BAKER ANCESTRY
The Ancestry of Samuel Baker,
of Pleasant Valley, Steuben County,
New York, With Some of His
Descendants.
Complied by
FRANK BAKER
C H I C A G O
1914
I N T R O D U C I O N
It has been the purpose of the compiler to record in this volume the facts
that have come to his knowledge as to the ancestors of Judge Samuel Baker of
Pleasant Valley, Steuben County, New York, and to give a list of his children
and grandchildren. The lists of the descendants of his grandchildren include
but a small minority of such descendants. Judge Baker was descended from Mr.
Thomas Baker of Milford, Conn,, and Easthampton, Long Island; from John Bruen, a
personal friend of Oliver Cromwell, through his daughter Mary, who came to
Pequot (New London), Conn., with her half brother Obadiah; from Sergeant John
Baldwin of Milford, Conn., who for his third wife married Mary Bruen; from
Edward Barker of New Haven and Branford; from Captain Thomas Topping of
Wethersfield, Milford, Southampton and Branford, a Corporator in the charter
granted by Charles II, King of England, to Connecticut in 1662, and a member of
the first Council of the first English Governor of New York; and from Deacons
John Rose and Peter Tyler of Branford, all English Puritans; from Cornelis
Melyn. patroon or Staten Island, President of the Council of "'Eight Men" in
Nieuw Netherland 1643; Jacobus Schellinger of New Amsterdam and Easthampton and
Jan Tyssen Hoes, Dutchmen from Antwerp and Amsterdam; and from Peter (Pierre)
Papillon, a French Huguenot of Boston and New Bristol, now Bristol, R. I.; from
whom we, the descendants of Samuel Baker, are directly descended. their blood
is in our veins; and to under- stand ourselves we need to understand them, who
they were and what were their lives.
ii
A U T H O R I T I E S
Lambert's His. of Milford, Conn.
Records of Easthampton, 5 vols.
Hedges' Easthampton 1849, 2nd ed. 1899.
Lyman Beecher's Easthampton 1804.
Lyman Beecher's Autobiography.
Gardiner's Chronicles of Easthampton.
Thompson's Long Island, 2nd ed., 2 vols.
Prime's Long Island.
Wood's Long Island.
Doc. Col. His. of N. Y..15 vols. (Melyn papers are in vol. 1.)
Doc. His. of New York, 4 vols.
Fernald's Rec of New Amsterdam.
Calendar of English MSS. and of Dutch MSS. in the New York State Library.
Valentine's Manual of New York City, 1862.
N. Y. Civil List, 1868.
Howell's Southampton.
Atwater's New Haven.
New Haven Col. Rec.
Conn. His. Coll.
Brodhead's O'Callaghan's, Smith's and Valentine's Histories of New York.
Inness' His. of New Amsterdam.
Redfield's Laesae Majestalis in New Amsterdam in 1647. (Melyn Trial) N. Y. State Bar
Association Proceedings, 1899.
Mag. Amer. His. April, 1885.
62, N. E. His. and Gen. Reg.
N Y. His. and Gen. Soc'y. Rec.
Palfrey's New England.
Trumbull's Conn.
Baird's Huguenot Emigration to America.
Vital Rec. of R. I.
N. Y. His. and Gen. Soc'y Coll. vols. 1 and 2.
FRANK BAKER,
643 Woodland Park, Chicago,
FROM PAGES 28 TO 40:
CORNELIS MELYN, PATROON OF STATEN ISLAND, PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL OF " EIGHT
MEN " IN NIEUW NETHERLAND 1643, HIS DAUGHTER CORNELIA AND JACOBUS
SCHELLINGER, HER HUSBAND.
The highest body of the central government of the Republic of the United
Netherlands was the Estates, or States General, which sat at the Hague. The
greatest individual office in the Republic was that of the executive, the
Stadholder. In 1621 the West India Company was incorporated by the States
General. It was not only a trading company, but also a sovereign political
body. The directors were appointed by the States General, but a committee of
nineteen, one appointed by the States General, the others by certain cities, had
the direct management and control of the affairs of the Company. This committee
sat at Amsterdam and appointed the officers of the Company, subject to the
approval and control, to some extent at least, of the States General. In 1647
Frederick Henry was succeeded as Stadholder by his son William II Prince of
Orange.
Cornelis Melyn, a native of Antwerp, came to New Amsterdam in 1639. He
returned to Holland and procured from the Amsterdam Chamber of the Dutch West
India Company authority to settle a colony on Staten Island. He returned next
year to settle his colony and brought with him his family and servants. His
family consisted of his wife and three children, the eldest of whom was his
daughter Cornelia. June 29, 1642, Director General Kieft issued to him a "
ground brief " or patent, covering all of Staten Island excepting De Vries'
reserved " bouwerij " and investing him with all the powers, jurisdictions,
privileges and pre-eminence of a patroon. (I Brodhead N. Y., 314.) He
established a number of settlers on the island and built a house there in which
he resided with his family. Trouble with the Indians began as early as 1640.
De Vries' bouwery was attacked and the measures taken by Kieft only served to
further enrage the Indians against Kieft and the Dutch. These troubles led to
the Indian war of 1643, which completely frustrated Melyn's design to establish
a settlement on the island. He held Kieft responsible for the war, and became
the leader of the party opposed to Kieft's government. He was compelled by the
war to abandon his home on Staten Island and retire to Manhattans, or New
Amsterdam. He received in 1643 a grant of a double lot in Manhattans, the
patent for which was issued April 28. 1644. (2 O'Callaghan, 583.) In the same
year he was made president of the Council of " Eight Men " in Nieuw Netherland.
The shore of East River was then about the line of the present Pearl street,
and the present Stone street east of Broad corresponds nearly with the Hoogh
street of that day. The present Broad street was not laid out until long
afterwards. Melyn's patent covered the east half of the present Broad street
from the south line of Hoogh street, extended west, south to the shore of East
River. He acquired by purchase in 1644 the property bounded by Hoogh street
(Stone street) on the north, the lot on which the Great Tavern stood on the
east, East river (Pearl street) on the south. and the double lot granted to him
by patent on the west. This property had a frontage on Hoogh street and on the
river of about one hundred and thirty-five feet. On the lot granted him by
patent Melyn built a modest two story house, probably of brick. Its location
appears to have been in the easterly half of the present Broad street, midway
between Stone and Pearl streets.
In 1657 a canal, the Heere Graft, was dug in the present Broad street, and
the lot granted Melyn by patent was taken for that purpose. In partial
compensation the Burgomaster gave to the Melyn family a lot only eighteen feet
square at the southeast corner of Stone and Broad streets. On this lot the
second Melyn house was built. May 28, 1684, after the death of Jannetje,- the
widow of Cornelis Melyn, this lot was conveyed by her son Jacob. " It is a
curious fact that this small plat of ground has retained its dimensions through
the vicissitudes of nearly two centuries and a half, and is today occupied by a
small and somewhat dingy brick building with a wealth of rusty iron fire
escapes; it appears to have stoutly resisted absorption by the more imposing
structure whose blank walls of yellow brick overtower it on two sides." (Innes,
124.)
In Innes' is a view of the East River shore in 1652, taken from an old print
showing the first house of Cornelis Melyn, and a view of the site of the later
Melyn House as it now appears.
In 1645, Melyn leased from the Company two acres of ground covering the site
of the present Trinity Church and the northern portion of the church yard and
extending to North River, and raised a crop of grain thereon. (Innes, 107.)
THE TRIAL OF CORNELIS MELYN AND JOCHEM PIETERSEN KUYTER IN 1647 FOR CRIMEN
LAESAE MAJESTATIS.
Captain Kuyter came to New Amsterdam with Melyn in 1639, and received a
grant of four hundred acres of land on the Harlem river. He suffered great
losses during the Indian war of 1643, and with Melyn held Kieft responsible for
that war.
October 24, 1643, the " Eight Men " sent a letter, supposed to have been
written by Melyn, to " The Honorable, Wise, Prudent Gentlemen of the XIX of the
General Incorporated West India Company at the Chambers at Amsterdam," praying
for immediate and decisive help.
November 3, they sent a Memorial, also written by Melyn, to " The Noble,
High and Mighty Lords, The Noble Lords, The States General of the United
Netherlands Provinces," making a bold complaint of the neglect of the West India
Company, and said: " We have had no means of defence provided against a savage
foe, and we have had a miserable despot sent out to rule over us."
In 1644 affairs grew worse. October 28, the " Eight Men " in a cutting
Memorial sent by the " Blue Cock" addressed to the West India Company, charged
the whole blame of the war upon Kieft and demanded his recall. They
particularly warned the Company against a book which Kieft sent, also by the "
Blue Cock," ornamented with water colors. They say it contained as to the
origin of the war " as many lies as lines" and " as few facts as leaves," and
ask how it comes that the Director can so aptly describe all localities and the
nature of the animals in the Colony since His Honor, in the seven years he has
been in the Manhattans, has never been farther from his kitchen and bedchamber
than the middle of the Island.
The College of XIX, the governing body of the West India Company, finally
decided to recall Kieft and July 28, 1646. Peter Stuyvesant received his
commission as Director-General and reached New Amsterdam May 11, 1647. On his
arrival Melyn and Kuyter who had sustained great losses by the Indian War were
determined to compel an investigation of its causes, and particularly of the
part Kieft had taken in the massacre of Indians at Pavonia and Corlear's Hook,
February 26, 1643, which
brought on the war. They prepared a series of pointed and well-framed
interrogatories to be answered by Fiscal Van Dyck, Secretary Van Tienhoven,
Dominie Bogardus and some of the leading burghers, which they presented to
Stuyvesant, with a petition, praying that the witnesses might be summoned and
required to answer the interrogatories. Stuyvesant at first seemed inclined to
favor the investigation, he appointed a Commission to decide whether it should
be made, and appointed as one of the members Commander Loper, but when the
Commission met he made a most bitter speech, attacking Melyn and Kuyter, in
which he said they " were two malignant fellows, disturbers of the peace, and
that it was treason to complain of one's magistrates, whether there was cause or
not."
The petition was denied, and petitioners were required to state if they were
authorized to demand information concerning the war, either by the
Director-General, the Church or their Sovereign. Friends of Kieft in Holland
had sent him copies of the letters of the " Eight Men" to the States General and
the Council of XIX. When Stuyvesant stated that it was treason to New
Netherland for a citizen to complain of a Magistrate, whether there was cause or
not, Kieft sent to Stuyvesant a petition addressed to " Myn Heer General and the
Hon'ble Council" charging Melyn and Kuyter with sending the letters afore-
mentioned to Holland in the name of the " Eight Men," charging that they were
libels and demanding that the Fiscal prosecute them according to the heinousness
of their crimes.
The law of the land in New Netherland under Dutch Rule was the Roman or
Civil Law, glossed by mediaeval jurists, expounded by mediaeval decrees and
overlaid by the customs of Holland. Under that law the offences corresponding
to treasons in English Law are comprehended under the Crimen Laesae Majestatis,
the Lese Majeste of the French, the Majestaets Beleidigung of the Prussian Code.
It included every kind of act by which public authority was resisted or any
disrespect shown to the head of the state. Constructively, it included any
indignity offered to, or any libel on any officer of the state or contempt of
his authority. When Tiberius Caesar claimed divine honors, the law of
Majestatis was so far developed that it was sacrilege, punishable by death, to
throw stones at the Emperor's statue. In Scotland in 1606 Archibald Cornwall,
town officer of Edinburg, was convicted and executed for treason, for attempting
to hang up the king's picture on the gallows.
Stuyvesant ordered Schout Fiscal Van Dyck to prosecute Melyn and Kuyter and
directed that they answer the charges in " twice twenty-four hours." Their
answer fills four large pages of the first volume of the New York Documentary
Colonial History. In it they ask that the truth of the charges made against
Kieft in the letter of the " Eight Men" be investigated, and set out the
evidence they can produce of his misconduct, in relation to the war and
responsibility for the subsequent ruin of the province.
" If he establishes his innocence, we are content," they say, " to be
esteemed the pestilent and seditious persons, such as His Honor describes us,
and shall willingly suffer and take it with an honest face for the wisest man
teaches that the feeble man must not speak evil, as anger is not excited against
the silent man." They farther say, " We have not injured Mr. Kieft in general
nor in particular, and His Honor ought not so severely to censure us for the
ancient sage was of opinion that a person in high station could not commit a
graver fault than to insult one who durst not answer him." The substance of
their answer was that in fact there was no necessity for the war, that therefore
it was unlawful to commence it and that Kieft should be punished and made to
indemnify those who had suffered loss thereby. They quote an aphorism of
Linius, " Only that is a just war which is a necessary one," and cite the words
of King James, St. Ambrose, Aristides and Xenophon and the precepts of Christ
in support of it. Under the law of Majestatis as construed by Peter Stuyvesant,
this answer was a confession of the charges, and moreover the paper itself,
containing charges, by private persons against a Governor, was nothing less than
Crimen Laesae Majestatis.
There was no trial by jury in New Netherland. The Supreme Council of the
Colony, under the instructions of the Council of XIX of the West India Company
was the tribunal for the trial of causes. This Council was to consist of the
Director as President, the Vice-Director and the Schout Fiscal, but in criminal
cases, where the Fiscal was the prosecutor, the Military Commandant should sit
in his stead, and there should be added two capable persons from the district
where the crime was committed. In 1647 Stuyvesant was Director, Lubert van
Dincklagen Vice, Hendrix van Dyck Fiscal, and Captain Lieutenant Brian Newton
Military Commandant. The trial court, therefore, should have been composed of
Stuyvesant, van Dincklagen, Newton and two others. It appears to have consisted
of the three above named, Jean La Montagne, Paulus Lunderson, Abraham Planke and
Jan Jansen Damen. In March, 1652 Stuyvesant removed van Dyck from his office
of Fiscal; van Dyck appealed to the States General, and presented to their High
Mightinesses a written defense in which some interesting facts as to the court
organized by Stuyvesant for the trial of Melyn and Kuyterr appear. In this
defence van Dyck says, "the Commander of the soldiers who was an Englishman
named Brian Nuton, and understands little or no Dutch, who can when necessary
sign his name, receives his wages and support at the Director's Hand, having no
other means of livelihood, hath continual seat and vote in the council. Also a
Frenchman named La Montagne who is burdened with a large family and is greatly
in want of provisions, who is indebted several thousand guilders to the Company
and derives his support from the Director. In place of two capable persons to
be adjoined in criminal cases from the Commonalty of the District or Colony
where the crime or act was committed (which God be praised was of rare
occurrence), the Director keeps there two persons at the expense of the Company
and with them and the Minister Megapolensis and as many other private persons as
he approves and expect his favor, deliberates, resolves and dispatches business
all in the name of the Director and Council; they, especially Montagne, must
always conform to the humor of the Director and say nothing else but yes,
otherwise the purse is closed, all favor withheld and they get beaten in
addition, if the Director's head be not well, or he be not sufficiently well
pleased."
The members of the court found no difficulty in agreeing with Stuyvesant as
to the guilt of Melyn and Kuyter; some were for temporary, others for perpetual
banishment with a fine.
Stuyvesant spoke last. He declared that nothing less than death and
confiscation of property was due to Melyn; cited the Old Testament and books of
Criminal Law to show that to speak evil of Magistrates is the highest degree of
slander that can be committed; that one who slanders a Chief Magistrate is
guilty of Majestatis; that injuries done in writing to officers constitute a
Capital offence and Capital punishment ought to follow, and voted that Melyn be
sentenced to death and his property forfeited to the state. The judgment
against Melyn pronounced July 25, 1647, recites that Melyn. " according to his
confession without torture or iron bands," had threatened the Honorable Director
Kieft, his governor and superior, with the gallows and the wheel; had likened
him to the biggest liar in the country, giving fair words and plenty of promises
which bore no fruit; had slandered justice saying here be no justice and calling
the " Hon'ble Director a headstrong fool (een duyvels kop) and had with Kuyter
forged, conceived, drafted and wrote the most false and scandalous letter of
October 28/1664 to the Hon'ble Chamber at Amsterdam defaming the Hon'ble
Director Kieft, then in loco their governor, etc."
"Wherefore," the judgment proceeds, Melyn is convicted " of having here
committed in writing against the Hon'ble Director Kieft the crime of insult,
defamation and falsehood and consequently is declared guilty of Laesae
Majestatis " and sentenced," to be banished for seven years from the district
and jurisdiction of New Netherlands, and also to depart by the first ship,
revoking all previous granted benefits actions and pretences which he may have
obtained or yet claims from the Hon'ble Directors, and moreover to pay a fine of
three hundred carolus Guilders, to be applied, one third for the Poor, one third
for the Fiscal, and one third for the Church."
Melyn and Kuyter determined to appeal to the States General of the United
Netherlands by Petition to be presented to their High Mightinesses at the Hague.
In the month following the trial, Melyn and Kuyter were taken on board the
Princess bound for Holland. Kieft and Dominie Bogardus were fellow passengers.
The ship was wrecked September 27 off the coast of Wales; Kieft, Bogardus,
Melyn's son and most of the ship's company perished. Melyn and Kuyter were
saved and with them their box of papers relating to their appeal. These were
laid before the States General February 7, 1648, and referred to the Directors
of the West India Company for information. April 25, 1648, the States General
granted them a provisional appeal, suspending the sentence, granting them
liberty to return to New Netherland and have the free possession and use of all
their property, and the protection of their High Mightinesses' pending the
appeal. A mandamus was issued to Stuyvesant, commanding him to carry out the
orders of their High Mightinesses' and on May 6 a passport, giving them the
right to return to New Netherland upon any ship in the service of the States
General or the West India Company. May 19 William, Prince of Orange, wrote
Stuyvesant as follows:
Honorable, Prudent and Discreet, Specially Dear:
You will receive by the bearers hereof Joachem Pietersen Kuyter and Cornelis
Melyn the commands which the High and Mighty, Lords States General have resolved
to communicate to you, to the end that you will allow these people to enjoy
their property free and unmolested there by virtue of provision of appeal
granted by their High Mightinesses unto them with Inhibitory Clause respecting
the sentence pronounced by you against them on the 25th of July 1647; though we
do not doubt that you will understand duly to respect and obey their command yet
we are disposed earnestly to admonish you hereby in addition expressly notifying
you that you shall have to allow said Petitioners to enjoy the effect of their
High Mightinesses aforesaid resolution. PRINCE D ORANGE.
Melyn reached New Amsterdam late in December, 1648, and January 2, 1649,
delivered to Stuyvesant the letter of the Prince of Orange. He had been
publicly banished " with ringing of the bell " and was determined to make his
triumph as public as his dishonor had been. March 8, a weekday, when the people
were assembled at the Church by order of the Director, he requested that the
mandamus granted by their High Mightinesses might be read and served there by
the Nine Men, and that it might be read particularly by Arnoldus van Hardenburg.
Stuyvesant regarded the attempt to have the mandamus publicly read as a personal
affront on the part of Melyn, flew into a rage, snatched the mandamus from
Hardenburg's hands so that their High Mightinesses' seal fell almost entirely
off, hanging only to a small strip of parchment. Finally, however, as the
record says, out of respect for their High Mightinesses, the Noble Lords States
General and their Commission, the Honorable Director Petrus Stuyvesant permitted
van Hardenburg to read the mandamus. Stuyvesant refused to give Melyn copies of
the sentence and other papers in the case.
July 29, 1649, Melyn made the following protest to Stuyvesant:
It is now about seven months since I arrived here with their High
Mightinesses' Mandamus and Order, which, on the 8th March, were served on you
Petrus Stuyvesant, Director, and afterwards on the other members of the Court.
Accordingly on the twentieth of March I demanded reintegration, pursuant to
the tenor of the Mandamus, and observing neglect, on the 20th June, insisted and
at divers times applied verbally, for the most part, in these terms--Pursuant to
the Mandamus and your obligation to honor their High Mightinesses and their
Commission (I demand) reintegration and such satisfaction as that brings with
it; I have now borne long enough with postponement and fruitless promises; time
is short and the vessels are making ready; if your Honor designs to make
restitution or reparation, let it be done quickly, according to the tenor of the
Mandamus; if not, I hereby protest against you.
And if your Honor intends to maintain what, if you have yet any conscience
left, you cannot deny to be your Honor's pronounced sentence, you must appear
personally, or by another qualified to represent you and will so stand and
suffer and bear what is charged against you, as if you were yourself there; you
shall also permit the other member of the court, who is subject to you, to
depart in person, or some other individual for him; for one delinquent cannot
defend the other; and in case such be not done, I do hereby again protest.
I demand, according to your Honor's promise, that all copies both of
judgment, affidavits, acts and proceedings which have been heretofore refused,
be seasonably furnished me, in order that I may also summon the deponents; for
the affidavits which Myn heer, or his like, take here from their subjects, who
must say what you please, are, in my opinion of no value, and, as I, therefore,
conclude, of no force in law. In case, then, all the documents, proceedings and
declarations, or one or any of them, which are to be used in law against me, are
detained from me; and in case they are refused me, and copies of the papers and
documents are not furnished, as heretofore has been the case, I declare that I
am deprived of, and excluded from the right and proper means of justice and
legal evidence, against rules and order to you well known.
In like manner I do declare null, void, and of no effect all acts,
proceedings, affidavits and declarations whereof I have not obtained copies
here, and of which use shall hereafter be made against me, being utterly
unworthy of consideration on account of the suspicion of being acknowledged in
bad faith; and, thirdly, against you, Petrus Stuyvesant, Director, individually,
and against all the members of the Court generally, do I protest for and on
account of all damage and losses already suffered or yet to arise, from the
omission and neglect of orders and instructions to do what is right; and their
High Mightinesses command and expressly order you, in case you do not repent, to
wit, sincerely and indeed, and not in fine phrases, as has hitherto been your
case.
Dated Manahatans, New Netherland, this 29th July, 1649.
(Signed)
To this protest Stuyvesant made the following answer:
We hear and see, but protest against the disrespectful discourtesies
contained in the protest, especially against the seditious service of the
Mandamus, at an unsuitable place, in the Church, and with much disparaging
language in presence of the entire Commonalty. Nevertheless, we esteem the
service valid, and say, as before, that we shall honor and regard whatever our
Sovereigns will decide. We are no ways bound to restitution, since we have not
received anything; nor to any reparation so long as the case is in appeal, and
no additional injury done the protestor. We grant and allow him peaceable use
of his lands and effects; what I have promised I shall perform; namely, to send
an Attorney to hear, and to witness the confirmation or annulment; what other
officers, councillors, will do, whether to go or to stay, we leave at their
discretion and pleasure. Therein we have nothing to command; neither does it
quadrate with the tenor of the Mandamus.
Who the delinquent is, God and the law have to decide. The protestor has
never been refused copy of the judgment. The party must apply for the other
papers in the suit and appear before the Judge who will have prudence and
knowledge enough to decide what and which affidavits ought to be produced;
whether they have been legally taken before Commissioners or whether they were
given clandestinely and by inducement to affront and asperse the Judge, on which
points the opinion of the protestor himself is of no avail. Of damage and
losses we deem ourselves guiltless, since we do not oblige the protestor to pay
any costs, or to return anew to Fatherland. We give and grant him, pending the
matter in appeal, the quiet possession and peaceable use of his lands, houses
and property.
Done Manhattans this 1" August, 1649. (Signed) P. STUYVESANT.
In August Melyn returned to Holland in company with the " delegates of the
commonalty " who were sent to secure a redress of grievances. During this visit
Melyn seems to have written the Breeden Raedt (Aen Vereenighde Nederlandsche
Provintien) printed at Antwerp in 1649. It is the earliest known separate
publication relating to New Netherlands (1 Brodhead 509 Int. Mag. Dec. 1851,
p. 597). It attacks without mercy both Kieft and Stuyvesant. The delegates
took with them the Vertoogh (Remonstrance, of the New Netherlands), written by
Adrian Vanderdonk. In this Remonstrance the signers, some of the leading
burghers of New Amsterdam. say, "In the proceedings against Cuyter and Melyn
every one saw that Director Kieft had more favor and aid and counsel in his suit
than his adversary, and that one Director was the advocate of the other as
Director Stuyvesant's own words imported and signified when he said. ' These
Boorish Brutes would hereafter endeavor to knock me over also, but I shall
now manage it so that they will have their bellies full for all time to
come.'... When Melyn pleaded for race until the result of his appeal to
Fatherland, he was threatened in these words, ' Had I known, Melyn, that you
would have divulged our sentence or brought it before their Mightinesses, I
should have had you hanged forthwith on the highest tree in New
Netherland.'..... On another occasion Stuyvesant said, ' People may think of
appealing in my time, should any do so, I would have him made a foot shorter,
pack the pieces off to Holland. and let him appeal in that way.'" Stuyvesant
sent Secretary van Tienhoven to Holland to defend the sentence and he presented,
November 26, 1649, Stuyvesant's answer dated August 10, 1649.
February 8, 1650, Melyn addressed to the States General the following
petition:
To the High and Mighty Lords the Lords States General of the United
Netherlands. High and Mighty Lords!
Cornelis Melyn, Patroon on Staten Island in New Netherland, your High
Mightinesses' humble servant, respectfully showeth: That he repaired to New
Netherland with your High Mightinesses' Mandamus in case of appeal and favorable
letter, obtained herein the year 1648, against the sentence pronounced by
Director Petrus Stuyvesant and his Council, on your Petitioner, and caused due
service of said Mandamus on the abovenamed Director and his Council, as well as
on all others in any wise concerned, pursuant to the tenor of your High
Mgihtinesses' addition endorsed on the aforesaid Mandamus. Petrus Stuyvesant,
the Director, treated the service of the Mandamus with very boisterous dis-
respect, tearing it in the presence of all the People, out of the officer's
hands, so that your High Mightinesses' own seal fell off, and had the Mandamus
not been written on parchment but only on paper, it would indeed have been torn
in pieces; all of which will further appear by the return of the officer in the
copy hereunto annexed, the original whereof is in Petitioner's possession. And
nothwithstanding the Petitioner hath not been able to obtain, either before or
after judgment, nor even after service was made of your High Mightinesses'
Mandamus, nor after his indispensable protest, aught or any of the papers and
documents against him whereby the judgment is claimed to be well sustained, nor
sufficient copies thereof; notwithstanding the declaration of Vice-Director
Lubbertus van Dinclagen, a Doctor of Law, as by the return can be seen, that he
(the petitioner) is wronged by Director Petrus Stuyvesant and his advisers
detaining the papers which are favorable to the petitioner, and otherwise apply
to the vote on the judgment; notwithstanding also, that Henrick Opdyck, the
fiscal, in answer to the pettitioner, denied being a party in the suit against
him, and other councillors offer other excuses and subterfuges--yet he, your
petitioner, cannot obtain in fairness from Director Stuyvesant, according to the
tenor of the abovementioned Mandamus, any revocation of the judgment, nor
reparation of suffered defamation and loss; but inasmuch as the aforementioned
Director, about fourteen days previous to your petitioner's last departure from
New Netherland, did dispatch hither his Secretary, Cornelis van Tienhoven, who,
when summoned, obstinately refused to answer on service of your High
Mightinesses' Mandamus, your petitioner hath finally found himself obliged
immediately to follow him.
Therefore, in order to complain of the abovementioned frivolous, unfounded
judgment, as well as to institute his further action which he hath against the
abovenamed Secretary, the petitioner humbly applies to your High Mightinesses,
respectfully requesting that you would be pleased to appoint time and place for
the said Secretary to appear and to hear such demand and conclusion as your
petitioner shall make against him as principal, and as attorney, as the same
shall then be found requisite.
Wherefore the petitioner, most respectfully, and with all humility, prays
that your High Mightinesses will be pleased to help him, for once, to the speedy
expedition of his good right, and to take into consideration that your
petitioner hath now groped such a length of time, since the year 1643, in this
labyrinth without any error or fault of his, for the advancement of the public
interests, being, in the meanwhile, obliged to neglect, for so long a time, his
private affairs and family, being burdened with six children, and to encounter,
to his excessive cost and great injury, all sorts of vexation and trouble in his
private affairs, on account of a public matter so entirely just; therefore the
petitioner will respectfully expect your High Mightinesses' favorable postil and
speedy conclusion, inasmuch as the time for returning back draws nigh. Which
doing, &c.
(In the margin was:)
The States General of the United Netherlands have, upon previous
deliberation, placed this petition, with the papers annexed, in the hands of
Messrs. van Aertsbergen and other their High Mightinesses' Deputies for the
West India Company's affairs, to inspect and to examine them, and to hear and understand
the petitioner and Secretary van Tienhoven who is at present here at the Hague,
again and again, and to make a report on the whole matter to their High
Mightinesses Done at the Assembly of the Noble States General, the 8th February,
1650.
(Signed) JOHAN VAN REEDE, VT.
By order of the same
(Endorsed) CORNELIS MELYN. (Signed) CORNS MUSCH, 1650.
All of Melyn's efforts to have his appeal disposed of by the States General
were without avail. It remained pending eleven years and then, Melyn, wearied
with the delay, broken in fortune by the great losses he had sustained in the
Indian Wars of 1643 and 1655 and in his unequal contest with Stuyvesant,
surrendered to the Company his rights as Patroon of Staten Island by the
following deed:
Sale & Surrender of Staten Island, by Cornelis Melyn, as Patroon, to the
Directors of Amsterdam.
This Day the 14th of June, in the year 1659, acknowledges Mr. Cornelis
Melyn, thus far Patroon, and enjoying the Jus Patronatus of the Colonie on
Staten Island, situated at the mouth of the North River in New Netherland, for
himself, his heirs and posterity, and agreed with the Lords Directors of the
Privileged West India Company, and the Department of Amsterdam, voluntarily, in
the following manner: He shall and will make a cession and transfer of all his
authority, pre-eminence, jurisdictions, prerogatives, advantages, emoluments,
privileges and exemptions, which he as Patroon enjoyed, in the lands and over
the inhabitants of the Colonie of Staten Island, with all its consequences,
appendices and dependencies, without any exception, which he obtained, as well
by resolutions, acts and articles of privileges and exemptions, as by open
letters, which Were granted him by the Director Willem Kieft, deceased, in New
Netherland; and by other letters confirming his claims, which might yet have
been produced, without exception, all which he shall deliver to the aforesaid
Department both here and in New Netherland, as far as these can be discovered.
Provided, that by the aforesaid Company and Department, shall in New Netherland
to him be reimbursed all such money as have been obtained from the sale of a
dwelling house, situated on the Manhattans in New Amsterdam, near the Fort,
which was sold by the Director-general Stuyvesant, by execution in behalf of
Daniel Michaelson, skipper of the ship, The New Netherland Fortune, in so far
this money is yet in the possession of the Company; and besides that shall be
paid to him here in ready cash, the sum of fifteen hundred guilders; and further
that he shall enjoy the freedom and exemptions, as well here as in New Nether-
land, from recognitions, to the amount of about one thousand guilders in wares
and merchandise, necessary articles for husbandry, or similar permitted goods,
which he might conclude to transport with him to New Netherland; and further,
that he with his family and attendants shall be transported thither either in a
hired vessel, or in one belonging to the Company, at the Company's expense, in
conformity to present usage. Further, that he, too, shall as a free Colonist
and Inhabitant, possess for himself and his posterity, as free and allodial
property, all the lands, houses and lots which he thus far possessed, or might
in future possess (and of which no other person had taken possession), or to the
inheritance of which he may be entitled either by a last will, codicil, donation
or legacy, or by contract or in any other manner, to dispose of these, agreeably
to the articles of freedom and exemptions which were granted to the Patroons and
Colonists; that whenever his oldest son shall be of age, and be competent to
execute the office, and a Sheriff in aforesaid Colonie, shall be wanted he shall
be preferred, by the Company and Department of Amsterdam, above all others; and
finally that the Company shall procure him by the Director-general Stuyvesant, a
full amnesty, with regard to all disputes and contentions between them, whether
these regard the Company, or their Province, or whatever subject these may
relate to, which existed before, and shall now be entirely obliterated, so that
henceforward they shall treat one another as good friends and with respect, and
assist one another whenever it shall be in their power.
For all which the aforesaid Cornelis Melyn submits his person and property,
real and personal, present and future, without any exception, to the control of
the Court of Justice in Holland, and to that of all other Courts and judges, as
well in New Netherland as here. In good faith and truth whereof, have
subscribed the Directors and Commissaries, appointed and authorized by their
Brethren for this special purpose, on the 10th of April last, and signed by the
aforesaid Cornelis Melyn, in Amsterdam on the day and year mentioned above. Was
signed Edward Man, as Director; Abraham Wilmer- donck, as Director; H.
Bontemartel, as Director; Cornelis Melyn, former Patroon of Staten Island. (2
O'Callaghan's New Netherlands 5 75 . )
By this instrument, it will be noticed, Melyn did not surrender but retained
his land on Staten Island.
After the Dutch recaptured the Province in 1673 his son made an unsuccessful
appeal to the Dutch authorities to be restored to his father's land on the
Island.
There is an account of the trial of Melyn and Kuyter in Brodhead's and in
Valentine's New York, in O'Callaghan's New Netherlands, and in Inness. Judge A.
A. Redfeld read before the New York State Bar Association in 1899 a paper on the
trial, which was printed in the proceedings of that year, pp. 63-81. In Vol.
1, Doc. Col. His. of N. Y., are printed in full many of the documents
relating to the trial. In the same volume is a translation of the " Vertoogh,"
(the Remonstrance of the New Netherlands) dated July 28, 1649, and of the
Defence of the Fiscal, Van Dyck, who prosecuted Melyn and Kuyter and was removed
in 1652, dated September 18, 1652. The " Vertoogh " and the " Defence " are
contemporary accounts of the trial and of Stuyvesant's conduct written by
enemies of Stuyvesant. In the translation of extracts from the Breeden Raedt in
Vol. 4 Doc. His. of N. Y., 99, is Melyn's own account of some of the
incidents of the trial. The documents relating to the trial printed in Vol. 1,
N. Y. Doc. Col. His., are the following:
Memorial of the " Eight Men " to the States General Nov. 3, 1643, p. 139;
Memorial of the " Eight Men" to the XIX, Oct. 28, 1643, p. 190; Memorial of the
" Eight Men" to the Amsterdam Chamber, Oct. 28, 1644, p. 209; Letter of Kieft
to Stuyvesant June 19, 1647, containing charges against Melyn and Kuyter based
on the memorials of the " Eight Men." p. 203; Answer of Melyn and Kuyter to
Kieft's charges, p.205;Judgment against Kuyter July 25, 1647, p. 213; do.
against Melyn. p. 349; Order of the States General allowing the appeal, p. 249;
Mandamus. p. 250; Letter of Prince of Orange, p. 351; Passport to Melyn and
Kuyter, p. 253; Answer of Stuyvesant, p. 321; Petition to the States General
Feby. 8, 1650, p. 348; Return of the service of the Mandamus on Stuyvesant, p.
352; Protest of Melyn against Stuyvesant's Conduct, p. 353; Stuyvessant's
answer, p. 354; Letter of Janeken Melyn Dec. 1649, p. 386; Portions of "
Vertoogh " relating to the trial, p. 310, Letter of protection to Melyn June 30,
1650, p. 408; Van Dyck's Defence, pp. 489, 495, 498.
Returning to the personal history of Melyn,--he appears to have returned to
Staten Island after the peace of 1645. In some of the papers relating to his
appeal he is described as, " Cornelis Melyn residing on Staten Island."
While at the Hague in 1649, '50, he met Baron Henryk van der Capellen, a
deputy to the States General and a man of independent fortune, and entered into
an agreement with him for the improvement and development of his Staten Island
Manor. van der Capellen purchased in the summer of 1650 a ship, the Niew
Nederlandsche Fortuyn. The vessel sailed for New Amsterdam late in that year
carrying a superintendent, carpenter, seven farmers and a company of seventy
persons in all, with domestic animals, supplies and equipment for the colony.
Melyn obtained from the States General the following letter of protection
against his inveterate enemy, Stuyvesant:
Letter of Protection and Safeguard for
Cornelis Melyn, Patroon and
Colonist on Staten Island
in New Netherland, permitting
Letter of Protection and Safeguard for
Cornelis Melyn, Patroon and
Colonist on Staten Island
in New Netherland, permitting
him to return thither.
The States General of the United Netherlands. To all those who shall see
these or hear them read. BE IT KNOWN: That We have granted on the 28th April
1648, unto Cornelis Melyn, Patroon and Colonist on Staten Island in New
Netherland, provision of appeal, with inhibitory clause from the sentence which
was pronounced against him by Peter Stuyvesant, Director of New Netherland under
the jurisdiction of the West India Company, with the advice of his Council, on
the 25th July of the year 1647. And whereas the aforesaid suit is not yet terminated and
the actual circumstances of the petitioner do not by any means admit of his
longer sojourn in this country, Therefore, We, after previous deliberation, have
granted and accorded, as We do hereby grant and accord unto him, safe conduct
and passport to repair freely from this country back again to New Netherland
aforesaid, the abovementioned suit notwithstanding; and he shall be accordingly
at liberty to dwell there on his property unmolested and undisturbed by any
person whatsoever, during the time that the suit remains here undecided; the
petitioner having empowered a person here to defend his right in or out of court
against the said sentence. Wherefore We order and command all and every person
being in our service and under our obedience, whom this may in any wise concern,
either in this country, on the passage, or in New Netherland, and especially the
abovenamed Stuyvesant and his Council that they shall cause and allow the
abovenamed petitioner to enjoy the full effect hereof, and accordingly, not to
molest him in his person nor in any wise to be hindering unto him, on pain of
incurring our highest indignation. Given at the Hague, under our seal, paraph
and signature of our Secretary, the 30th June XVIc and fifty.
Melyn took passage on the Fortuyn only to learn of how little avail was even
the Safeguard of the States General against the hatred of Stuyvesant. It was a
rule of the West India Company that a vessel should not break bulk between
Holland and New Netherland. The Fortuyn was delayed by contrary winds and
boisterous seas and when it reached our coast, the water was short and the "
last biscuit had been divided among the passengers." The Captain went into
Rhode Island for water and provisions. When the ship arrived off Staten Island,
Stuyvesant, under the belief that Melyn was her real owner, seized the vessel
and cargo for an alleged violation of the rule of the company in going in to
Rhode Island. Stuyvesant was again both prosecutor and judge, van Dyck was
still Fiscal and in his " Defence" he shows how Stuyvesant obtained evidence. "
In the case of Cornelis Melyn and the ship the Fortuyn I must take the
information of the ship's crew in confinement in the Tavern according to the
draft and order of the Director in the presence of his illegal councillors."
Stuyvesant was cast in his first suit against Melyn. He then sued the
skipper and by collusion and want of defence obtained from himself and Council a
decree of confiscation of ship and cargo. He then allowed the skipper recourse
against Melyn and gave him a judgment and caused execution to issue thereon upon
which Melyn's houses and lots at the Manhattans were sold. (l N. Y. Doc. Col.
His. 528 9.) The ship was sold to Thomas Willett who sent her on a voyage to
Virginia and Holland. When she reached Holland the States General allowed Baron
van der Capellen an appeal from Stuyvesant's judgment of confiscation and after
a long litigation the West India Company was compelled to pay heavy damages and
restore the ship to her owners.
About this time van Dincklagen wrote of Stuyvesant, " Our great Muscovy
Drake keeps on as of old, something like the wolf, the longer he lives the
harder he bites," and certainly towards Melyn he showed the disposition to bite
long and hard. Jacobus Loper, who had served as Captain-Lieutenant with
Stuyvesant at Curacoa, and been a member of Stuyvesant's first council in New
Netherland, asked permission to trade at the South river, the Delaware.
Stuyvesant objected because he was Melyn's son in law. The Council demanded, "
Shall the sins of the father then be visited on the son." The Director replied,
" It cannot be otherwise this time he shall not go." (Id., 358.)
The confiscation of the Fortuyn and her cargo and the consequent inability
of Melyn and van der Capellen to retain the people brought over in her was a
severe blow to their plans. Stuyvesant caused other charges to be made against
Melyn and summoned him to Fort Amsterdam to answer. He refused to go and his
remaining property on Manhattan Island was confiscated and sold by the
Government. Expecting that an attempt would be made to arrest him, he fortified
his Manor House on one of the hills overlooking the present village of Clifton.
Stuyvesant made no attempt to have him arrested but claiming that there was
danger of an attack upon his person by Melyn, induced his Council to give him a
bodyguard of four halberdiers.
That Melyn was living on Staten Island June 25, 1652, and still having
trouble with Stuyvesant, is shown by the very interesting letter of that date in
his autograph (No. 4 of the Dodd and Livingston Collection), and signed also by
six other early settlers of the Island, stating that Director Stuyvesant had
hired Indians to rob and kill people on Staten Island.
In the New York Historical Society are a large number of papers relating to
Cornelis Melyn, received from J. D. Sergeant of Philadelphia, a descendant of
Melyn. Among them is the original Writ of the States General of the United
Netherlands, allowing to Melyn and Kuyter an appeal with suspensory clause from
Stuyvesant's sentence dated April 28, 1648, the day the appeal was allowed, and
letters and petitions of Cornelis Melyn and his son Jacob, in reference to
Staten Island.
In 1913, Dodd and Livingston, booksellers in New York, had for sale at the
price of $2,500.00 five manuscripts relating to Staten Island and Cornelis
Melyn. They were:
1. The safe conduct of the States General to Melyn and Kuyter dated May 1,
1648. 2. A second warrant for the safe conduct and protection of Melyn, dated
June 30, 1650. This was issued after Stuyvesant had refused to obey the first,
and Melyn had returned to Holland, and was about to sail for New Amsterdam in
the ship " New Netherlands Fortune," fitted out at the expense of Baron von der
Capellen and other merchants with the purpose of colonizing Staten Island. 3.
Contract between Melyn and Lord Hendrick von der Capellen for a part of Staten
Island, dated June 4, 1650. 4. Is the letter of Melyn dated June 25, 1652,
above mentioned. 5. Agreement between Cornelis Melyn and the West India
Company, by which he relinquished his patronship of Staten Island. dated
Amsterdam, June 13, 1659.
In September, 1655, another disastrous Indian war occurred for which as in
case of the war of 1643 the Dutch, not the Indians, were to blame. The whole of
Staten Island was again laid waste, Melyn's Manor House and other buildings were
burned, his stock driven away and some of his people killed. According to the
report of Secretary Van Tienhoven, Staten Island was left, " without an
inhabitant or a house." This misfortune was the ruin of Melyn's prospects on
Staten Island. Against both Stuyvesant and the Indians, he could not longer
contend. He went to New Haven and with his son Jacob, there took the oath of "
fidellitee ye 2 mo 1657." In 1659 he again went to Holland and effected with
the States General the settlement shown in his deed of June 14, 1659 (page 72),
by the terms of which he surrendered to the Company his Patent to Staten Island
and was to receive the proceeds of his house and lots sold by Stuyvesant in
1651, 1,500 guilders in cash, exemption from duties upon any goods he might
export, full amnesty, a grant of all lands in which he was then in possession
and his son to be Sheriff whenever a Sheriff was required. He appears to have
resided in New Haven several years, but where he lived after 1662 and the place
and time of his death are all uncertain.
Appendix II to Inness' New Amsterdam is an account of Melyn and his
descendants, in which the author says that he, " is inclined more and more to
regard him as the central figure of his day in New Netherland."
CORNELIA MELYN AND JACOBUS SCHELLINGER (1).
Cornelia, the eldest daughter of Cornelia Melyn, as has been said, was
married to Captain-Lieutenant Jacob Loper in the Dutch Reformed Church in New
Amsterdam, June 30, 1647. Of their wedding the following account is given in
Valentine's Manual 1862, p. 765:
Cornelia Melyn, daughter of Cornelis Melyn, was, in her day, the belle of
New Amsterdam, and was sought for by the principal aspirants to the felicities
of matrimony. Her father, unlike most of those who emigrated to this colony in
early times, was a man of considerable wealth on his arrival here in 1639.
After examining into the prospects and resources and conditions of the country,
he returned to the fatherland, where he procured a patent for a large portion of
Staten Island, and having decided upon establishing his residence here, he
brought his family in the year 1641 and at once commenced
colonizing the extensive territory of which he was patroon. He also had a
residence in New Amsterdam on the present Northeast corner of Pearl and Broad
streets, then a pleasant place of residence facing the East River. Here the
youthful Cornelia grew to the estate of womanhood, the admired and envied of the
neighbors. None of the youth of the community were of sufficient condition to
make pretension to the aristocraiic beauty, until Captain Loper, the Commander
of the Dutch ship of war permanently stationed in the harbor, put forth his
claims, which met with a favorable response. The marriage took place with great
festivities in the year 1647. The married life of this distinguished couple did
not prove of long duration, for the Captain died within three or four years, and
his widow, in the year 1655, married Jacob Schellinger, a merchant of high
standing, resident in New Amsterdam.
The Schellingers of Amsterdam were a well to do family. In the " Kohier" or
Assessment List of Amsterdam for the year 1631 on which Kilian Van Renssalear
was assessed as 50,000 florins, Hillebrant Schellinger was assessed at 70,000,
Cornelis Gerritz Schellinger at 70,000 and Cornelis Schellinger, the elder, at
36,000 florins. Jacobus Schellinger came to New Amsterdam about 1652. March
13, 1653, the Burghers of New Amsterdam were assessed in proportion to their
property to raise a fund to be used for the defence of the place against the New
England Colonists. Jacobus Schellinger was assessed 200 guilders; no one was
assessed more and only a few an equal amount (Valentine's N. Y., 313). This
money was used to construct an earth work of sods on the top of which were
placed palisades. This line of defence ran along the northerly side of the
present Wall street from East river to the present Broadway, and thence to North
river, crossing the site of the present Trinity Church. It was from this line
of defence that Wall street took its name. The next year the New England
Colonists actually began to prepare to assist in a proposed attack by the
English on New Amsterdam. It was then that the famous resolution of June 29,
1654, was adopted by the freeman of Easthampton by which they declared that they
did " thinke themselves caled to assist the sd power of England against the
Dutch," and confirmed Thomas Talmage and Thomas Baker as the " Millitery
officers to command the army of the town when called on to take part in such
attack.
Jacobus Schellinger appears to have lived either in New Amsterdam or on
Staten Island twelve or thirteen years after his marriage. He lived on Staten
Island at the time of the Indian War of 1655, in which his house was burned and
goods which had been consigned to him were destroyed. The conquest of New
Netherlands by the English in 1664 put an end to trade with Holland and he went
to Easthampton to retrieve his fortunes in the " whale design." He settled at
Easthampton before October 2, 1667, for in a deed of that date he is described
as " Mr. James Schalinger of Easthampton." His house lot was the original "
home lot" of Andrew Miller on the north side of the main street about midway
between the Pond and the Hook Mill and is now the home of Mr. David J.
Gardiner. He died in Easthampton 1693, ae 67, and his widow died there February
25, 1717, aged 88.
Like that of her mother, Jannetje Melyn, Cornelia Schellinger's life was
long and eventful; her memories must have embraced Antwerp in its decaying
splendor, and New Amsterdam with no splendor at all--merely a few thatched
cottages around the fort. She remembered Staten Island as an unbroken
wilderness, and her father's plantation there, twice destroyed by Indians, and
the days of panic and distress in the little house on the Graft in New
Amsterdam. Then came the long struggles of her father against Colonial
maladministration, and his self-imposed exile from New Amsterdam, during many
years of which the care of his family had devolved largely upon herself. She
had seen the village of huts at New Amsterdam grow into a town of importance,
and had seen the English rule supplant that of the Dutch. Of her father's two
great enemies so well known to her, she could remember how the life of one had
closed in horror in the wreck of the " Princess " (when her brother and her
pastor also perished) and how the other had ended his days in seclusion and in
bitter humiliation at his farmhouse up the Bouwery Lane on Manhattan Island. In
her latter years she found half a century of quiet life filled with domestic
duties, but besides her son Abraham she was also fated to see her youngest son
Jacob grow up to adult manhood, and die before her in the year 1714. He, as it
appears, had married into the English family of Baker at Easthampton, and left a
family of eight children surviving him. (Inness, 356.)
There is in the New York State Library a copy in Dutch of the joint will of
Daniel Schellinks and Constantia van Rijssen his wife, of Amsterdam, dated May
17, 1698, and of three letters written in 1704-5 and 6, by a Notary at Amsterdam
to the widow of Jacobus Schellinx at Easthampton in relation to the settlement
of said estates. Under this will the children of Jacobus Schellinger took
one-sixth of the residuary estate of the testator, which amounted to about
$7.000. From the will it appears that Jacobus Schellinx had three brothers, one
of whom was the well-known landscape painter, Willem Schellinx, another, Laurens
Schellinx, surgeon at Amsterdam, and a third the testator, silk cloth merchant
and amateur painter, also at Amsterdam. The will makes the following bequests:
To testator's niece and servant girl, Geertruijd Shellinks, 400 guilders and
a mourning dress; to Daniel Schellinks, only son of testator's late brother
Laurens Schellinks, testator's clothes, a painted coat of arms and large silver
signet; to Willem Schellinks testator's portrait in gilt frame, a landscape
painted by his (Willem's) deceased father, and a diary concerning friends and
relatives, kept by testator; to Maria Jacoba Schellinks two portraits of
testator and his first wife; to Constantia Schellinks two landscapes painted by
testator; to Mr. Jacob van Rijssen, advocate, two portraits of testatrix, two
portraits of her father and mother, and two portraits of her grandfather and
grandmother van Meerle; to Christina van Rijssen a gold ring with seven diamonds
belonging to testatrix; rest of the estate to children of testator's deceased
brothers Jacobus, Willem and Laurens, and to relatives on wife's side.
JACOBUS SCHELLINGER (2).
The latest baptism of a child of Jacobus Schellinger and Cornelia Melyn
recorded in the Record of Baptisms in the Dutch Reformed Church of New Amsterdam
is that of Daniel, bap. July 16, 1665. It was not long after that date that
the first Jacobus Schellinger removed to Easthampton. He died there in 1693.
No record of births or baptisms was kept in Easthampton before Mr. Hunting was
ordained Sep. 13, 1699. The second Jacobus Schellinger died in Easthampton
Jan. 23, 1714, "aged abt. 49 years." He was therefore probably born at
Easthampton about 1666, and there is no record of his birth or baptism. That he
was the brother of William and Abraham Schellinger of Easthampton is shown by
their deed to him March 20. 1696. of certain lands at Amagansett " and half a
share of the lands and privileges at Meantaukett (Montauk) which formerly
belonged to Andrew Miller." The grantee by a writing on that deed signed "
Jacob Schellinx " agreed " to run the hazard of half of that halfe share and to
stand by my brothers within named, William and Abraham Schellinx," etc. (2 E.
H. R. 333, 4-5.) That the grantors William and Abraham Schellinx were the
children of Jacobus Schellinger and Cornelia Melyn is shown by the record of
their baptism in the Dutch Church at New Amsterdam.
That Mercy Schellinger, wife of Samuel Baker, was the daughter of the second
Jacobus Schellinger, is also clear. It is so stated in the Schellinger
Genealogy in Hedges' Easthampton, and she was born in 1799, six years after the
death of the first Jacobus Schellinger.