being cleared by the British Parliament.18

Susannah Leisler Vaughton Appeals Silence. Susannah Leisler Vaughton's reaction to the council's decision to grant the land exclusively to Widow Pawling is unrecorded. The public record reflects no further activity until 1701 about the land grant which became known as Pawling's Purchase or Patent. Governor Benjamin Fletcher was removed from office in 1698 in part because he awarded excessively large grants of land to individuals he favored. His successor, Lord Bellomont, replaced Fletcher's council with Leislerians and moderates. One might have thought that was Susannah Leisler Vaughton's opportunity to appeal for a review of the land granted to Widow Pawling. No record of such an appeal appears in the public record suggesting she may have treated the matter as a closed issue. Also, Bellomont was attempting to limit the size of any grant to one thousand acres and he was successful in having some of Fletcher's large land grants invalidate~. Perhaps Susannah did not believe there was much hope for another appeal during the period of reform. A change in the political structure in the British government and Bellomont's death in 1701 brought his land reform policies to a halt.

A simple transaction in 1701 opened another controversy about Pawling's Purchase which continued for the next three years.19 In.May 1701 Dirck Van der Burgh and Dr. Samuel Staats, purchased from Widow Pawling and her three adult children their share of Pawling's Purchase. The rights of her four other children, who were under 21 years, were not sold. As a result about one half of the tract remained in the hands of the young Pawling children while Van der Burgh and Staats took title to the other half. Five months

Susannah Vaughton

83

later, October 30, 1701, these two individuals applied for a patent for approximately five thousand acres oj unallocated land which they discovered existed within the.boundaries of the Pawling Purchase.20 When a survey was finally conducted the entire tract measured ten thousand acres.21 The four thousand acre limit incorporated into the patent received by Widow Pawling provided grounds for further controversy. However, the claim of Van der Burgh and Samuel Staats was brief. A week after their application for a grant of the excess in Pawling's Purchase Leigh Atwo"od, Richard Slater, Abraham Staats (Samuel's father) and unnamed others requested a patent for the same land.2 2 The following day, November 7, 1701, Dirck Van der Burgh and Samuel Staats filed an agreement with Leigh Atwood and Company withdrawing their application thereby allowing Atwood and Company sole possession of the newly discovered tract.23 Van der Burgh and Samuel Staats retained ownership only of the land they had purchased from Widow Pawling. Twenty-two year old Atwood, who had arrived in New York only a few months earlier and whose father, also a recent arrival and was the newly appointed Chief Justice of New York, certainly appeared to be an aggressive land speculator. A few months after this initial transaction he applied for another tract of land, this time in Westchester County. This application for land owned by Caleb Heathcote, was also based on a technicality of ownership.24 Atwood's meteoric rise to prominence in New York in his first months while still in his first year as an attorney was aided by his father. One clear example of this was the assignment Leigh Atwood received from his father to be counsel in the very important treason trial of the prominent anti-Leislerian Nicholas Bayard.25

Susannah Leisler Vaughton became aware of the additional land in Pawling's Purchase and seized the opportunity to recoup her earlier loss by applying for a patent on January 26, 1702, for the unallocated land which she estimated to be about three thousand acres. 26 She receivid a prompt response from the council. On February 2, 1702, Susannah was ordered to appear before the Council to present her application. 27 Her attorney, James Emott, appeared for her on February 5, 1702, presenting her Indian deed to Pawling's Purchase in support of her application.28 James Emott was a strong representative. A successful lawyer in New Jersey and New York for almost twenty years, he had gained great respect. He was an advisor to Governors Sloughter and Fletcher. Later in 1702 he was the trial lawyer for

84

William P. Mc Dermott

the anti-Leislerians Bayard and Nicholls in their trial for treason. Earlier Leigh Atwood had been appointed Bayard's lawyer. Susannah's choice of Emott is intriguing for James Emott was the same individual who had escaped to New Jersey to avoid the wrath of her father, Jacob Leisler. He was also the same individual who returned from New Jersey as part of the team which tried and convicted her father for treason.29 Emott's appearance at the Council in behalf of Susannah L. Vaughton must have impressed the Councilmen with the importance of her application. On the same day another respected lawyer, David Jamison, who had been Clerk of the Council in 1695 when the Pawling-Vaughton controversy was settled, appeared on Susannah's behalf. His testimony in support of her application should have helped her cause. He testified that Governor Dongan intended Michael Vaughton to have one half of the purchase for which the license had been issued.30 The Council referred the matter to the Assembly for a decision.31 It appears the Assembly did not act in Susannah's favor for a few weeks later on April 6, 1702 she appealed for an equal share of any grant approved for Leigh Atwood_and Company.32 It appears she was willing to accept a much smaller share of the tract as a compromise. Was Susannah finally making progress in her quest? Atwood and Co. acknowledged her right to an equal share of land "received from the Indians".33 Was this simply another technicality to allow progress on their application? The only land truly acknowledged as having been "received from the Indians" was the land already granted to Widow Pawling.

Three weeks later another turn of events appears to have effected Susannah's appeal. The new governor, Lord Cornbury, arrived in New York and was sworn in by Chief Justice William Atwood on May 3, 1702. Advance information indicated the new governor was antiLeislerian in his political philosophy. A month later on June 9, 1702, Cornbury removed William Atwood, leader of the Leislerians, Dr. Samuel Staats and others from their seats on the Council.34 William Atwood was charged with making arbitrary judgements as Chief Justice. He also was charged with "openly and notoriously & most scandalously & with wonderfull partiality" making judgements in favor of his son's cases.35 Leigh Atwood, although not formerly charged, was credited with accepting money from individuals who hoped to curry his father's favor. Very shortly thereafter William Atwood left for England and within months his son followed. Leigh Atwood did not arrive in England

Susannah Vaughton 85

until sometime in 1703 because he was captured at sea by the French. He became ill and spent time recovering in a French hospital. As a result of these events no further action was taken on Leigh Atwood's request for the land patent.

Leigh Atwood's departure permitted Susannah to reopen her quest for ownership of the land she had tried to prove belonged to her deceased husband. On May 6, 1703, she again petitioned for half of the Pawling's Purchase, reminding the Council that the tract probably contained eight thousand acres of which the patent given to Widow Pawling limited the Pawlings to ownership of only four thousand acres.36 On the same day Susannah complained to the Council that Lt. Governor Nanfan had kept her Indian deed for land at "Crown Elbow [Crum Elbow] in Dutchess County". The Council acted immediately ordering Nanfan to appear before it the next day "and then & there offer his reasons for detaining the license".37 The Council minutes of May 7, 1703 do not record Nanfan's compliance with the Council's order. Further the Council minutes for the remainder of the year do not record any evidence of his compliance.3 8 The outcome of Susannah's appeal is not recorded but the appearance of a new petition from a new group on March 23, 1704 tells its own story. In that petition Jacob Regnier, John Persons, Benjamin Aske, Barne Cosens and Peter Fauconnier requested a patent for the unallocated land in Pawling's Purchase.39 The land was surveyed and Regnier and his partners requested a patent for the unallocated six thousand acres the survey discovered within the boundaries of Pawling's Purchase.40 Once again Susannah accepted the challenge. Again David Jamison appeared on her behalf on June 16, 1704 but her struggle came to a close following two hearing$ in June by the Council.41 The partnership led by Regnier was awarded a patent for all the unallocated land.4 2 Susannah Leisler Vaughton's ten year struggle from 1695 to 1705 ended on the note of political favoritism on which it seems to have begun. Peter Fauconnier, after whom the land grant became known--"Fauconnier's Patent", had been appointed Receiver General (collector of revenues, rents and duties) by Governor Cornbury. Another partner, Barne Cosens, was Clerk of the Council. Both of these were important positions in Cornbury's administration. The patent awarded to these two men and their partners on April 18, 1705 concluded the controversy.43

86 William P. Mc Dermott

Why the interest in such a small tract of land at a time when land grants measured many times that size? The land wasn't regarded as particularly appealing having been described as "generally Rocky Mountainous ... some small places are to be found therein fit for cultivation and improvement 11 .44 That description was probably intended to minimize the value of the tract and yet give the impression of an intent to settle and cultivate it. During the first decade of theeighteenth century land grants were permitted in theory only to those individuals who intended to settle the land rather than obtain it for its speculative value. That requirement was an important residual of Lord Bellomont's land reform policy. In spite of that the tract discussed herein was more than likely sought for its speculative value. Its three and a half miles of Hudson River frontage may have been the last river frontage land available on the east side of the Hudson from New York City to Albany. Speculators understood the value of such land for shipping purposes and other river related commercial ventures at a time when interior land would be settled. This was one of two river frontage tracts which had gone unnoticed. The other, an adjoining tract to the south approximately four and a half miles in length, was acquired in 1697 as part of and probably the incentive for the Great Nine Partners Patent.

Was it the Leisler name Susannah Leisler Vaughton carried as the daughter of Jacob Leislerwhich prevented her from acquiring this relatively small tract of land? Or was it a matter of presenting her appeals at the wrong time? Perhaps her claim had no legal validity but was based on a simple understanding between the two men. It is difficult to arrive at a firm conclusion about these questions. It appears from some of the testimony given and the Council's willingness to recognize Susannah's appeals on several occasions, there was some basis for her position. Also the reasonableness of her claim received support from Emott and Jamison who appeared willing to support her either in a legal sense as did Emott or as a witness as did Jamison. The answer to the question of her failure in fact probably encompasses all three of the above possibilities. Her first appeal in 1695 was to a Council heavily antiLeislerian at a time when Jacob Leisler was being pardoned and his execution labeled a mistake. This was not a particularly good time to appeal to a group of individuals antagonistic to the Leisler name. Perhaps that failure can be attributed to the fact her maiden name was Leisler. Subsequent claims probably failed

Susannah Vaughton 87

because her competitive claimants were more aggressive. It also appears her competition was in a better position to exchange favors with other colleagues in the government. Leigh Atwood, probably Leislerian in thinking as was his father Chief Justice William, appears to have been in that position. Finally, when Susannah made her final appeals in 1703 and 1704 the brief period of Leislerian political strength was waning quickly. While the new Governor Cornbury was not favorably disposed to the Leislerians in power at the time, note his quick removal of William Atwood, the Leisler name was probably not a significant factor. Political favoritism was to become one of the characteristics of the Cornbury administration. It was probably political favoritism which influenced the decision in favor of Regnier, Fauconnier, Barnes et al.

What was Susannah's reaction to awarding the land to others? One wonders how significant the whole matter was to her. She had witnessed many, many changes in her foity years. Born at the time of the first English takeover of the Dutch Colony in New York, she lived through the period when the Dutch recaptured the colony in 1673 and the English recapture shortly thereafter. She had witnessed a real period of settlement in New York beginning in the 1680's. She had seen great political change and considerable abuse of power in the governments of the period. Her father's execution and the death of her husband both occurring before she was thirty must have provided a perspective about losses. The loss of her husband's portion of the Pawling's Purchase must have seemed incidental in the context of her earlier experiences.

Endnotes

1Michael Kammen, Colonial New York (New York, 1975), 118-127, 128-160; Lawrence H. Leder, Robert Livingston (1654-1728) and the Politics of Colonial New York (Chapel Hill, 1961), chapters 9 & 10. 2Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York, 15 vols. (Albany, 1853-1887), III, 584, (hereafter cited as N.Y. Col. Docs.) 3Kammen, Colonial New York, pp. 119-121; 11The Age of Leisler -New York City, 1689-1710: A Social and Demographic Interpretation'' by Thomas J. Archdeacon in

88 William P. Mc Dermott

Jacob Judd and Irwin H. Polishook, eds., Aspects of Early New York Society and Politics (Tarrytown, 1974), 63-82; Steve J. Stern, "Knickerbockers Who Insisted and Asserted: The Dutch Interest in New York Politics, 1664~1691", N.Y. Historical Society Quarterly, LVIII, (1971), 113-138, particularly 132-138. 4Letter from King William III to Lieutenant Governor Nicholson, July 30, 1689. The full text reads "and in his [Nicholson] absence to such as for the time being take care for Preserving the Peace and administring the Lawes in our said Province in New York", N.Y. Col. Docs., III, 606. 5 Kami~en, Colonial New York, 123-126. 6 Henry T. Hackett, "The Hyde Park Patent", Yearbook, Dutchess Co. Hist. Soc., 24, (1939), 75-90-.-7New York Council Minutes, 1668-1783, 28 volumes,· at New York State Library, 7, 124, (hereafter cited as Council Minutes). 8council Minutes, 7, 186. 9New York Colonial Manuscripts, Land Papers, 1642-1803, 63 volumes, New York State Library, 3, 28, (hereafter cited as Land Papers).

lOibid.

11N.Y. Col. Docs., III, 407. 12N.Y. Col. Docs., III, 410; Edmund B. O'Callaghan, ed. Calendar of Historical Manuscripts in the Office of the Secretary of State, Albany, N.Y., 2 volumes, (Albany, 1866), II, 128. (hereafter cited as Cal. of Manuscripts). 13 cal. of Manuscripts, 134. 14N. Y. Col. Docs. , I I I, 410. 15 Henry Pawling was a minor official as Sheriff of Esopus (Kingston) between 1685-1689. N.Y. Col. Docs., III, 401. 16 Edmund B. O'Callaghan, ed., Documentary History of the State of New York, 4 volumes, (Albany, 1849-51), II, 435-37; N.Y. Col. Docs., IV, 1018.