Early Salem County

F 142
.S2 J7
Copy 1

KDarlu C^a/e/n L^ountu

c-^C?3^^

By Edson Salisbury Jones, Port Chester. N. Y.

Glc/ S-oft S/fsSor^

C/Ae I^efeupe and % ledger C/racf

CAjnoadwai^ ana tne *JOraciaa^ ,yiouse

^ohn KTenivicli' s c:fraife

PAPER READ BEFORE THE SALEM COUNTY HISTORICAL
SOCIETY. DECEMBER 10. 1907

^'^^^^^

(s^arlu C^alem i^ountu

By Edson Salisbury Jones. Port Chester. N. Y.

Gld 3-ort &lfs6orff

Une i^efeure and J, ledger Uract

CAJroadivai^ ano the KAjraoivai^ >ylouse

^ohn C^enivicl^' s K^rave

PAPER READ BEFORE THE SALEM COUNTY HISTORICAL
SOCIETY, DECEMBER 10, 1907

^CB 3 1009

SUNBEAM
FUBLISHINGCOMEWIY

Early Salem County

In the intitial portion of this paper,
tlie situation of a long-lost landmark
has been clearly established. In the
remaining sections, one of the largest
tracts of land possessed by Fenwick's
grantees has been treated; proofs are
offered that Broadway was not named
for Edward Bradway, and that he never
built a house upon that highway; and
the location of John Fenwick's grave
Is considered, as well as the movement
to erect a monument to his memory.

Old Fort Elfsborg

W hat was the situation and what the
construction of this fort erected by
the Swedes in the vicinity of Salem,
and in what year was it built? Gor-
don, Johnson, Mulford, Hazard and
Shourds tell us nothing of its char-
acter; but its position has been as-
signed to two localities, and the year
of its erection has been variably stated.
Several old maps seem to place it near-
er the mouth of Salem Creek than the
present projection of land known as
Elsinborough Point; but judging by the
shore lines of the Delaware as they
now are, the latter location would seem
to be the more reasonable, in one view,
because there the river is narrowest
until New Castle is reached, and the
object in erecting this fort was to
command the stream and govern the
passage of the Dutch, or any who were
inimical to the Swedes. It is well
known, however, that tne shore line
between Salem Creek and Elsinborough
Point has been receding for many
years. At the time this fort was built
undoubtedly the mouth of the creek
was much nearer the western shore of
the river than it Is at present. Again,

the whole vicinity of Elsinborough
Point is marshy, and for that reason
not desirable or probable for such a
structure. Nevertheless, in Johnson's
opinion, the fort was erected there, for
in Hazard, 71, we read the following:

"Some uncertainty exists as to the
precise location of Fort Elsinborg; it
has usually been placed upon the creek,
but upon inquiry in the neighbour-
hood, and especially of an old resident
there, the author is led to believe that
It was situated three or four miles
below Salem Creek, at a point which
has long been known as 'Elsinburg
Fort Point.' So early as November 12,
1676, 'a conveyance by warrant was
made of 1000 acres, by John Fenwick,
to be set out, limited and bounded at
and near the point heretofore called
Elsinburg Fort, and hereafter to be
called Guy's plantation.' There was a
large body of marsh on both sides of
a creek then called Fishing Creek; 'on
the south side of this creek was an
island of upland, on which, I well re-
member, were three well-sized trees;
on this island of upland I understood
the fort formerly stood, nor have I
ever heard any Salem county man lo-
cate it in any other place.' 'This is-
land was most judiciously selected for
the erection of a fort, being protected
by the river on the west; on the north
by Fishing Creek, turning east and
south; on the south by an immense ex-
panse of wild marsh.' " The foot-note
to this paragraph reads: "For these
facts I am indebted to the kindness of
Col. R. G. Johnson, the well-known au-
thor of a small History of Salem, N. J..
and one of the oldest inhabitants of

Salem, who has favoured me with a
long letter on the subject."

Here we have the view of our local
historian, expressed during- the last
century. In his little book, page 7, he
conveys the impression that Fort Elfs-
borg was built in 1631. Now let us
see what light is to be obtained as to
the year of erection, character and lo-
cation of this fort, from men who not
only saw it but wrote about it during,
and within a short time after, its con-
struction.

On August 16, 1642, Queen Christina
appointed Johan Printz Governor of
New Sweden, as the land along the
Delaware claimed by the Swedes was
then called. Printz arrived at Fort
Christina [now Wilmington, Del.] on
February 15, 1642-3. (Campanius, 70.)
Andries Hudde was in the employment
of the Dutch at New Amsterdam [now
New York], and on October 12, 1645,
was appointed Commissary for the
South River, as the Delaware was then
de.'^ignated. On October 22, 1646, Hudde
made "A brief, but true Report of the
Proceedings of Johan Prints, Governor
of the Swedish forces at the South-
River of New-Netherland, also of the
Garrisons of the aforesaid Swedes,
found on that river, the first of Novem-
ber, 1645." The translation of this
report begins with these words:

"What regards the garrisons of the
Swedes on the South-River of New
Netherland is as follows:

"At the entrance of this River three
leagues up from its mouth, on the east
shore, is a fort called Elsenburgh, us-
ually garrisoned by 12 men and one
lieutenant, 4 guns, iron and brass, of
12 pounds iron (balls), 1 mortar (pots-
hooft). This Fort is an earthwork and
was ordered to be erected there by the
aforesaid Johan Prints, shortly after
his arrival in that river. By means of
this fort, the above mentioned Prints
holds the river locked for himself, so

that all vessels, no matter to whom
they belong or whence they come, are
compelled to anchor there." (Col. Hist.
N. Y., 12. 28-9.)

In 1655, there were published at
Hoorn, Holland, "Short Historical and
Journal Notes of Several Voyages"
made by Capt. David Pietersz de Vries,
a skillful seaman who had also been
a master of artillery in Holland's em-
ploy, and had established a colony on
the western shore of the Delaware in
1631. He left that colony, but returned
to the river on a trading vessel. He.
was thoroughly familiar with the Del-
aware, and piloted this ship. Under
date of October, 1643, we read the fol-
lowing in the translation of this Jour-
nal:

"The 13th, sailed by Reed Island, and
came to Verckens-kil, where there was
a fort constructed by the Swedes, with
three angles, from which they fired for
us to strike our flag. The skipper ask-
ed me if he should strike it. I answered
him, 'If I were in a ship belonging to
myself, I would not strike it because
I l.ad been a patroon of New Netherland,
and the Swedes were a people who
came into our river; but you come here
by contrary winds and for the purposes
of trade, and it is therefore proper that
you should strike.' Then the skipper
struck his flag, and there came a small
skiff from the Swedish fort, with some
Swedes in it, who inquired of the
skipper with what he was laden. He
told them with Madeira wine. We
asked them whether the governor was
in the fort. They answered. No; that
he was at the third fort up the river
[New Gottenberg], to which we sailed,
and arrived at about four o'clock in
the afternoon, and went to the gover-
nor, who welcomed us. He was named
Captain Prins. • • • The 19th. I
went with the governor to the Minck-
quas-kil • • • I staid here at night
with the governor, who treated me

well. In the morning ♦ • * I took
my leave of the governor, who accom-
panied me on board. We fired a sa-
lute for him, and thus parted from him;
weighed anchor, and got under sail,
and came to the first fort. Let the
anchor fall again, and went on land to
the fort, which was not entirely finish-
ed; it was made after the English plan,
with three angles close by the river.
There ■ were lying there six or eight
brass pieces, twelve-pounders. The
skipper exchanged here some of his
wines for beaver-skins. The 20th of
October, took our departure from the
last fort, or first in sailing up the
river, called Elsenburg." (N. Y. Hist.
Soc. Col., 2d S., 3. 122-3.)

From these contemporary accounts
we learn that this fort was begun after
February, 1643, but had not been com-
pleted by October 20th of that year;
that it was an earthwork structure in
the form of three angles; and that it
was located close to Delaware River,
at Verckens Kill, — not on an island
nearly surrounded by marsh, three or
four miles below Salem Creek. Was
Verckens Kill the "Fishing Creek" of
Johnson? No: for in the deed from
William Malster, conveying Windham
to Roger Milton, the land is described
as fronting on Virkins Kill alias Salem
Creek (Salem Deeds, 2. 32); and in Col.
Hist. N. Y., 12. 610, we see the com-
mission appointing Malster and five
others to be overseers or selectmen "In
Verckens kill or hogg Creeke, common-
ly called Salem or Swamp Towne, &
parts adjacent."

Guy's plantation of 1000 acres, re-
ferred to in the information given by
Joanson to Hazard, stretched along
Delaware River about two miles, from
Salem Creek on the north to Locust
Creek, near present Elsinborough
Point. At the time of the survey
(1676), this land, "at and near the point
lieretofore called Elsinburge fort," was

in Guy's possession by virtue of his
deed from Fenwick, and was then call-
ed Guy's Point or plantation. (Salem
Sur. 1676, p. 45; Fenwick's Sur., 14.)
Seemingly Locust Creek was Johnson's
"Fishing Creek;" and what is now call-
ed Elsinborough Point was known in
Fenwick's time as Kymball's Point.
(Salem Deeds, 3. 99.)

In May, 1654, Printz was succeeded
by John Rysingh as governor of New
Sweden, and the first act of the latter
upon his arrival was to capture Fort
Casimir (New Castle) from the Dutch.
In the next year, the Dutch wrested
this fort from the Swedes, took from
them Fort Christina and Fort New
Gditenberg, and drove the Swedes
from Delaware River. According to
Governor Rysingh's official report of
the capture of these strongholds, the
Dutch in seven ships, with six or seven
liundred men aboard, arrived in the
South River on August 30, 1655, "and
anchored before the Fortress of Elfs-
borg, which was then dismantled and
ruinous." (N. Y. Hist. Soc. Col., 2d S.,
1. 443.) In the Dutch account of the
expedition, no hint is found that Fort
Elfsborg was in a condition to be a
factor — but the contrary impression is
conveyed, for in Stuyvesant's letter to
his Council we read that the Dutch
ships came to anchor before this fort,
and remained there three days, during
which time they arranged their forces
in five sections, in preparation for the
attack upon Fort Casimir, to which
they proceeded. (Col. Hist. N. Y., 12.
101.) Acrelius tells us that Fort Elfs-
borg was "abandoned by the Swedes
and destroyed, as it was almost impos-
sible to live there on account of the
gnats (myggor); whence it was for
some time called Myggenborg." This
fort was in ruins, therefore, more than
twenty years before Fenwick's arrival
in 1675; and in Johnson's time, no
Salem County man with whom he con-

versed knew where it had been situat-
ed. Its site had probably been sub-
merged many years.

That it was an earthwork, thrown up
in the form of three angles — like points
of a star, has been proved herein by
the testimony of eye-witnesses; but in
a paper recently read before an His-
torical Society in this State, and print-
ed In a local newspaper, we find the
following erroneous description of it:

"The fort was constructed of huge
logs hewn from the heavy timbers sur-
rounding the site, and doubtless had
the additions usual to that class of
works, a deep mote, high embankments
and strong lines of palisades, the latter
chiefly to guard against the incursions
of Indians."

In the newspaper print, there is an
accompanying illustration of this fort
(as tlie author imagined it), which
shows a log building, rectangular in
shape, and with a gable roof surmount-
ed by a cupola. Seemingly the struc-
ture is placed upon a plot of ground,
also rectangular, and raised above the
surrounding land, such plot being em-
banked with horizontal logs. A sen-
try is seen near one corner of the
building; another is walking his beat
between it and the shore-line, along
which tall grass grows; not far from
the fort is a large log house; and with-
in a stone-throw of the shore appears
the stern of a ship flying a Swedisli
man-of-war flag. This wholly mislead-
ing picture needs only a band of men-
acing Indians in the distance to com-
plete it; for there is abundant proof
that the Swedes and aborigines were
very friendly.

Before dropping the subject of early
defences in this vicinity, it is well that
an error in Jolinson, 54, be corrected.
In his version of Mary Fenwick's let-
ter of February 7, 1678-9, we read with
relation to Mrs. Lefevre — "I found she
had some design to make a fool upon

tlie view, and to have thy concurrence
therein; but I do not understand the
design, so must leave it to thy discre-
tion and address." Johnson's expres-
sion, "fool upon the view," is non-
sense. The words in the original let-
ter are "fort upon the river." So Mrs.
Lefevre had an ambition to fortify Sa-
lem County.

The Lefevre and Pledjfer Tract

This section of land, comprising 6000
acres, was the first in this vicinity to
be occupied by any of Fenwick's gran-
tees, and its owners had seated them-
selves upon it before Fenwick's arrival
(Salem Sur. 1676, pp. 45-6;. though it
was not surveyed until November 12,
1676 (Fenwick's Sur.. 15). According to
N. J. Arch. 1. 414, this tract was known
as "Packagomack" — an Indian name,
thought to have meant land lying low
along an inland body of water. It was
bounded north by Mannington Creek
and the lower portion of Swedes Run;
west by Salem Creek; south by the
lower part of Fenwick Creek, by Keas-
bey's Creek — early called Great Mill
Creek, ' to a stream flowing northerly
into it and named Smith's Creek in the
survey of Smithfield (but later called
Mill Hollow Creek), and by a line run-
ning from the latter stream due east
for nearly a mile, where it turned
soutli; southeast by Alloways Creek;
and easterly by a line starting on this
creek, about half way between Quinton
and Alloway, and extending east of
north to Swedes Run, which it touched
about three-quarters of a mile east of
the confluence of tliat stream and Lime-
stone Run. This tract was divided into
six lots by its owners.

The first lot was nearest to Salem
Creek, and comprised 900 acres, called
Lefevre's Chase, which Lefevre. Sr..
conveyed to his son in 1687. (Salem
Deeds. 4. 44.) Lefevre. Jr.. sold 100
acres in the north end of it to Jonathan
lieere, in 1688; 200 acres in the middle

portion to James Barrett, in 1690; and
the remaining 600 acres, in the south
end, to Rothro Morris, in 1700. (Salem
Deeds, 4. 75; 5. 118; 7. 12.)

The second lot adjoined the first, on
the east, and was owned by Pledger.
In the southerly section of it was his
"Netherland Farm," which he devised
to his son, John. The northerly por-
tion was Quiettitty, or Sandyburr
Wood, comprising 500 acres, which
Pledger, Sr., conveyed to Christopher
Saunders August 10, 1680, and Saunders
gave to Jonathan Beere and wife in
1686. (Salem Deeds, 7. 196; 3. 224.)

During this last spring, a party visit-
ed what was supposed by its members
to have been Quiettitty, which has been
referred to as an Indian village, and
'"the first seat of John Pledger in Fen-
wick's Colony." The writer under-
stands that the visitors believed this
place was situated on the south side of
Mannington Creek, to the east of the
thoroughfare running southerly from
the Salem-Woodstown road to Quinton.
Si'ch a location for the Quiettitty of
record is erroneous, and makes it a
part of the 544 acres sold by Pledger to
William and Joan Braithwaite in 1689,
Vihich latter land was in the fourth
lot. Quiettitty was an Indian name,
the meaning of which is thought to
have been a place where bushes grew
along the bank of a stream. The rec-
ords do not disclose it as an aborigine
village. The ownership of Quiettitty
was early in dispute between Michael
Barron and Lefevre and Pledger, and
a suit for the possession of it was de-
cided against Barron, on appeal to the
New Castle Court. Barron alleged that
he had a grant from Governor Carteret
long before the division of the Prov-
ince; that under it he had purchased
from the Indians, in 1671, 600 acres
called "Quiettetting;" that for several
> ear-s he had made improvements and
a beginning of settlement upon it, but

was hindered by Fenwick's threats.
Lefevre and Pledger claimed the land
as included in their 6000 acres. The
Judges at New Castle decided that
Barron had forfeited his right to Quiet-
titty by not settling upon it within a
proper time. In this suit, .Christopher
Saunders deposed that, in the fall of
1679, he had built a small house on the
land by Pledger's order. (Printed New
Castle Rec, 336, 387-8.) The record
shows that this was the first house
erected at Quiettitty; and it was con-
structed four and a half years after
Pledger's coming. It is certain that
Pledger did not first reside there, for
we know that he seated himself at
Bereton Fields, and he is called of the
latter place at all times when his dom-
icile is specifically named.

The bounds of Quiettitty clearly
prove that it was a part of the second
lot, and its situation is further defined
by other deeds. In the conveyance by
Lefevre, Jr., to Beere of the 100 acre.s
at the north end of the Chase, the land
sold bordered" the south side of Man-
nington Creek for 40 perches; adjoined
Saunders' land on the west; and was
bounded south by Puddle Dock Creek.
Now, Puddle Dock Creek flows westerly
into Salem Creek, on the north side of
"Denn's Island." Consequently, Quiet-
titty lay west of the present Salem-
Sharptown road — not east of the Sa-
lem-Woodstown highway. In 1692-3.
Beere sold the 600 acres, comprising
both of these parcels, to Bartholomew
Wyatt (Salem Deeds, 5. 239), and the
deed states that all the land was "at
Quiettitty," thereby making the amount
equal that claimed by Barron.

The third lot adjoined the second on
the east, was owned by Lefevre, and
the line between the two ran south
across the lower portion of Myhoppin-
ies Creek. In I'iSO. Lefevre sold 4n"
a<res in the northeast part to William
Rumsey; in 1693, conveyed 400 acres in

8

the northwest portion to Roger Carary; '
and in 1696 sold 200 acres in the south-
erly part to widow Joan Braithwaite.
(Salem Deeds, 2. 15; 5. 275; 6. 44.) The j
widow's portion of this third lot was
bounded southerly by Hollybourne •
Creek (the upper part of Fenwick |
Creek, flowing west), and in her will j
she refers to it as "Hollybourne Pas- !
ture.

Hollybourne. Lefevre's plantation of
200 acres, where he resided, lay south
of Hollybourne Creek, between Acton
station and Penton. In 1696 he sold it ■
to Joseph Pledger. [

The fourth lot was owned by Pledger.
It lay between the third lot and the \
easterly line of the whole tract. Out
of the westerly portion of this lot, and
bordering Limestone Run, Pledger sold
544 acres to William and Joan Braith-
waite in 1689. (Salem Deeds, 5. 15.)
The remainder of the fourth lot Pledger
devised to his son, John.

The fifth lot was in the southea.-^t
corner of the main tract, south of the
fourth lot. It was owned by Lefevre.
and known as Petersfleld. In 1679. he
agreed to sell 300 acres of the easterly
portion to George Provo. to be called
Provo's Holt, but it passed to William
Willis. In 1690-1, Lefevre conveyed 700
acres in the westerly part to John Wor-
lidge and wife, who sold 600 acres of
it to William Kenton in 169.'?. Kenton's
widow married Hugh Middleton, and
in 1698 he received a conveyance of
tliis land from Kenton's son. (Salem
Sn; 1. 8-9; Fenwick's Sur., 30; Salem
Deed.i, 5. 105, 293; 6. 238.)

The sixth lot was situated west of
the fifth, and in Quake; Xeck. between
Fenwick and Keasney's Creeks. Of
this lot. 80i> acres in the easterly part
was Pledger's plantation, called Bere-
ton Fields, the northerly portion of
which bounded Hollybourne on th»"
west. This plantation Pledger devised
to his » >n. '^oseph. together wit^ the

remainder of the sixth lot. Joseph de-
vised all his land to his wife, Mary,
who subsequently married Hugh Mid-
dleton. Middleton devised the 800
acres called Bereton Fields, where he
dwelt, to his son, John, who died under
age, whereby his sister, Mary, became
possessed of the land. Mary married
Benjamin Vining. Vining devised
"Barrenton House" and the 800 acres
where he resided, to his son, John. The
description of this land in Vining's will
shows that its south line was coinci-
dent with the north line of Smithfield.
from which it extended northerly.

Shourds. 473, locates Lefevre on
Quaker Neck, and says that he "erect-
ed upon the tract a large brick resi-
dence in 1707. The building is still
standing, and is owned at the present
time [1876] by George Griscom. of
Salem." Wherever Lefevre built his
house, he did not erect it in 1707, as
he was dead ten years earlier, and had
sold Hollybourne in 1696. Shourds"
chapter, entitled "Ancient Building.*;.'
needs considerable revision.
Broartivay and the "Bradway" Houne

Shourds. 35, tells us that "As early
as 1676 the street now known as Broad-
way was laid out and called Wharf
Street, and several town lots were laid
Dut and surveyed on said street; one
for Edward Bradway before his arrival.
(Containing sixteen acres, commencing
near the public wharf at the creek,
and running up the street a certain dis-
tance, and from the line of said street
a northerly course to Fenwick Creek.
In the year 1691 Edward Bradway built
on his town lot a large brick house
which is still standing, for size and ap-
pearance surpassing any house built
prior to that date, and for many years
aftorward. in Salem. • ♦ • In 1693
the town of Salem was incorporateil
into a borough, and the authorities of
the town changed the name of Wharf
Sjtreet to Bradway Street, in honor of

Edward Bradway." What an imagin-
ation had this author, and how per-
sistently did he use fancy's color-
brush! Or, did he offer us tradition?

While it is true that, in a few com-
paratively recent deeds, Wharf Street
is applied to this thoroughfare between
the present dock and Market street, it
is not true that such was the name
g-iven to it in 1676, or for many years
afterward. In the early records, we
find mentions of the "Town Landing;"
and this name was used for the dock at
least as late as December 24, 1688.
(Salem Deeds, 4. 120.) N. J. Arch. 21,
furnishes abstracts of deeds and sur-
veys recorded up to 1704; but the index
of this volume does not disclose "Wharf
Street." Neither does the index of
Arch. 23, which extends to 1730. In the
former volume, this thoroughfare is
called "the highway;" and there is
every probability that it obtained its
present name — as did streets in other
cities, simply and only because it was
the broad way of the town, and not
fiom the presence in this county of
Edward Bradway.

In September, 1676, six town lots
were surveyed along the north side of
this thoroughfare, between it and Pen-
wiok Creek — their frontage upon it ag-
gregating about half a mile. Of them,
the one nearest the present dock con-
tained 16 acres, was laid out to John
Smith, and was bounded as follows:
From a stake marked .IS. by the high-
way, north by ea.«t ."i? perches to a
stake by Fenwick's River, or Creek;
thence east by south 38 perches to a
white oak marked RH; thence south
by west 78 perches to a stake marked
RH. on the highway; thence west by
north 38 perches to the place of begin-
ning. Adjoining Smith, on the east.
\va.= the 16 acre lot of Roger Huckings.
\\ ith a frontage of 38 perches; adjoin-
ing Huckings on the east was the 16
acre lot of Samuel Nicholson, with a

frontage of 36 perches; adjoining: Nich-
olson on the east was the 10 acre lot of
Mark Reeve, with a frontage of 18
perches; adjoining Reeve on the east
was the 10 acre lot of Edward Lumley,
with a frontage of 16 perches; and ad-
joining Lumley on the east was the 10
acre lot of Robert Goulsbury, with a
frontage of .... perches. (Fenwick's
Sur., 1, 1, 1; Town Grants, 1, 3; Salem
Sur., 1. 18.)

In addition to his 16 acre lot, John
Smith had 6 acres, which were deeded
to him by Fenwick in 1679 (Town
Grants, p. 5), and were bounded as fol-
lows: From a stake marked JS, by
the highway to Salem landing, along
the west [should be east] side of the
highway to a stake marked JS, by
Fenwick's River; thence south along
the west side of his 16 acre lot; thence
to the place of beginning. These two
adjoining lots, aggregating 22 acres,
were sold by John Smith and wife
Martha, of Alloways Creek, to Sarah
Cannon, on June 4, 1683, and the deed
recites the bounds of both lots. (Salem
Deeds, 2. 137.) Sarah Cannon gave all
her property to ner daughter, Sarah
Pile. (Salem Wills, 2. 2.) On April 13,
1686. William Hall, as attorney for
Sarah Pile, sold the said 22 acres to
Samuel Carpenter, who. on the same
date, assigned this land to William
Kelly, a weaver. (Salem Deeds, 4. 113,
117.) Kelly retained it until April 2,

1691. when he s Id it to William Hall,
late of Pilesgrove, but then of Man-
nington Creek, and his wife, Elizabeth.
(Salem Deeds, 5. 114.) By August 17.

1692. William Hall was an inn-holder of
Salem. (Salem Deeds, 5. 200.) Now, the
»^'>-called Bradway House stands on a
part of the 16 acres originally laid out
to John Smith — title to which has here
been traced to William Hall. There is
every reason to believe that this house,
which bears upon its east gable the
date, 1691, was built by William Hall.

lO

and that he had established it as his
inn by 1692. His will, dated April 10,
1713, devised to his son, William, the
"capitall house" where the testaltor
dwelt, with all the lots bought of Wil-
liam Kelly. Salem records do not show
that Edward Bradway ever owned a
house or lot on the north side of Broad-
way, between the wharf and Market
Street.

Edward Bradway, a bargeman or
lighterman, of St. Paul, Shadwell, co.
Middlesex, England, bought of Fenwick
1000 acres on May 6, 1675; and on June
23d, following, purchased a second 1000
acres of John Edridge. (Salem No. i,
pp. 52, 110.) Bradway, his wife, his
daughters Mary and Susannah, and
three servants arrived in Salem in
7 mo. [September], 1677. (Meeting Rec.)
The first land laid out to him, as far
as the records disclose, was his tract
of 984 acres on the south side of Allo-
ways Creek. Next was surveyed to him
his 984 acres on Stow Creek. Each
purchaser of 1,000 acres had a right to
a town lot of 16 acres in Salem, and
Bradway had two there; but the rec-
ords do not designate him as ever a
resident of Salem, though undoubtedly
he first lived there, as in the Meeting
Records a minute is found showing
that a committee of four was appointed
on 12 mo. 2d, 1679 iFebruary 2, 1679-
80], to view his house, and see if it
were suitable for a meeting-house. As
early as June 6, 1680, he was of Allo-
ways Creek (Salem Deeds, 5. 311); and
such was his specified abode at all
later times. The records do not show
when liis two town lots were surveyed,
but neither of them was on Broadway, as
clearly evidenced by the bounds named
in the convejances of them. The 16
acre lot secured by virtue of his pur-
chase from Fenwick .was sold by Brad-
way to Richard Wilkinson, December
23. 1680. On three sides, it was bound-
ed by marsh, and the fourth side was

not said to be on any highway. (Salem
Deeds, 3. 22.) The other 16 acre lot
he conveyed to his daughter, Mary
Cooper, widow, on February 1, 1692-3.
This lot then had a house upon it;
was on a street running north-north-
west; and was bounded as follows:
From a red oak marked CW, by a
highway, southwest by the southeast
side of Christopher White's plantation
I 80 perches, to a tree marked CW;
thence east-southeast, by the marsh
side, 16 perches to a tree marked EB;
thence northeast 80 perches to a stake
I marked EB, by the wayside; thence
I north-northwest down the highway 48
1 perches to place of beginning. (Salem
I Deeds, 5. 288.) There was a street
' named for Edward Bradway — and prob-
ably this lot was upon it, which ap-
pears of record as Bradways, Brada-
ways, Broadwayes. and Broadawayes
street (once, in 1689, as "Edward Brad-
awayes street"), but no part of it is
I specified as running substantially east
I and west, as does present Broadway be-
tween the wharf and Market Street.
Upon this Bradway's Street, under its
various spellings, Christopher Saun-
ders had a 14 acre lot in 1679. which he
sold to Jonathan Beere in 1686; Rich-
ard Robinson had a 10 acre lot in 1679.
wjiich passed to Edward Lumley in
1686-7; Joseph White had a 10 acre lot
in 1684-5, which had been in the tenure
of Charles Bagley; and Richard John-
son had a 10 acre lot at the same time.
wlT.ch had formerly belonged to Henry
Jcn;ngs, and adjoined that of Joseph
W liite. The bounds of these various
lo*3 prove that the street upon which
they were located had a corner in its
(.••■•iirse, to which it ran northwesterly
in one direction and southwesterly In
the other. A portion, at least, of this
highway retained its name as late as
Dnember 10, 1737, for on that date a
public road, forty-five feet wide, was
lalJ. out "from the line of Mannington,

on Keasby's Dam, to the main street
in Salem," the survey of which road
rej. ds as follows: "Beginning at the
Old Creek at the aforesaid Dam, and
run west 33 rods, 10 links, to a stake
coj-ner; thence north 49 degrees west,
3S rods to a street called Bradway's
Street; and thence south 50 de-
grees 30 minutes west, 98 rods, 20
links, to the main street, on Penny Hill,
v,'hifh said road we do order to be
opened on or by the first day of May
nfxi. and at the same time we do va-
oate the private road heretofore laid
o'U fiom the aforesaid Dam." (Original
paper in Salem Co. Hist. Soc. Archives.)
EvMifntly the Bradway Street here
named was not a part of Broadway, but
wa.-i the northerly portion of present
Johnson Street.

JOHN FENW'ICK'S GRAVE

The attention of the writer has been
called to a movement for the erection
oi a monument to mark John Fen-
wick'g last resting-place, as stated in
an article printed last May in one of
the county papers. Laudable as such
a project is, we are met by the fact
that no real proof has been presented
as to the location of the grave. All
the information we have concerning the
matter is hearsay, or tradition, the true
value of which is always uncertain un-
less it can be unquestionably proved,
for much hearsay has been found badly
awry, when determined and proper ef-
forts have been made to substantiate it.

As evidence that Fenwick was inter-
red in a certain locality, the statement
of the late Robert G. Johnson is offer-
ed. On page 36 of his brochure, we
read that Fenwick died "at his planta-
tion in Upper Marmington, which he
called Fenwick's grove, * * • and
was buried in the family burying
ground about two hundred yards from
the main road leading towards the
poor house, and near the line of that
farm. I believe there is nothing at

II

this time [1839] to mark the place
where the remains of that adventurous
and great man lie, except a thicket of
briars and brambles."

Johnson was mistaken in manv
things, one of which was the location
of Fort Elfsborg, in the erroneous sit-
uation of which no Salem County man
with whom he conversed on the sub-
ject had disagreed. He knew that his
statements were not wholly accurate,
for on page 170 we find the following
confession:

"I am aware that the sketch which I
have given you of the historical events
thus detailed through a long series of
year.s, embracing a period of four gen-
erations of mankind, must necessarily
be imperfect, especially as I have been
obliged to draw largely upon memory,
in comparison to the documents whicn
I possess, for the information derived
from many of those, my near and dear
friends, who have long since gone to
their silent tombs."

This author was born in 1771. It is
in no degree probable that he became
interested in history before his four-
teenth year (1785). If at such early
age he heard a statement as to the
place of Fenwick's interment, it was
one hundred and two years after the
burial; and, for aught we know, It was
many years later. He could have had
no personal knowledge of the matter.
What he said as to the situation of
the grave must have been what he re-
membered to have heard; or what he
thought he remembered concerning it,
or his own conclusions, based upon we
know not what. At best, his evidence
is purely hearsay.

What and where is the proof that
Fenwick had any "family burying
ground?" The only members of his
family who came to Salem were his
three daughters; and each of their hus-
bands had his separate estate. Ann
Hedge outlived her father more than

12

twenty-three years. Elizabeth Adams
was alive February 12, 1682-3 (Salem
Deeds, 2.19), but was not named in her
father's will. Priscilla Champneys died
soon after arrival, while Fenwick was
residing' In Salem. We have no evi-
dence as to where Priscilla and Eliz-
abeth were buried; nor do we know of
the decease of any of Fenwick's grand-
children prior to his demise, or where
they were interred when they passed
away.

The late Thomas Shourds has also
been cited for the location of the
grave. On page 12 of nis book, pub-
lished In 1876, we find the following:

"John Fenwick was elected one of
the members of that Dody [the Legis-
lature] from Salem county, In the fall
of 1683, but being unwell, he left his
home in Salem and went to Samuel
Hedge's, his son-in-law, in Upper Man-
nington, there to be cared for by his
favorite daughter. Ann Hedge, inhisla.st
days, for he died a short time after-
wards at an age of 65 years. He re-
quested before his death to be buried i
in the Sharp's family burying-ground, ]
which was complied with. The said
ground was formerly a part of the
Salem County Almshouse farm, but
now belongs to Elmer Reeve. If the
ground could be designated where the
grave-yard was, although the exact
spot where Fenwick lays could not. It
would be a grateful deed for his
descendants and the citizens of this
county to assist in erecting a monu-
ment to his memory there on the spot
where the grave-yard was."

No author so unreliable as Shourds
has ever written of Salem County, or
it.s families. His mistakes were legion.
In Learning and Spicer, 457, we find
John Fenwick's name among the mem-
bers of tlie Legislature in May, 1683 —
the spring of that year. Fenwick'^
will announces that he signed it on his
sick bed at Fenwick's Grove, and that

he requested to be buried in that place.
This plantation of 3,000 acres he leased
to Mary White on August 2, 1683, for
twenty-one years, and devised to his
grandson, Fenwick Adams, when the
latter should be of age, who was to
live there provided he behaved peace-
ably to Mary White. Upon it was lo-
cated the manor house, in which the
executors were to have liberty to hold
courts, and where were household
goods and books. It is evident, from
the will, that this was not Samuel
Hedge's domicile.

No person named Sharp resided with-
in the limits of Salem County earlier
than 1704, when Isaac Sharp married
Margaret Braithwaite (Meeting Rec),
and is said to have established hi.s
home at "Blessington," now Sharptown,
about two miles north of the alleged
location of the graveyard. One of their
descendants has informed the writer
that the land which included the burial-
place was bought by Joseph Sharp, son
of Isaac, about 1750 — nearly seventy
years after Fenwick's death; and a
mortgage executed by Joseph, in 1769.
shows that he purchased property in
the vicinity in 1752.

In 1876, Shourds did not know where
his "Sharp's family burying-ground"
was located, as his language clearly
shows; yet, ten years later — without
any evidence that he had obtained proof
in the meantime, he is said to have
agreed with Samuel Kelty upon the
place where Fenwick was interred
These two men, with Dr. Joseph Hedge
Thompson, went to the alleged spot In
1886 — two hundred and three years-
after Fenwick's demise; and. In
Thompson's report of the visit, the
following statement appears: "Every
vestige of the sacred purpose to which
this ground was devoted has long
since been effaced, and crops are an-
nually gathered from" it. According to
another portion of this report, the

Sharp graveyard was without the
bounds of Fenwlck's Grove, in Dr.
Thompson's estimation, for he remark-
ed that Fenwick requested to be in-
terred on the Grove land, "but for
some unknown reason his wish was not
complied with and his remains were
deposited in the burying ground of the
Sharp family." This report adopted
Shourds' view that Fenwick passed
his last days at the house of Samuel
Hedge.

William Stuard, a colored man, is
also brought forward in support of the
situation of Fenwick's grave; but his
testimony amounts only to statements
that on the farm of Elmer Reeve there
were gravestones in 1848, which were
removed by the owner of the land dur-
ing the following two or three years,
when the ground was plowed up.
"There was talk at that time of putting
a monument to Fenwick's grave," he
said, "but they did not know exactly
which it was." This was nearly forty
years before Shourds' and Kelty's ami-
cable agreement; and more than one
hundred and sixty-five years after Fen-
wick's decease. Not one of the stones
referred to bv this witness was iden-
tified as that of any named person.

John B. Reeve, son of Elmer, is quot-
ed as remembering "when a boy see-
ing these gravestones carted from this
graveyard, • • • and that these,
with quoit stones gathered from the
farm, were sold for masony." This
witness also "often heard his father
refer to Fenwick's burial in the old
graveyard." We are not told when
Elmer Reeve listened to the allegation,
or who uttered it.

Lastly, the statement of Mrs. Clark
Pettit is cited, who "reports that her
father often referred to the spot, tell-
ing her that his grandfather, who was
born in 1750, and lived to the age of
81 years, used to point out to him
when a boy, this location as the place

13

where John Fenwick was buried, des-
ignating the same site as that fixed up-
on by Messrs. Thompson, Shourds and
Kelty;" and Phyllis Moore agreed with
these gentlemen. If we assume that
Mrs. Pettit's great-grandfather, at the
early age of fourteen, was told where
Fenwick was said to have been buried,
it would have been eighty-one years
after the interment; and it may have
been much later. As Mrs. Pettit's father
was born in 1815, he would hardly have
heard of the matter until about one
hundred and forty-five years after
Fenwick's death.

Nothing is commoner than mistakes
in dates, names and localities. Erron-
eous associations of individuals with
places are very frequent. Memory
plays us all many tricks. What ori-
ginally were only conjectures, are often
later asserted to have been stated as
fpcts. Remarks but a few days, or
weeks, old are wonderfully changed in
passing from mouth to mouth, as we
all know. What, then, is to be said
as to the accuracy of attempted repe-
titions during a century and more?
No one has ever claimed that a stone
had marked Fenwick's grave, or that
anything had designated it, as far as
we are aware. Burial places on pri-
vate property were abundant in the
olden time. In 1764, when we have
assumed that the elder Mr. Austin, as
a boy, may have heard where Fenwick's
remains were said to have been de-
posited, there is no probability that
anj' one was alive, who, even as a
child, had attended the obsequies. It
is quite possible that the alleged sit-
uation of the grave was based upon
the statement of some one person,
whose memory of what he had heard
in the matter was badly awry — whose
association of name and place was
wrong; or who stated as a fact what
had been merely conjecture.

14

I
A well-known author, of much ex-
perience with hearsay evidence in con- ;
nection with local history, has remark-
ed: "Sometimes very old people assert
th:ii&s as facts, which they verily be-
lieve and have often told, only because
their extreme age has destroyed the
power of accurate discrimination — they
confound things; and yet they seem so sure
and so plausible that weare constrained to
believe them, until subsequent official
or written data of the true time and
circumstances disclose the truth. •

* • If these never come to light to
contradict the former assertion, the
oft repeated tale goes down to pos-
terity unmolested forever. In this
manner the oldest persons in Philadel-
phia had all a false cause assigned for
the name of 'Arch street,' and it was
only the records of the courts which
set me right." (Watson's Annals of
Phila., 2. 14.)

While, at present, we may not be
able to offer good evidence that Fen-
wick's interment did not take place in
what came to be known as the Sharp
graveyard, we can deny that any prop-
er proof has been presented that this
was the spot, "for all is hearsay con-
cerning it. Further, this is not the
only location that has been claimed as
that where Fenwick was buried, for it
has been asserted that his sepulcher
was the top of Big Mannington Hill.
These rival sites are nearly a mile
apart.

Fenwick's earliest residence in New
.Jersey was in Salem Town. Later, he
built his manor house in Fenwick's

Grove, on land which he located under
John Ashfield's assignment to him of
1677. There is every probability that
this house was his residence during the
last years of his life; and that within
five hundred feet of it ne was buried.
Unquestionably define the position of
this manor house, and we have the
probable vicinity of his grave; but to-
ward which of the thirty-two points
of the compass from this dwelling, or
just how far from it, his body was de-
posited, there is only the barest possi-
bility that any one will ever be able
to prove. Why, then, under the condi-
tions which have been stated, should
an attempt be made to erect a monu-
ment purporting even approximately to
mark the grave? Delusions as to Sa-
lem County history are far too abund-
ant. Why run the risk of perpetuating
one in a matter of this importance?

The real object of this movement is
to honor the man. No place is so suit-
able for that purpose as the city of
Salem — for within its boundaries the
colonists first established themselves;
Salem was Fenwick's and their head-
quarters; it has always been the county
seat; its population is three times that
of the largest borough or township
within the county. Here, a memorial
will be viewed by thousands, while
comparatively few will ever see it on
any spot in Upper Mannington. Let
! the citizens of the county unite upon
] Salem, which is pre-eminently the
proper historical location for a monu-
ment to John Fenwick's memory. The
site of his grave Is unknown.

J-^^RftRY OF CONGRESS
0 014 208 605 0^

/

4