Capt. Henry Pawling

Capt. Pawling was born in Padbury, Buckinghamshire, England. He was a soldier in the “Duke of York Expedition” under Col. Richard Nichols. From 1685-1689 he was High Sheriff of Ulster County, New York. He aided against the Indians in 1689, served as tax collector, and was on many high commissions.

Hendrick Pawling (1650- ) was a Captain in the Duke of York's expedition to take over New Amsterdam and later became the tax collector for Ulster County

"Henry built a stone house on the line between Marbletown and Hurley. Since he had been hired to lay out the two towns, he built his house right on the boundary between the two towns “for the convenience of travelers and to make a nearer correspondence between the two towns,” according to the book Dutch Houses in the Hudson Valley Before 1776. The home was added on to several times, but is still being lived in. At one time, the north end of the house was in Hurley and the south end was in Marblehead. Now it is all considered to be in Marblehead."

Henry purchased a land patent from William Penn for land in Pennsylvania, but never moved to that area. He made his will in 1691, and it was probated 1695. The will is still in the New York City records, and states in part:

“I Henry Pauling, of Marbletown, in ye County of Ulster, being sick and weak in body but of sound and perfect memory, praise be to God for ye same and knowing ye uncertainty of this transitory life and being desirous to settle things in order to make this my last will and statement in manner and form following…” It names his six living children, and states that “if my wife be now with child and bare a seventh, it shall have equal share.” Indeed, Neltja was pregnant and Mary was born in 1692.

"Henry’s oldest son, Albert, stayed in the house in Marblehead and took care of his widowed mother. John and Henry moved to Pennsylvania, settling in Germantown.

1. John married Aagje DeWitt, daughter of Tjerck Classen DeWitt, on August 23, 1712, before moving to Pennsylvania. They had at least seven children, some born in New York and some born in Pennsylvania. His daughter, Rebecca, married Abraham DeHaven and is our direct-line ancestor.
2. John built a large and successful farm in the Schuylkill Valley, near the junction of the Perkiomen Creek and the Schuykill River, in Montgomery County, PA. His brother, Henry, built close-by. The brothers became early members of the St. James Church in Evansburg. John’s daughter, Eleanor, married Henry’s son, Henry III (yes, they were first cousins). John also had a son named Henry, so it is very difficult to trace which Henry is on the various land transfers. John died in 1733 and his brother died in 1739. The land that Henry III inherited from his father, plus other land he purchased, was developed into quite a plantation. He operated a ford across the river called Pawling Ford, close to another ford called Fatland Ford. He built a mill, which became later known as Pennybacker Mills. An iron forge was built nearby called Valley Forge. The Pawling Farm is now part of Valley Forge National Park, acquired in 1984. Only a few ruins remain of the stone house, the oldest part of which was built by Henry Pawling." (see sources)

   ---

GEDCOM Note

Capt. Henry (Henderick) PAWLING (also sometimes spelled PALINGH, PAWLIN, PAWLINGH, PAELINGH, PAELDIN, PAELDING, PAELDEN, PAULIN, PAULDIN, and PAELWDIN) was probably born at Padsbury, England. He married Noeltje (also Neelije, Neeltje) ROOSA (also sometimes ROOS and ROOSE), November 3, 1676, in Ulster, Kingston County, New York. He died in 1692 in Marbletown, New York. His will was dated January 21, 1691; it was probated March 25, 1695. Noeltje ROOSA, daughter of Allert Heymans ROOSA and Wintie ARENS, was born in Holland and came with her parents from Holland in 1660. Her family is described in Chapter V, The Dutch Ancestors. Her date of birth was about 1652. I don't know when she died but would presume it was in Ulster County, New York.

Capt. PAWLING was an officer in the British Army who came to New York in the Duke of York's expedition in 1664. He was a founder of Kingston, of Marbletown and of Hurley, all in Ulster County, New York. He was an officer over the Indians in 1669, was second high sheriff of Ulster County, 1685 to 1689, aided against the Indians in 1689, and served on many high commissions.

In Brodhead's History are to be found items concerning the services of Henry PAWLING other than that of a soldier, as follows: appointed November 9, 1668, to lay out lots in the town of Esopus to induce soldiers to remain. He was a member of a commission organizing the villages of Marbleton, Hurley and Wiltyck and changing the name of Esopus to Kingston. He was on a commission which granted land to discharged soldiers in 1678. He was discharged on the disbanding of the garrison April 13, 1678, by Colonel Francis LOVELACE, who had succeeded to the command at New York three years before, and was commissioned "Captain of the foot company listed and to be listed in towns of Marbleton and Hurley and Wiltyck at Esopus." In 1676 he joined in a petition for a minister at Esopus to preach both "Inglish and Duche." He was appointed High Sheriff of Ulster County in 1684, becoming a member of the Governor's Council and Collector of Taxes for the county. A patent of land is recorded to him in Ulster County, October 26, 1676. He also made a purchase of 7000 acres in Duchess County, New York, known as the PAWLING purchase. He had a grant of land in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.

Henry PAWLING, with his dutch father-in-law Allert Heymans ROOSA, were very litigious people. The court records are full of them - a few of the more colorful are set out here. You need to understand, though, that "farmer" doesn't mean farmer. It was the excise farmer who was an official who licensed tapsters, brewers, and distillers, and who collected the excise tax from those persons. The office was purchased at auction. At least for one term, Henry PAWLING was the "farmer" and much of the litigation involves that.

February, 1665: Tomas HARMENSEN, Farmer, Plaintiff, vs. Henderick PALINGH, Defendant: Plaintiff says that he prosecutes defendant for smuggling because he has made an agreement with him to be permitted to brew and to sell at retail for himself in particuar, but that defendant also has his brewed beer retailed by another, Joris HAEL. Defendant says that on January 13 last, he contracted with plaintiff for as long as plaintiff has farmed the excise for eight sch. of wheat, one half to be paid within three months, the other half at the expiration of the time, for the purpose of being permitted to brew and to retail, and further says that yesterday, February 16, he again contracted with plaintiff in the presence of several persons, provided he pay plaintiff seven sch. of wheat, or the value of the same, in ready money, as he has done, that he was to be permitted to have brewn, bought and sold, as much beer as he could brew, if he wanted to employ 20 retailers. Plaintiff replies and denies defendant's statement. Defendant takes it upon himself to prove the last condition. The hon. court orders defendant to produce trustworthy evidence. December 8, 1665: Louys DUBOIS, Plaintiff, vs. Henderick PALINGH, Farmer, Defendant: Plaintiff makes a complaint against defendant as farmer, because he took an anker of distilled water out of his house, notwithstanding two days before he paid the excise on said anker, and obtained a permit for the same of the farmer. Defendant answers, saying, that he took an anker of wine out of plaintiff's house, which was taken in at night after sunset, and concludes that said anker is confiscated. Plaintiff replies, saying that he took in said anker by evening while it was yet light, and offers to prove the same, thereby refusing to allow Onfre FERGESON to testify against him, saying that said testimony cannot be legally accepted, because said Onfre FERGESON was informer. The hon. court orders parties, at the next session, to produce clearer evidence and further proof. (Next case) Henderick PALINGH, Farmer, Plaintiff, vs. Matthew BLANCHAN, Defendant: Plaintiff says that defendant sold and transported his wine at an improper time, and sustains that he, plaintiff, on account of similar sale and transport might be defrauded by defendant, and that, therefore, defendant should be fined. Defendant answers that he has seen from a permit that the wine has been declared, and consequently he permitted the wine to follow and though this took place while it was yet daylight, he maintains not having violated anything, if he had done so at about eight or nine o'clock at night. The hon. court ordrs parties to both produce clearer evidence and further proof concerning their affair at the next session. (Next case) Henderick PAULING, Plaintiff, vs. Christoffel DAVIDS, Defendant. Absent. Default. December 29, 1665: Henderick PALINGH, Farmer, Plaintiff vs. Louwies DuBOIS, Defendant. In regard to the suit by Henderick PALINGH, plaintiff, Louwies DuBOIS produces witnesses on account of the anker of distilled waters seized by the farmer, Henderick PALINGH, on Nov. 4 last, viz., Henderick HENDERICKSEN Van WYE and Elsje BARENTS, young daughter, both of proper age, who declare that it was yet day when Louweis DuBOIS carried in the aforesaid anker of distilled waters, but not knowing whether the sun had set or not, because the day was mostly cloudy, he Henderick HENDERICKSEN being still at work for Mattheu BLANCHAN, and she, Elsje BARENTS, having at the time fetched straw for the purpose of covering the rosemary in the garden. And said deposers have judicially sworn their aforenamed depositions. In consequence of the aforesaid depositions of the aforenamed persons, affirmed under oath, the hon. court, in the name and by the authority of the Royal Majesty of Great Britain, etc., orders Henderick PALINGH, farmer, to return, without expense or charge, except the claim of the officer, to Louwies DuBOIS the anker of distilled waters seized by him on Nov. 4/11 last at defendant's house. The next case is also between Henderick PALINGH and Louwies DuBOIS, and then the following case is between PALINGH and his father-in-law, Allert Heymans ROOS(A) (See The Dutch Ancestors):

Henderick PALINGH, Plaintiff, vs. Allert Heymans ROOS, Defendant: Plaintiff demands of defendant a sum of 60 gldrs. 12 st., being for a grindstone, soap, excise and a day's work. Defendant denies it, and says having paid on the same 40 gldrs. and shows also a note of Ariaen GERRETSEN of 20 gldrs. containing that Ariaen GERRETSEN promised to pay the same to PALINGH. Plaintiff replies saying, not having been satisfied with Ariaen GERRETSEN's note of the 20 gldrs., as he is not yet satisfied. The hon. court, having heard parties, orders defendant to pay plaintiff the balance of 20 gldrs. 12 st. Date: _________________. Willem BEECKMAN, Schout, Plaintiff vs. Henderick PALINGH, Defendant: Plaintiff says that defendant as farmer settled with Jan Jansen Van AMERSFOORT in regard to the seizure of some beers, for the amount of 20 sch. of wheat, and the seized beers, according to the declaration of the aforenamed Jan JANSEN. And therefore plaintiff, in accordance with art. 12 of the farming [conditions], "that the farmer is not permitted to settle" demands of defendant 200 gldrs. over and above the agreement with Jan JANSEN aforementioned. Defendant answers and denies having settled with Jan JANSEN in regard to the seized beers, but says that Thomas CHAMBERS approached him saying, "Countryman, render me a friendship. I shall give you 20 sch. of wheat," and produces as witness Ridsert HAMER who declare having heard that Thomas CHAMBERS offered to give defendant the 20 sch. of wheat for a friendship, but in case the affair should become public, that the condition of the 20 sch. of wheat should be void. Plaintiff replies, saying that the case is notorious, because defendant had seized the beers, summoned Jan Jansen van AMERSFOORT on account of the same, and also the witnesses necessary in this case, and when the bench was about to sit in regard to this affair, defendant had the case taken off the roll, saying that he was negotiating concerning the same with Jan JANSEN, and further says that defendant's answer in the same tends to delay. The hon. court, having heard parties, decides whereas defendant denies having settled with Jan Jansen Van AMERSFOORT in regard to the seized beers, therefore plaintiff is ordered at the next session of the court to prove that defendant has settled in regard to the seized beers with Jan Jansen Van AMERSFOORT or with another in the name of said Jan JANSEN, for the amount of 20 sch. of wheat, and the said seized beers. Defendant is also ordered to explain, at the next session, for which "friendship" Thomas CHAMBERS promised him the 20 sch. of wheat, because such a promise of friendship might be an affair of evil consequences. June 25/July 5, 1667: Thomas CHAMBERS, Plaintiff vs. Henderick PALINGH, Defendant: Plaintiff accuses defendant of calling him a knave or boef, and asks him for reasons for saying so. Defendant admits and says that plaintiff is a knave because he has caused trouble in his house, and that he called his fellow-soldiers "rogues." Plaintiff takes it upon himself to prove at the next session that he did not molest defendant in his house. Defendant requests that Henderick JOCHEMSEN shall be made to declare under oath whether he did not hear Thomas CHAMBERS say at the house of Harmen HENDERICKS that the English who are at present here were banished from England and sent to an island, and that the English took their course to the Manhatans without authority of the King of England, and that STUYVESANT has surrendered the country to them. Henderick JOCHEMSEN, having been judicially questioned about the above under oath, says that he did not hear this out of Thomas CHAMBERS' mouth, but only [says] that a year ago last Shrove-tide he heard from the mouth of Thomas CHAMBERS at the aforesaid house that some English behave in such a manner, cursing, swearing and blustering, as if they were bandits, which he has also confirmed under oath. Harmen HENDERICKS, having been interrogated under oath at the request of Henderick PALINGH, declares under oath having heard at his house (he having forgotten the time) out of the mouth of Thomas CHAMBERS, that these Englishmen who are now here, are a party of bandits, and had been sent to some island, and that they thus came here, and that STUYVESANT has given the land to them. Henderick PALINGH further says that he heard from Eduart WITTIGER that Thomas CHAMBERS said, "I do not esteem my commission, because I did not take the oath of office, and therefore I may say what I please." Thomas CHAMBERS denies all of the above declarations saying that Harmen HENDERICKS cannot be a witness in this case because Henderick PALINGH heard out of the mouth of Harmen HENDERICKS that which Harmen HENDERICKS has declared above, and that Harmen HENDERICKS has declared his own case. Henderick PALINGH further requests that Harmen HENDERICKS' wife shall also be heard as witnes in the aforenamed case, and whereas she cannot now be present on account of being confined in child bed, that she shall be examined concerning this affair in her own house. The hon. court besides the commander of the militia here, Christoffel BERRISFORT, having heard Henderick PALINGH's complaint, and Harmen HENDERICKS's declaration, find that Harmen HENDERICKS is passionately prejudiced against Thomas CHAMBERS, which he showed before the court here. On this account Henderick PALINGH is ordered to produce better proof in this, his case, against Thomas CHAMBERS for the purpose of then the better presenting it to the honorable Lord Governor General. July 9, 1670: The Sachem Sewackmami complains before the honorable court, and says that it is true that Capt. PALINGH is in the habit of beating the savages, and says that he beat his brother, and also requests payment for the anker of wine taken away from them. Capt. PALINGH, appearing before the court, says having had good reasons for the same. In regard to the four beavers for the anker of wine, will write to the governor. Madaleen DIRX, Plaintiff vs. Anna MATTYSEN, Defendant. Plaintiff says that Anna MATTYSEN entered her house and said that Sara KIERSTEDE had called her, plaintiff, a whore. And defendant said that Madelena DIRX was a whore and that she had received the fine clothing she wears of PAELDEN her lover. Anna MATTYSEN says that Madelena DIRX has called her a thief. The hon. court orders both parties to prove their allegations. December 17, 1671: Hendrick BEECQMAN, Plaintiff vs. Bastian the Negro, Defendant. Mr. Hendry PAELDIN, as attorney for Asser LEVY, requests to be permitted to collect the installment for the land. And agrees to prove that Mr. Nicolaes de MEYER has already received what had been preferred at the previous sentence which he agrees to prove through Mr. BEECQMAN, and requests a copy of the obligation and also of the judgment. Which is granted him. Special Session, January 16, 1671/2. Capt. PAELDIN, having received a commission as "Widtfild," was present and proposed to watch the actions of the savages and to appoint a committee to observe the savages. He gave notice that he has learned that there are some southern savages at Wawaersink, in company with the Esopus savages. And further that the Esopus savages have sent a messenger to the Minissinck savages for the purpose of being infomed about something, but he does not know about what, and they expect an answer within four days and whereas the messenger, sent to New York, has stayed out long after the expected time, therefore he requests of the hon. court and also of the austere Council of War their advice, about the best means of becoming informed about the intentions of the savages, beause it is rumored that there is war in the south between the savages and Christians. By a plurality of votes it is resolved that Mr. Hendry PAELDEN shall go to Waewaersinck, under pretext of visiting his old friends, and make them, in token of friendship, some little presents, and thus to try to find out about their intentions and that the expenses shall be paid by the three villages. And Mr. PAELDIN shall return in two days and in case he does not return in the aforenamed time or send a message, we shall infer that there is war. January 25, 1671/2. The hon. court judges, because there is no danger, and everything is in a satisfactory condition, and there is peace, that it is unnecessary to any longer continue the watch. Therefore, Capt. CHAMBERS will please dismiss the watch for the time being. ________ 1671/2. Schout GREVENRAEDT, accompanied by four men of the burgher guard for the purpose of attending to his duties in examining whether any persons harbored savages at night, contrary to the decrees, was met on the Lord's streets by Capt. PAELDIN, and said captain demanded the hon. schout's orders, and immediately drew his sword against the schout, all this to show his contempt for the schout and commissaries. We think that Capt. PAELDIN has no right here at Kingston to demand of schout and commissaries the orders with such violence.... On this March 17, 1671/2, Schout GREVENRAEDT and Secretary Willem MONTAGNE, having been delegated to call on the hon. governor, report that the Lord governor has answered to the remonstrance that he would communicate with Capt. CHAMBERS and Mr. PAELDIN by letter. And that each would keep within bound of his instruction. Mr. PAELDIN sends in a petition and requests to know what he has been accused of before the hon. Lord governor. The hon. court answers that Capt. PAELDIN knows it very well, and when he appears before the Lord governor to answer, he will be able to see of what he has been accused. Josiah Granville LEACH, a historian, describes this interesting character in the following narrative:

Henry PAWLING, a gallant young Englishman of means, education, and enterprise, came to America in 1664, in the military expedition sent out by the Duke of York and Albany to secure the patent accorded to him in that year, by his royal brother, King Charles II.... The expedition ... sailed from Portsmouth, England, 18 May, 1664, and arrived at New Netherlands in August. By September, New Amsterdam and Fort Orange had surrendered, and the whole territory came under the control of the Duke of York and his agent and governor.... One of the earliest acts of the new government was the establishment of a garrison for protection against Indians at Esopus, later Kingston, Ulster County, and the promotion of settlements in this district. Lands were promised to the 'soldiers and all other persons who had come over into these parts with Colonel NICHOLLS,' and Mr. PAWLING was appointed, 9 November, 1668, to lay out lands at Esopus Creek to induce the former to become settlers. The garrison, of which Henry PAWLING was a member and probably an officer, was maintained until the autumn of 1669, when, all fear of Indian depredations having ceased, the troops were withdrawn from service. On 9 September of this year Sir Francis LOVELACE... as governor, appointed seven leading men of the Province a commission to 'regulate affairs at Esopus and the New Dorpes,' with Mr. PAWLING as one of the commissioners. This body... located sites for the villages of Hurley and Marbletown, heard grievances, made redress, passed ordinances for the general betterment and government of the locality and appointed officers to carry out the same. Among the latter, 'Mr. PAWLING was Voted to be ye Officer to whom ye Indyans should repaire for Redress of Injuryes in Kingston, Hurley and Marbletown.' This appointment was due, doubtless, to the fact that, while at the garrison, he had become acquainted with the Indian tongue and displayed marked ability to deal with this people.... On Easter Monday, 4 April of this year [1670], he was made Captain, with instructions 'to raise and exercise the inhabitants of Hurley and Marbleton according to the discipline of war, proclamation of this fact being forthwith made by beat of drum publiquely in the Towne of Kingston.'... Without doubt, Captain PAWLING continued to exercise his military office, in connection with his civil one, as a court of appeals in Indian affairs, until that unexpected event, the reoccupation of New York by the Dutch in 1673. The occupation lasted only until July, 1674, when a treaty of peace restored it to English rule.... [Ulster County was created November 1, 1683.] "Two years later Captain PAWLING was appointed by the governor its High Sheriff, a position of dignity and responsibility which marked the measure of the man, and in which, for four years, he gave unqualified satisfaction.... An interesting sidelight on the character of the subject of this sketch, and his vision of men and means is to be found in the circumstance of his being, in 1666, while still in garrison service, so large a purchaser at the sale of Dr. Gysbert VAN IMBROCK's library at Esopus. This was a remarkable sale of books for the time and place, and, it is perhaps equally remarkable that the titles thereof, together with the names of the purchasers and the prices paid, have been so largely preserved. Three hundred and sixty-eight books, at a cost of 130 gulden, were bought by Mr. PAWLING, many of a religious nature, others school books. Exquisite Proofs of Human Misery, Megapolensis' Short Way, Borstius' Succinct Ideas, a French Catechism, Stories of David, and a Gardiner's Book are a few of the suggestive titles of his acquisition..... His worldly goods and acres increased with his years.... Shortly before his decease he purchased ten thousand acres known as PAWLING's Purchase..."