CHAPTER XLVI.

THE

CONCLUSION.

HE land is very good, and near the City; so, consequently, will in time be a great settlement.'

Thus wrote Colonel Heathcote, in the year 1705, concerning Rye Parish, and the adjacent parts. The City' of New York at that time contained about seven hundred and fifty dwellings, and had a population of four thousand five hundred white, and seven hundred and fifty black inhabitants. The shrewd London merchant might well prognosticate the growth of a place so favorably situated for a seat of commerce; but we must credit him with more than common foresight, to have anticipated the time when the lower part of Westchester County would come to be a great settlement.'

After the lapse of a century and a half, however, the prophecy began to have a visible fulfilment. Within twenty years past, our suburban towns have become easy of access from the city, and have gained largely in wealth and strength from its overflowing popula tion. Rye, among the rest, has become the home of many families who have been drawn hither by the beauty and healthfulness of the spot, and by its proximity to New York. There can be no doubt that, with other localities of like situation, it is destined to increase in size, and to improve in many of the features that constitute a desirable country home.

It is perhaps worthy of consideration, by what a slow and painful process of improvement the manifold advantages possessed by the residents of such a locality as this, have been reached. The security of life, the convenience of travel, the means of education, the civil rights, the blessings of religion, enjoyed in our quiet, rural neighborhoods, as in crowded cities, have been gained by degrees and with effort, through successive generations. It may lead us to prize these advantages more highly, and strive more diligently to preserve and perpetuate them, that we have seen how, step by step, under a providential guidance, they have been

attained.

Our history may be said to illustrate, within these narrow limits, the progress of our land and people during these two centuries, in all the conditions of physical and moral well-being. In the presence of evils and abuses distinctive of our own times, we are tempted to say, What is the cause that the former days were better than these?' We have seen under what abuses the community once suffered, almost without hope of remedy, where we are now living. There is perhaps no respect in which, if we 'enquire wisely concerning this,' we shall not find abundant proof that the course of society has been onward. There is less of misrule, of corruption, of unrighteous exaction,1 of vice, of poverty, of ignorance, than there was, in any of the former days,' which often appear, in a dim retrospect, so much better than these.

We may learn from these records of the past, to appreciate the blessings of peace. We dwell in a region which again and again has been the scene of turmoil and conflict; first, during the primitive days of peril from the Indian; next, during the dispute between the two colonies relative to the possession of this border territory; then, during the agitations that long preceded the Revolution, dividing neighborhoods and families with bitter feuds; and lastly, during the Revolution itself. And if throughout this

1 A relic of old colonial times has just come under our notice. It is a warrant to the collector of the town of Mamaroneck, for gathering a tax upon slaves. A similar warrant was doubtless issued for this town. The document reads as follows:· -'Westchester County ss. To the Collector of Mamaroneck Greeting.

'You are hereby required forthwith to Gather and Collect from every Owner or possessor of any slave or slaves within your Town one shilling a head for every slave male or female from fourteen to fifty years of Age & the same to pay unto ye Treasurer of ye County abovesd on or before ye twenty fifth day of March next Ensuing retaining in your hands ninepence on ye pound for Collecting & paying thereof and at the same time to deliver unto ye Said Treasurer upon your oath or affirmation a true & exact List of ye Name & Names of ye Owners or Possessors of ye Said slaves and in case such Owner or Possessor of such slave or slaves shall deny neglect or refuse to pay the Said Tax on Demand Then to Distrain him her or them by his her or their Goods & Chattels and ye Distress to keep at the Charge of the Owner four days & not being redeemed in that time to make sale thereof at publick Vendue to ye highest bidder & out of the produce to deduct the Said Tax & Charges & return the Over-plus (if any be) immediately to ye Owner and ye County Treasurer is to pay the Said Tax unto ye Treasurer of this Colony for ye time being on or before ye first day of May next retaining thereout Six pence on ye pound for his trouble in receiving & paying the Same Given under our hands & seals at Westchester this twenty sixth day of October in ye twelfth Year of his Majesty's Reign Annoq Dom: 1738

JOHN THOMAS
JOHN WARD (?)
THOS HADDEN'

period, the interests of morality and religion suffered, the churches remaining feeble and sickly, and the community torpid, it was undoubtedly owing in no small degree to the protracted disturbance of public and social feeling; to the want of that continued and well-established tranquillity which is so essential to progress.

A

6

LLING. The name of Samuell Alling appears among the signatures attached to the declaration of the settlers of Hasting, July 26, 1662. In the following year, April 28, 1663, Samuel Allen,' according to Bolton, was one of the planters to whom the four purchasers conveyed the island and mainland. The name does not occur again in our records. (The date 1672 is doubtless a misprint for 1662, in Bolton's history, p. 23, the list of proprietors being the same as on page 20.) Several persons of this name are mentioned by Savage, as among the first settlers of New England. Alling probably left our settlement at an early day.

Applebe. The name of 'Thomas Aplebe' occurs in the same connection with that of Alling, and like it disappears from our records. He or another of the same name was one of the early settlers of Woodbury, Conn. Savage says, ' perhaps died 1690, at Woodbury.'

BANKS. I. John1 was one of the first settlers of Windsor, Conn. Soon after 1643 he removed to Fairfield, of which town he was representative for several years. In 1670, John Banks, senior, of Fairfield, Conn.' (Rye Records) owned a home-lot at Rye, on the Plains. He was a leading man in the colony, active in public affairs, and frequently appointed on important business. It is not likely that he actually resided here at any time. He was deputy to the General Court from Fairfield as late as October 11, 1683. In 1680 he is mentioned in our records as 'John Banks of Fairfield.' In that year he sold two parcels of land at Rye, one of forty-six acres on Manussing Island, the other a house-lot on the main, with the frame of a house on it.' He appears as representative for Rye nearly every year from 1670 to 1680 times for Fairfield and Rye in the same year. Died January, 1685. Children: John, Samuel, Obadiah, Benjamin, Susanna Sturges; Hannah, wife of Daniel Burr; Mary Taylor.

6

some

II. 1. John, oldest son, settled in Greenwich, near the border of Rye. About 1681 he is said, with Thomas Lyon, to have received' a large grant of land, four hundred acres, 'situated in the angle made by the Armonck or Byram river and the Westchester path.' (History of Greenwich, Conn., by D. M. Mead, p. 68.) The houses of John Banks and Thomas Lyon are still standing, on the eastern bank

of Byram River, near the Boston Road. They were probably halfbrothers. The family tradition places their coming to this spot forty years earlier, in 1640; but this is a palpable mistake. John married Abigail, and died July 14, 1699. (Savage.) He had a son John, and perhaps another, Joseph.

2. Samuel, second son, was a resident of Rye, and one of the eighteen proprietors of Peningo Neck. He lived, 1682-1701, near Gunn Brook Plain, or below Port Chester. Died about 1719. In that year 'his nephews' John Banks and John Lyon petitioned the governor of New York, for letters of administration upon his estate. (N. Y. Col. MSS., lxi. 156.) Samuel, mentioned later, was perhaps his son.

Of the younger brothers, Obadiah and Benjamin, we know nothing. III. 1. John, son of John,2 owned land in 1718 on Byram River. He was probably of Greenwich.

2. Joseph, perhaps his brother, was of Greenwich' in 1707, when he bought one of the Byram Ridge lots. He died in or before 1713. 3. Samuel, perhaps the son of Samuel, in 1737 purchased from John Lyon three hundred acres of land in the Middle Patent, or North Castle. The families of this name in that region may be descended from him.

After this date, the name seldom occurs in our records.

Barton. Roger was a considerable landed proprietor under the Dutch in New Netherland as early as 1642. It was probably his son who gave the name of Barton's Neck to a part of Rye. In 1667 he signs a deed as witness, and in 1701 he is mentioned as former owner of a tract of land in Rye. In 1688, Roger, senior, aged sixty, made a deposition relative to a riot in the town of Westchester. (Co. Rec., A, 269.) A third Roger was sheriff of the county in 1706 and 1734.

John is mentioned in 1671; Thomas in 1743. Phoebe, about the beginning of this century, lived opposite the house now Mr. Webb's.

Basset. John, in 1673, lived in Mamaroneck, where, when the Dutch recovered New Netherland, he was appointed one of the Schepens. Before 1689 he had removed to Rye, his name then occurring in a list of soldiers for ye Expedition to Albany' against the French and Indians. Unlike some of his comrades, he lived to return, and was here in 1691.

Arnold, in 1685, bought a house-lot at Rye, and was here in 1709. Michael is first mentioned in 1713. He owned a farm on the lower part of Hog-pen Ridge. Portions of this he sold, 1732-1742, to the Purdys, Merritts, and Kniffens. The name then disappears.

Bloomer. This name does not occur among the lists of the early settlers of New England. In 1663, one John Scott of Setauket, L. I., had a dispute with 'Bloomer,' perhaps of the same place, which the commissioners from Hartford were desired to issue. (Col. Rec. of Conn., vol. i. p. 423.)