voyage to the New World, we have no means of ascertaining whether any
of his countrymen were on the ships of either Verrazano, Gomez or
Hudson, upon the first three occasions when the Bay of New York was
seen by Europeans. The mystery which has enveloped the early life of
Hudson and which shrouded his end surrounds as well many of the
details of his memorable cruise. We do know that besides the captain
there were but two aboard that vessel out of its total equipment of
from sixteen to twenty men who spoke English—Robert Juet of Limehouse,
England, the captain’s clerk, who kept the journal of the voyage, and
one John Colman, a sailor, referred to as an Englishman by Juet, but
who may have been of Irish descent. He was evidently an experienced
seafaring man and a follower of Hudson’s, for in the first known
reference to the latter, which is the record of his voyage of
discovery for the Muscovy Company, April 19, 1607, in search of a
passage by way of the North Pole to Japan and China, Colman was one of
the sailors. As Hudson passed the Highlands of Navesink September 1,
1609, and entered the lower bay, he was so impressed with its beauty
that he described it as ‘a very good land to fall in with, and a
pleasant land to see.’ On September 6 a boat’s crew was dispatched
from the ship and, entering and passing the Narrows, beheld the first
view of Manhattan Island. The land encircling the bay was covered with
trees, grass and flowers and the air was filled with delightful
fragrance. On their return the crew were attacked by Indians in two
canoes, and John Colman was killed by an arrow piercing his throat—the
first blood offering to the approaching civilization which was to
revolutionize the hitherto peaceful scene.
“While the Dutch occupation of New Amsterdam continued, we find no
positive traces of Irish names or inhabitants, save in two instances.
One is the mention of the Irishman from Virginia who went to
confession to Father Jogues in 1643, while the latter was temporarily
sojourning in the town after his rescue by the Dutch from the hands of
the Indians, and who advised the latter of the presence of Jesuit
fathers in Virginia. The other is the name, several times appearing,
of ‘Thomas, the Irishman,’ concerning whom I have been able to collect
many scattered items. His real name was Thomas Lewis, although he is
to be found referred to at various times as ‘Thomas, the Irishman,’
‘the Irishman,’ and Lodewycksen or Lodewycksz, as well as by his
proper name. He was the captain of one of Director Stuyvesant’s war
yachts, which served for a dispatch-boat as well.
“His was an interesting career, and I am glad to be able to present
some of its salient features, which may enjoy at least the merits of
novelty. He was born in Belfast, and becoming involved in the
Cromwellian wars, his family was dispersed, his two sisters first
flying to Holland for refuge, where they afterwards died. They were
followed by Lewis, who upon their death applied to the West India
Company at Amsterdam and was by them sent to New York. In the
Directors’ letter to Director Stuyvesant and his Council (June 14,
1656), they notify the latter: ‘In the ship _Blauwe Duiff_ (Blue Dove)
goes also over Thomas Lodewicksen, carpenter, for whom the Company,
too, paid the fare, on condition of his remaining in New Netherland
for three years, or if he leave before he must refund the passage
money to you in Holland coin or its equivalent.’ The _Blauwe Duiff_
arrived here September 5, 1656. Lewis appears to have gone to Albany
(then Fort Orange) for in 1658 he was in partnership there with
Reynier Wisselpennigh as carpenters and builders and they sued the
local church for 270 guilders for building the ‘Doop-huysie’
(baptistry) and received the full amount. In 1661 his partner and he
had differences over the cost of fitting out a sloop they were
building. He must have come to New Amsterdam shortly thereafter, as
the court records here show. In the meantime he had married, in Fort
Orange, Geesje Barents.
“On October 17, 1662, Reiner Wisselpenninck brought suit against
‘Tomas, the Irishman’ in the Mayor’s Court at the City Hall, to
recover a balance of six beavers due for a half-interest in a bark,
and two beavers for a barrel of tar. Defendant counterclaimed and
plaintiff had judgment for three beavers only. On May 29, 1663,
certain tobacco contained in the bark of ‘Thomas, the Irishman’ and
belonging to Samuel Etsal was attached in a suit against the latter.
Hendrick Zanzen Smith sued Gysbert Frerickzen October 2, 1663, and in
that action an attachment was levied on moneys belonging to defendant
in the hands of ‘Thomas, the Irishman.’
“In June, 1663, Director Stuyvesant sailed from Manhattan to Wildwyck
(Kingston) on Lewis’ yacht, and on the 15th of the month while lying
in the ‘Long Reach’ (North River) he sent a message to the magistrates
at Fort Orange, in the course of which he noted ‘this is written in
haste on board of the Irishman’s yacht.’
“In the correspondence between Director Stuyvesant and Captain Cregier
at the Esopus and in the minutes of the government of the latter
reference is made five times in 1663 to the arrival of Lewis at ‘the
redoubt’ at Esopus from Manhattan; on August 5th, on September 1st
(when he and Claesje Hoorn came in their yachts) and on September
17th, 19th and 21st. On all these occasions he is referred to as
‘Thomas, the Irishman.’ In an order of the Council, August 29, 1663,
Tomos Lodewyck and Claes Lock were ordered to await orders from
Captain Cregier before the Redoubt (Roudont). This was during the
Indian war in the Esopus.
“Thomas Lewis was an active and successful man, and in addition to
being a ship-owner and pilot was evidently engaged in trade and in the
sale of liquor. He first figured in the Mayor’s Court February 5,
1667, when he was sued by John Danrell, and the matter was referred to
arbitrators. On the 7th of the same month he contributed eight beaver
skins to the support of the minister. He was engaged in a long
controversy with Simon Turcq in 1668 over 230 planks, which he claimed
to have theretofore paid, and out of which rose a suit against Poulus
Leenderson for ninety of the same boards. In 1669 he was sued by
Warner Wessels, the city farmer, for taking into his house ’1 hogshead
of rum and 3 anckers of stilled waters’ without accounting therefor.
This suit he won. But he lost an action brought by Hendrick Obe to
recover f.79.5 in wampum for the excise duties on some wine and beer.
At a Council meeting held at Elizabethtown, New Jersey, November 7,
1671, it was ordered that no corn or provision be transported out of
the Delaware River except what was then aboard the sloop of Thomas
Lewis, then in the river, for which he was given a special license. In
1672 he sued William Waldron for borrowing his boat without his
consent, and then setting it adrift, when it was thereafter found by
John Benneco at Staten Island, who demanded salvage. The defendant was
mulcted in the salvage and was directed to turn the boat over to the
owner, who was to send his boy to the island to take possession of it.
At a council held at Fort James January 27, 1673, permission was given
to all vessels from this point to go up the Delaware River above New
Castle, upon producing the Governor’s certificate in consequence of a
complaint concerning Capt. Lewis’ sloop. During the Dutch
re-occupation of the city, when war again threatened, we find in the
‘Records of New Amsterdam’ ‘that the Schout, Burgomasters and Schepens
being assembled “Collegialiter” in the City Hall of New Orange March
10, 1674, they sent for the skippers and barquers of the city, when
they were notified of the Governor General’s order that no more than
two sloops shall go at once to Willemstadt and Esopus, and one to the
South river, and that they sail alternately to be determined by lot;
also that no passengers be conveyed without passports.’ Whereupon the
skippers making known in turn their views, ‘Thomas Lewis is satisfied
with what the Governor and Council decree.’
“We find records of trips made by him to Virginia, Boston, Rhode
Island and the Delaware (South) River from 1665 to 1669, carrying
merchandise of all kinds. September 26, 1671, Governor Lovelace
promises ‘Mr. Tom’ at the Delaware to send him information by Peter
Alrick ‘who tomorrow will embark in Tom the Irishman’s yacht.’ In
1675, he was appointed to make a calculation of the expense for
building a new church in conjunction with Adolph Pieters and Abraham
Jansen. We find that in 1678 he owned a sloop called the _Katharine_.
“In a list of the richest inhabitants of New York made February 19,
1674, Thomas Lewis is credited with the possession of property valued
at 6,000 florins, Holland currency, only sixteen appearing therein as
being wealthier. At the time of the English occupation he owned real
estate on the west side of Pearl Street between Wall and William
streets, then known as the Water Side, then valued at $10,000; also on
the South Street (now William) between Hanover Square and Wall Street.
“From the records of the baptisms in the Dutch church we learn that he
had eight children, named, respectively, Barent, Cornelia, Leendert,
Catharina, Cornelia, Thomas, Cornelis and Rachel. Anthony Brockholst
was one of the witnesses at the baptism of the last named in 1678. The
descendants of Barent, Leendert (or Leonard) and Thomas are scattered
throughout the Hudson Valley, and the family name appears at various
times in the records as Lenwis, Leuis, Lieuwens, Lieuwes, Lieuwis,
Lievens, Lievenszen, Lieuens, Liewensen, Liewes, and Liewis. In the
New York Genealogical and Biographical Record (Volume XXXIV) the date
of Thomas Lewis’ death is given as September 24, 1684, and his age as
56. His will was admitted to probate under Governor Dougan, April 1,
1686, and letters testamentary were issued to his wife Geesie Lewis.
She then lived with her daughter Catharine along the Strand (Lang
Strant) and they were members of the Dutch church. Her sons then
living were Barent, Thomas and Leonard, with the eldest Lodiwick
(apparently born at Fort Orange) who at the time of his father’s death
was living with Lewis Thomson at Belfast, and thereupon returned to
New York, where he died without issue.
“But there are some names of merchants doing business here from 1643
to 1647 which, if not English, must be Irish, and while the present
ascertainment of their exact nationality seems hopeless, yet careful
research might still enroll them in the honor roll of Irish pioneers.
These were Rev. Francis Doughty, the English minister, residing in
Pearl Street, between Whitehall and State streets, who on March 28,
1647, received a grant of 6,666 (Dutch) acres of land at Mespath
(Newtown patent); Robert Butler, residing on the same street, between
Stone and Bridge streets; Michael Pickett, residing on Broad Street,
near Beaver; and Thomas Sanderson, residing on Beaver Street, who
received grants of land on this island July 13, 1643, October 25,
1653, and September 14, 1665.
“There was a Jan Patrickx or John Patrick here in 1653 and a James
Code or Cody in 1658. Thomas Higgins was sued for value of 275 pieces
of firewood on November 20, 1661, and by Thomas Hall for the return of
a saw January 31, 1662.
“Among the names of those to whom grants of land under the Dutch
occupancy were made were Thomas Hall, Thomas Chambers and George
Holmes, each receiving more than one grant; the first two took the
oath of allegiance to the English authorities between October 21 and
26, 1664.
“The English capture of New Amsterdam in 1664 did not, so far as we
have any records, lead to any influx of Irish settlers here. So novel
was their coming that we find reference made as a remarkable fact to
the presence of the person, unnamed, who is supposed to have been the
first direct Irish immigrant to New York, being an Irish girl, a
servant in the household of Isaac Allerton, a well-known English
tobacco merchant, and who was working therein in 1665, shortly after
the English occupation. Little could she have dreamt of the host of
her sister voyagers who brought to this country the spirit of
devotion, of self-sacrifice, of faithful discharge of duty, which
ultimately forced itself upon the grudgingly-given attention of the
community and admiration for which as well as for the tenderness and
purity of the women of the Irish race was the most potent force in
tearing down the wall of hostility and hatred which intolerance and
ignorance had reared in the way of the progress of the Irishmen in
this country towards recognition, equality and success.
[Illustration:
MR. JOHN J. DALY.
Of New York City.
An Earnest and Helpful Member of the Society.
]
“Patrick Hayes must have been a resident of the city for some years.
He apparently came from the colony of Maryland. We find a record of
his service as a juryman in the Mayor’s Court on many occasions during
the year 1666. He evidently was a tapster and hotel-keeper, for he had
controversy with the excise in 1667. He must have been engaged in
general business as well, for in suits between third parties moneys
were attached in his hands in 1667 and he sued various parties for
goods sold in 1667 and 1668. In two of these cases Thomas Carr was a
joint plaintiff. In the action of William Urgent against John Ashman
for slander, June 2, 1668, he was a witness to prove his knowledge of
the plaintiff as a freeman in the province of Maryland. John Daaly was
a plaintiff in two suits in the Mayor’s Court in 1670. John Quigly
figures as a plaintiff in the Mayor’s Court against Ralph Huddison
August 15, 1671, when he sued successfully to recover £16, 10 sh., for
earthenware sold. He served as a juror in the same month, and was one
of the arbitrators appointed in the suit of Samuel Bach and David
Gomer against the Ketch Betty (attached). Dennis McKarty sued Thomas
Edwards, master of the Ketch ‘Society’ in the Mayor’s Court October
24, 1671, to recover £5 for cutting and chipping logwood, and
recovered judgment. He was himself sued by Samuel Hall November 14,
1671. Thomas Griffin was one of the public cartmen of the city
February 13, 1672.
“During the intervening years, until the Dutch re-occupation in 1673,
when its name was changed to New Orange, the city saw but few Irish
faces and the list of the burghers contains no Irish names. Upon the
re-cession of the city to England in 1674, when English rule became an
assured fact, it is reasonable to suppose that some Irish arrivals
must have been noted. Yet we can only surmise that from the names as
we afterwards find them on the rolls. So, in 1674, Andrew Clare is
recorded as owning land on Pearl Street, between Whitehall and State
streets; in 1677, we note as residing here, William Walsh; in 1680,
Abraham Corbett, a distiller, residing on Broadway near Exchange
Place, and William Cox, flour merchant, residing on Hanover Square; in
1691, Lawrence Reade; in 1695, John Morris and Peter Matthews; in
1698, William Morris; in 1702, Thomas Flynn, surgeon, and Patrick
Crawford; in 1703, John Barr, Thomas Carroll, Richard Flemming,
Bartholomew Hart, Henry Mooney and Peter Moran; in 1708, Anthony
Lynch; in 1710, Thomas Kearney; in 1711, James Maxwell. All these were
freemen. In 1696, the then Governor Fletcher returned to the home
authorities a list of eleven Irish Catholics residing in the city,
none of whom was a burgher nor a landowner. Captain Evans, of the
_Richmond_ frigate, who was here with the Governor, was the son of an
Irish shoemaker.
“It is significant that we first begin to notice Irish names after the
administration of Governor Dongan had commenced. The commanding
position held by an Irishman for the first time in Colonial history
must have attracted to this colony many of his less favored
compatriots, who found here not only a haven of refuge where they
could practise their religion, but a favored spot where under his
enlightened sway the hope of entire civil liberty was near
realization. The life and services of Thomas Dongan have never
received their just recognition at the hands of historians, nor do we
realize the debt, which, as citizens of a great city, we owe this man
whose conceptions of liberty were far in advance of his time. At the
risk of triteness I cannot forbear epitomizing his career, for it is
that of the first Irishman who not only figured prominently in the
city’s history, but, as well, moulded its future and made it possible
of achievement. Thomas Dongan, second Earl of Limerick, was born in
1634 at Castletown, County Kildare, Ireland, the youngest of the three
sons of Sir John Dongan, Baronet. His mother was a sister of Richard
Talbot, Earl of Tyrconnel and Lieutenant-Governor of Ireland. The
family removed to France after the execution of Charles I, when Dongan
entered the army and was commissioned by Louis XIV, in an Irish
regiment, where he rose by degrees to the rank of Colonel. Returning
to England after the Restoration, after declining an offer of
preferment in the French Army, he was commissioned and an annual
pension of five hundred pounds given him. In the same year, 1678, he
was sent as Lieutenant-Governor to Tangier under Lord Inchiquin, where
he served for two years, returning to London to spend the life of a
man of society and a favorite at Court. Through the influence of the
Duke of York he was made Governor of the Province of New York, his
jurisdiction including parts of Maine besides Long Island, Martha’s
Vineyard, Nantucket and all the land from the Connecticut River to
Delaware Bay. He was also commissioned Vice-Admiral. Arriving in New
York August 25, 1683, from Nantasket, he had on the way hither
promised the inhabitants of the easterly end of Long Island that ‘no
laws or rates for the future should be imposed but by a General
Assembly’—but a slight foretaste of what he was really to accomplish.
The population of the city was then less than four thousand and it
extended from the Bay to the entrenchments along Wall Street. From the
Collect Pond (the site of the Tombs) to the northwest towards the
North River extended a marsh of seventy acres. From the Bouweries to
Harlem there stretched a wood haunted by bears and wolves, and within
the city walls themselves bear hunts took place in the orchards, one
located between Cedar Street and Maiden Lane. Under his rule, general
hunts were held to exterminate wolves from the city. The inhabitants
were largely Dutch, but there were many French Huguenots and some few
English. In this rather primitive community, great things were about
to be done for liberty. Pursuant to his instructions from the Duke,
Dongan ordered an election of a ‘General Assembly of all the
freeholders by the persons whom they shall choose to represent them,’
in order to consider with the Governor and Council ‘what laws are fit
and necessary to be made and established for the good weal and
government of the said colony and its dependencies and all the
inhabitants thereof,’ with full liberty of consultation and debate
among the members. All laws passed were to be subject to the veto of
the Governor, and if approved by him were to be submitted to the Duke
of York, remaining effective until disapproved by him. It is to the
glory of Dongan that he not only approved but initiated many of the
revolutionary measures afterwards enacted. On September 13, 1683, a
date memorable in the city’s history, the Freeholders of New York,
Long Island, Esopus, Albany and Martha’s Vineyard were notified to
elect representatives to meet in General Assembly in New York City on
October 17th. Seventeen delegates responded, whereof four were from
New York and Harlem. This first popular representative assembly met at
Fort James, and Matthias Nicoll was speaker. Fourteen acts were
passed, whereof the most important was, ‘The Charter of Liberties and
Privileges granted by His Royal Highness to the inhabitants of New
York and its dependencies.’ This was declared to be enacted ‘for the
better establishing the government of this province of New York, and
that justice and right may be equally done within the same.’ Among the
provisions of this well-named Charter of Liberties were those
providing for at least a triennial session of the General Assembly;
that every freeholder and freeman should have the elective franchise
without constraint or imposition; that majorities should decide every
issue; that representatives should be apportioned among the counties;
that the members should enjoy all the privileges of members of
Parliament; and in fine extending to the inhabitants of this colony
all the rights and privileges which Englishmen at home enjoyed under
Magna Charta and the provisions of English law. Entire freedom of
conscience and of religion were guaranteed to all peaceable persons
‘which profess faith in God by Jesus Christ,’ and the privileges of
all existing churches and their discipline were protected. No tax was
to be levied without the consent of the Governor, Council and
Assembly, thus recognizing the principle which the people had wrested
from Mary of Burgundy, in 1477, by the charter called ‘The Great
Privilege.’ And thus, for the first time in America, the people were
recognized as having legislative power and authority. Accepted by the
Governor and proclaimed October 31, 1683, a new standard was set for
popular liberty and popular aspiration so that Governor Hunter was
able to write to Dean Swift, in 1704, ‘this is the plan of government
they all aim at and make no scruple to own.’ The Duke of York accepted
this charter October 4, 1684, but when he became King James II he
refused to confirm it as being too liberal and implying too much
recognition of the people as a political entity, and it died by his
veto October 4, 1684. But the seed had been sown, and its growth could
not be stopped. At the same session, courts of justice were by statute
provided for; the naturalization of aliens was prescribed, and twelve
counties were established in the province. To add to the other
landmarks of his administration, a charter was granted to New York
City April 27, 1686, which has since continued to be the basis of our
municipal laws, rights, privileges, public property and franchises.
‘It was worded with care and showed that those who framed it were
possessed of a broad and enlightened sense of the sanctity of
corporate and private rights.’
“During all his busy rule, Dongan was kept occupied with questions of
statesmanship which none but an able and resourceful man could have
handled; whether adjusting boundary disputes with New Jersey,
Pennsylvania or Connecticut, or outgeneralling the Governor General of
Canada at his own game; whether negotiating with the Indians or
planning combinations with the other colonies to resist French
aggression or undertake offense operations;—in every phase of his
varied activities he displayed resourcefulness, tact and power.
“He was a humane man. Under the Duke’s laws, in force from 1665 to
1683, no Christian could keep a slave; but the New Yorkers, being
unable to keep pace with the New Englanders, who habitually used their
services, slaves were allowed to be kept by orders from England. But
in the instructions which Dongan issued May 29, 1686, it was directed
that no cruelty should be practised upon them, and the wilful killing
of Indians and negroes was to be punished with death. We find as well
on October 6, 1687, he proposed to his Council that some means be
found for releasing Spaniards and other free people who were held here
as slaves and that he forbade their masters either to sell or trade
such persons pending their appeal for liberty. Again, July 30, 1688,
he ordered that ‘all Indian slaves within the province, subjects of
the King of Spain, that can give an account of their Christian faith
and say the Lord’s Prayer shall be forthwith set at liberty, and sent
home at the first convenience, and likewise them that shall hereafter
come to this Province.’
“The troubles accumulating in England found their echo here and the
King prohibited the establishing of printing-presses here, and on
January 20, 1687, dissolved the popular Assembly. In that year Dongan
wrote ‘one of the most careful as well as most honest pictures of his
provincial government which an American subordinate ever sent home to
his English sovereign.’ In the course of it he says: ‘I believe for
these seven years past there has not come over into this province
twenty English, Scotch or Irish families.’