|
| |||
Malthys Hanson, Peter Rambo, and Peter Kaik, the Swedish magistrates,1 presented a petition to the General Director, asking for the appointment of a court messenger to serve summons, make arrests, and "the carrying out of sentences," and that they be allowed "free access to the commander at Fort Altona to get assistance from the soldiers in case of emergency." The third request was "that an order be made that nobody shall leave these boundaries without knowledge of the magistrates, much less, that the servants, man or woman of one, when they leave or run away without their masters' or mistress' permission, shall be concealed by the other." | 1 Penna. Archives, 2d series, vol. vii, p. 531. | ||
|
From this petition, which was favorably received and acted on, we learn that Fort Gottenburg had at this time ceased to be a military post. This was perhaps due to the fact that the Dutch officers were doubtful of the loyalty of the Swedes to the new administration, and thought it judicious to concentrate their forces at the most available and strongest fortification; that at Tinicum, being merely a block-house, was abandoned. We also gather from the same document that the system of redemption servitude at that early stage of our history was recognized in this locality.2 | 2 As to the latter statement, see Penna. Archives, 2d series, vol. vii. p. 716. | ||
|
From the report of Jacob Alricks to the commissioners of the city's colony, Oct. 10, 1658,3 we ascertain that the children from the almshouse at Amsterdam had been sent over to the Delaware River settlements and had been bound out among the residents there, the eldest for two, the major potion for three, and the youngest children for four, years. He suggested that from time to time more of these young people should be dispatched hither, "but, if possible, none ought to come less than fifteen years of age and somewhat strong, as little profit is to be expected here without labor." | 3 Ib., vol. v. p. 300 | ||
|
In a letter from Beekman to Stuyvesant, April 28, 1660,4 the former states "that among the Fins at Opland there is a married couple who live very wretchedly together, and the wife is often fearfully beaten, and daily driven out of the house like a dog, which was continued through several years. Nothing is heard of the wife, but he, on the contrary, has committed adultery. Therefore the priest, the neighbors, the sheriff, and commissioners, and others besides, have appealed to me, at the request of the man and the woman, that they might be divorced, and the few animals and personal property be divided among them. I answered that I would inform your Noble Worship of it and await orders." What was done finally in this case is unknown. | 4 Ib., vol. vii. p. 634. | ||
|
On the night of Sept. 20, 1661,5 the wife of Rev. Laurence Charles Laers, the Swedish priest at Upland, eloped with Joseph Jongh (Young), the fugitives leaving the settlement in a canoe. Director Beekman, the next day, as soon as he was informed of the occurrence, dispatched an express to the Governor of Maryland and the magistrates at Sassafras River, requesting that should the parties come there they might be detained, and he notified of the fact. Four days afterwards Beekman came to Upland to look after the property there of Jacob Jongh. It appears that in his hasty flight Jongh had left his personal effects at Upland, and the next day the Rev. Mr. Laers went to the house of Andreas Hendriexson, a Finn, where his wife's paramour had lived, and without notifying the authorities forced open the door of Jongh's room with an axe.6 The keys to the chest belonging to the fugitive being found in the apartment, the clergyman opened the luggage and appropriated some of the contents. The Dutch authorities supposed, as they learned nothing from Maryland, that the runaways had gone to New England, whereas it is now almost conclusively established that this Jacob Jongh or Young made his way to Maryland, where he subsequently figured prominently in the early history of that colony.7 The abandoned husband, however, did not appear to be crushed by his wife's desertion, for in less than a month (October 15th) he asked Vice-Governor Beekman to be allowed the next day the first proclamation of the banns of his intended marriage with a girl of seventeen or eighteen years, which consent the former withheld until he could hear from Stuyvesant.8 The authorities in New Amsterdam apparently acted too slowly for the reverend lover, for November 8th9 he again asked for advice " whether he may now marry again, as his household requires it." On December 15th10 he was granted a provisional divorce, the decree being subject to Stuyvesant's approbation; but without tarrying until the latter signified his approval, the reverend gentleman, on Sunday, Jan. 26, 1662, entered anew into the married relation, which act aroused the indignation of Beekman, and prejudiced him against "this young priest." On April 14, 1662, the case against the Rev. Mr. Laers was tried at Fort Altona. He was prosecuted on behalf of the company for having broken into the room and making an inventory of the goods left by the absconding Joseph Jongh. In the crude system of justice then in vogue on the Delaware, the court sentenced him to pay two hundred guilders, which had been advanced to Jongh to purchase grain for the company, forty florins in beavers which were due from Jongh to Director Beekman and Mr. Decker, and was also fined forty guilders for usurping the authority of the court. The unhappy defendant was in ad- |
5 Ib., 5th series, vol. vii. p. 668.
6 Ib., 669. 7 Johnson's "History of Cecil County, Md.," pp. 80-130. 8 Penna. Archives, 2d series, vol. vii. p. 670. 9 Ib., 671. 10 Ib., 672. | ||