|
Chapter XXI
Redemptioners And Slavery In Delaware County.
| |||
|
Cooper "in his service by an unlawful contract, upon which it was Ordered that William Collett doe forthwith Sett the said Thomas Cooper att Liberty, and allow him the Customs & Law of the Country in that case Provided for Servants."
This is the first case I have found in which the custom of the country is alluded to, although it is frequently mentioned thereafter. The act of March 10, 1683, provided that at the expiration of the term of servitude a bonded servant was entitled to receive "One new Sute of Apparell, ten bushels of Wheat or fourteen bushels of Indian corn, one Ax two howes, one broad and another narrow, and a Discharge from their Services." By the act of 1693 the custom was declared to be "two suits of apparell," together with the other articles named in the law of 1683, and by the act of 1700 the servant was to have "two compleat suits of apparel, whereof one shall be new, and shall also be furnished with one new axe, one grubbing hoe, and one weeding hoe, at the charge of their master or mistress." This continued to be the law until the act of March 9, 1771, repealed so much of the act of 1700 as related to the furnishing of a new axe, a grubbing- and a weeding hoe. The great body of mechanics in the early colonial days originally came to the province as redemptioners, and the cases are frequent showing that this was the rule. The first instance, save that of William Still, heretofore mentioned, and the only one I shall cite, as to this statement, occurred at the court held 1st 3d day of First month, 1689-90, when "James Hayes Petitioned this Court to have his Toles [tools] from Jemmy Collett wch according was Ordered that the said Toles was to be delivered Imediately into the hands of James Sandelands for the use of the said Hayes. The said Hayes paying to Jeremy Collett what he Justly Owes him. The said James Hayes Promised Here in open Court to searve James Sandelands his Heirs, Exs., Adms. or Assigns the Residue of the Tyme of his Indenture Excepting Two Months and fifteen days wch James Sandelands gave him." The freeman who was unfortunate to contract debts in those days, when the body could be taken in execution in a civil suit, to save himself constant trouble, frequently sold himself to liquidate the claims against him. The case of George Chandler at the court held first 3d day of 1st Week, First month, 1689/90, shows how debts were discharged by personal service. Thomas Rawlins complained that Chandler was indebted to him in 34s. 8 1/2d., and the creditor was clamorous for payment. The court thereupon liquidated all Chandler's obligations in this wise: "Ordered that the said George Chandler by his Consent doo sell himself a servant for Two years and five Months wth Edward Beazer, the said Edward Beazer paying to the said Rawlins the said sum of 34s. 8 1/2d. and the Remainder wch would make up the Sume of Ten pounds wch was £8 5s. 3 1/2d. to be paid to his ffather in Law, William Hawkes." In the court held Feb. 6, 1739/40, James Reynolds informed the justices, "by his petition that being indebted to sevll psons, as by a list pducd appears To the sum of Eight pounds, thirteen shill. and five pence with Costs and having no other way to satesfy these Debts prays to be Admitted to pay by Servitude which is allowed, And ordered to Serve his Creditors Two Years in full satisfaction for ye said Debts and Costs." Indeed, in satisfaction of court charges, sale of the defendant's services has been ordered. The court records often show that when a question of more than ordinary importance was to be presented to the justices, the latter would call into their counsel those persons whose position seemingly gave them peculiar opportunities for information on the matter under consideration. Hence we find at an Orphans' Court held at Chester, Nov. 29, 1705, Peter Evans, register-general of the province, was present, occupying a place on the bench, when Richard Adams presented a petition "Concerning the estate of Thomas Clayton, dec'd," as followeth, in these words:
"Chester. - To the Worshipful Commissioners & Register General now sitting in the Orphan's Court held for the County of Chester, the humble petition of Richard Adams, of Edgmont, of this County, Carpenter, shewest, -
"'That whereas Thomas Clayton, a bond servant unto your petitioner, about 6 years ago, on his voyage from England unto this province, died at sea, leaving behind him Elinor, a child of about the age of seven years,
and a boy of about 5 years of age, named Richard, for which children's passage your petitioner paid in England, & hath ever since maintained them with meat, drink, and apparill.
"'May it, therefore, please your Worship to consider the premises, and to make such order thereupon as to your Worship may seem most convenient, and your petitioner shall ever pray, etc.
"'Nov. 2, 1705.'
"The Court having considered Richard Adam's charge against the two orphans, Richard & Elinor Clayton, does allow 26 pounds to Richard Adams, Pennsylvania money, for their passage & diet in England, and diet on board ship, diet in Maryland, and bringing them up in Pennsylvania.
"Ordered that Elinor Clayton, an orpban, of the age of 14 years shall serve Daniel Hoopes for the term of 7 years from this day, on condition that the said Daniel teach her to read, knit, and sowe, and pay 12 pounds according to the order of this Court. Richard Clayton, an Orphan, being brought to this Court, is ordered by said Court to serve Edward Danger, of Chester, Cooper, for a term of 9 years from this day, on consideration that the said Edward teach, or cause to be taught, the said Richard the trade of a cooper, and find and allow sufficient meat, drink, lodging, and apparill during the said term, and also to teach him to read & write, & pay 14 pounds 5 shillings to the order of this Court."1 | 1 Of this Richard Clayton nothing now seems to be known. The Claytons of Delaware County are descended from William Clayton, a passenger with his family on the ship "Kent," who purchased an estate at Marcus Hook, the deed to which was acknowledged at the Court held March 13, 1678/9. Gilbert Cope states that he died in 1689, while Thompson Westcott says his death occurred in 1682. If Westcott is right, there were five William Claytons in unbroken succession. If Cope is correct there were four William Claytons, the eldest son in each generation, including the first settler of the name, in the list. | ||
|
As the provinces increased in population and wealth the trading in redemptioners became a business. A | |||