Three Rivers
Hudson~Mohawk~Schoharie
History From America's Most Famous Valleys

Early Eighteenth Century Palatine Emigration
A British Government Redemptioner Project to Manufacture Naval Stores
by Walter Allen Knittle, Ph.D.
Department of History
College of the City of New York
Published Philadelphia, 1937

CHAPTER VII. THE GOVERNMENT
TAR INDUSTRY
IN OPERATION

As the Palatines arrived in Livingston Manor, Livingston provided food, tools, tent-poles and other necessities. He also furnished storage for their supplies, for all of which he made proper charges. (1) The Palatines were then allotted small plots of land to build their huts. The lots for houses and small gardens were about forty feet in front and fifty feet in depth. (2) The huts were made of rough logs, the cracks plastered with mud, and each was built according to the builder's own ideas. When the last group was sent from New York to be settled on Fullerton's tract, instructions were sent to Livingston to lay out the lots somewhat wider than the others, but not to make it too apparent. (3) The Palatines were not to receive the forty acres promised each, until they had fulfilled their contracts.

From November 10, 1710, until the following March 8th, 78 barrels of flour, 19 barrels of salt pork and 22 bags of bread were distributed among the Palatines on the west side settlements. (4) They were also given fresh pork and beef. The food supplies were doled out in this fashion: bread, beer and salt for every day, beef or pork for three days a week, and fish or a quantity of butter, cheese, flour or peas for the other four days in the same quantities usually allotted soldiers being transported. (5) Many fat cattle were purchased from neighboring farmers and at one time (in January, 1712), seventy cattle were slaughtered for the Palatines' larders. (6) During the first two


1 N. Y. Col. MSS., LVII, 124a.

2 B. T. Jour. 1708-1714, 226.

3 Liv. MS., letter of April 14, 17111

4 N. Y. Col. MSS., LIV, 174.

5 P. R. 0., C. 0. 5/1085, 67.

6 N. Y. Col. MSS., LVII, 124b, LIV, 57.


Page 161: years it would appear that the immigrants were supplied with enough food to keep body and soul together, if not free from care. It was not until July 13, 1711, that the commissary on Livingston Manor felt assured of enough supplies on hand not to worry; (7) and we may therefore express no surprise that the storehouse was robbed early in January of 1711.(That's what it says, 1711, ajb) (8) In April the people on the west side unavailably asked for permission to make their own bread, for reasons unmentioned, but probably well-founded. (9)

In 1711 many things quite necessary for the proper settlement of the Palatines were still wanting. Among the items listed as immediately needed we may note, steel for mending edged tools, three sets of smithy tools, three pairs of millstones, sixteen whipsaws, warehouses, and a church on each side of the river. Other essentials were plow shares, pitch and dung forks, iron for horseshoes, nails and harness for horses. (10) As for the spiritual needs of the Palatines, besides Reverend Kocherthal, a German minister named John Frederick Haeger, served the Hudson River settlements. Haeger had been employed by the London Society for the Propagation of the Gospel to preach to the Germans and incidentally convert them to the Church of England. (11) This he endeavored to do, but only with great difficulty. He strove to hold them together in one church, but bickering between the Lutherans and the Reformed began as soon as they landed in America. (12) Haeger was responsible for the building of a schoolhouse in Queensbury early in June, 1711 (13) He petitioned the governor in 1715, and in 1717 he obtained a license to build a church, but the


7 Doc. Hist., III, 672

8 Liv. MS., letter of January 7, 1711. 9 Ibid., letter of April 29, 1711.

10 N. Y. Col. MSS., LIV, 98a.

11 L. C., S. P. G. MSS. A-6, XLV; A-9, IV; A-15, 5; A-10, 181.

12 Ibid. A-6, XXI.

13 N. Y. Col. MSS., LV, 29b; LVIII, 57a.


Page 162: building lagged for several years. (14) The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel incidentally was much interested in assimilating the Germans in a generation at least. (15) But the Germans, unmindful of this concern for the next generation, continued to multiply, for Reverend Haeger baptized 61 children and married 101 couples from July, 1710 to July, 1712. (16) Kotherchal was performing similar services for the Lutheran settlers. 17

The organization, which was to manage the business of manufacturing naval stores for the British Royal Navy, was military in character. This was to be expected, since the organizer (18)was a military man who had seen active service under Marlborough. Colonel Hunter, of course, was in charge, subject only to orders from London. Under him were assorted groups of officials, whose salaries and incidental expenses amounted to 1,800, pounds sterling annually. George Clarke, then Secretary of the Province, was listed as Treasurer and Commissary of Stores. The tentative salary was 200 pounds sterling which does not appear to have been paid.(19) Robert Lucting, deputy commissary, was not active so far as appears in the colonial records that remain, but he received a salary of 100 pounds colonial currency, which equaled 66 pounds, 13 shillings and 4 pence sterling. The duties of these two officers seemed to be concerned with the securing of various supplies such as meats, which were often obtained from New York City. Another Commissary of Stores was to receive 250 pounds colonial currency (166 pounds, 13 shillings, 4 pence sterling),


14 L. C., S. R G. MSS. A-12, 341

15 Ibid. A-7, IX The efforts of the Society were not successful, for in 1836 a description of the Palatine settlements hold that "German largely prevails among the older inhabitants but their children are educated and converse in English." Thomas F. Gordon, Gazeteer of the State of New York (Philadelphia, 1836), 695.

16 Ibid. A-8, 31, 158.

17 Kocherthal Records MS. shows 35 baptisms from 1710 to 1712 and 100 marriages during the same period. See Olde Ulster, III, 32, 92; IV, 24, 56.

18 N. Y. Col. MSS. LIII, 160b.

19 B. M., Harleian MSS. 7021, 285; N. Y. Co. MSS., LIV, 98a.


Page 163: James DuPre, who had served as commissary for the Palatine in London, holding this position in the New York project. (20) He had two assistants, Jean Cast, a Frenchman, and Andrew Bagge, at salaries of 60 pounds (New York currency) annually. Cast had charge of the supplies given the settlers on the east side of the Hudson River, on the Livingston Manor, while Bagge had charge of the supplies on the west side of the river. (21) John Arnoldi served as "Phisitian General," at the annual salary of 100, pounds (New York currency). Salaries were also specified for two surgeons, two overseers, two clerks or schoolmasters, six captains, six lieutenants, two messengers and four nurses. It does not appear that these positions were regularly occupied. (22) The captains and lieutenants were appointed, however, as a manuscript, partly burned, preserves eight of their names. (23) Seven listmasters, Palatines, were appointed, one for each village; these were to keep the rolls of their villages and aid the tar instructor in handling the Palatine labor. They were, for Hunterstown, John Peter Kneskern; for Queensbury, John Conrad Weiser; for Annsbury, Hartman Windecker; for Haysbury, John Christopher Fuchs; for Elizabeth Town, John Christopher Gerlach; for George Town, Jacob Manck; and for New Town, Phillip Peter Grauberger. (24)

In May of 1711 a rebellion of some three or four hundred Palatines gave excuse for a more stringent military rule. A secret association had been formed among the Palatines, who did not intend to remain on Livingston Manor. Hunter met them and tried to reason with them, but they stubbornly demanded that they should receive "the lands appointed them by the Queen" in the Schoharie Valley. Some of the Palatines,


20 Doc.. Hist, III, 561.

21 N. Y. Col. MSS., LIV, 174.

22 Ibid., LV-LIX, passim.

23 Ibid., LV, 100; LVII, 124b; Doc. Hist., III, 672.


Page 164: more violent, cried that "they would rather lose their lives immediately than remain where they" were. "To be forced by another, contract to remain no these lands all their lives, and work for her Majesty for the ships use, that they will never doe." The Palatines charged that they were cheated by the contract. They did not believe that it was the same contract which Cast had read to them in their own language in England. They said that it had then provided, that seven years after they had forty acres per person given them they were to repay the Queen with hemp, masts, tar, and pitch. They also declared that were they not allowed their contract, three or four men would go to England and lay their case before the Queen.(25)

Hunter put them off until he was reinforced by a military detachment, of seventy men from Albany. He then disarmed the Palatines in each village and they were at his mercy. Realizing this, the deputies submitted and the people asked for pardon and seemed again willing to work. (26) The fact of the matter was, as Hunter himself admitted later to the Board of Trade, the Palatines had forced the governor to "abscond" for fear that they would capture his person. (27) Hunter appeared to be slow in forgiving the affront.

As a result of the disorders, he revoked all Palatine military commissions and put the people entirely under the command of their oversee and the officials. They were to be treated "as the Queen's hired Servants," which they were. Determined to prevent the recurrence of such disorders in the future, Hunter issued a commission establishing a court over the Palatines on June 12, 1711, with Robert Livingston as he president and six other commissioners, Jean Cast, Richard Sackett, Godfrey Wulfen, Andrew Bagge, Herman Schuneman and the commanding officer of the detachment of soldiers


25 Doc. Hist., III, 664.

26 Ibid., 667.

27 B.T. Jour,. 1718-1722, 195, August 9, 1720.


Page 165: placed at the manor. (28) But the court was full of dissension. Cast wrote to Hunter, July 13, 1711, "The President of the Court, who in view of the public interest, ought to be the least in the Board an account of his private interests, makes no scruple of despising and treating with indignity a colleague who, with a good intention, confers a pleasure on the people, which the other does not find to his advantage, . . ." (29) The court had power to punish the Palatines for all "Misdemeanors, Disobedience or willful Transgressions" by confinement or corporal punishment, not extending to life or mutilation.(30) Hunter evolved a scheme for employing the Palatines and it was one of close supervision, with the ever-present threat of punishment as the incentive to keep the people at work.(31)

The subsistence supplies of the Palatines were principally bread, meat and beer; the bread and the beer were supplied by Livingston at New York rates, subject to alteration should the assize of New York change.(32) The Palatines were not permitted to make their own bread. (33) Meats might be sent up the river from New York (34) or secured by Livingston from the neighboring Dutch farmers. (35) The Commissaries of Stores meticulously used certificates and receipts for the stores received and issued, Masters of sloops, who carried supplies to Messrs. Cast and Bagge, on their respective sides of the river, had to sign for the articles they carried, and upon their delivery of the goods, the commissaries certified to that effect." Every month or two, Cast certified the amount and quality of the bread and beer delivered by Livingston for the use of the Palatines(37)


28 N. Y. Col. MSS., LV, 100;Doc. Hist., III, 669, et seq.

29 Doc, Hist., III, 673.

30 Ibid., 669.

31 Ibid., 678.

32 Ibid., 655.

33 Liv. MS., letter of April 29, 1711.

34 Ibid., March 10, 1711.

35 N. Y. co., MSS., LIV, 57.

36 Ibid., 191a and b.

37 Ibid., 19a and b.


Page 166: Livingston also served the settlement well in his readiness to give cash, when needed. (38) He kept a detailed account of these disbursements, which he then collected from Secretary Clark, the treasurer, sometimes after a great deal of argument. (39) Among the items, every six months, was that of forty-five pounds, two shillings colonial currency for storage of supplies and two chambers for the use of the commissary. (40) In addition, Livingston claimed a salary Of 258 pounds colonial currency as an Inspector of the Palatines from August 24, 1710, to March 15, 1713. (41) When Richard Sackett, a nearby farmer, came to direct the work, he depended to a large degree on Livingston to supply his wants. He especially wrote short orders for cash or supplies for Palatine workers. (42)

Dissensions existed between the commissaries. Andrew Bagge wrote to Livingston concerning Cast, "as other affaryr[s] are keep from my knowledge soe must this. His privat peck [pique] to me ought not to interfere with the Publick" business. Since Cast could not understand English, Bagge was unable intelligently to converse with him, and was probably jealous of the reliance the governor placed upon Cast. At any rate, the bickerings referred to were serious obstacles to a businesslike issuing and accounting for provisions. (43)

The Palatines were given their supplies in a very irregular fashion. In the rough drafts of the accounts remaining, occasionally two to five days' subsistence were given as one item. The Palatines were supplied for days or perhaps a week at a


38 Ibid., LVIII, 49e, 62a-d

39 Ibid., 107 108a; LIX, 36; LV, 27; Liv. MSS., letters of March 10th and 27th, 1711.

40 Ibid, 17

41 Ibid., LIX, 37

42 lbid, LVII, 169b.

43 Bagge wrote further, "and untill he letts me know what quantity of Beere each family have rec'd:, and how much they are to have either quarterly or otherwise, my notes signifyes noething. . . " Liv. MS., Letter of January 7, 1712.


Page 167: time. All of them did not receive the same articles in equal amounts, especially since frequently there was not sufficient goods to be distributed to all. The final draft of the subsistence account is too regular to be strictly accurate. The decrease in numbers of from one to ten is indicated in a steady loss. It would appear that the number of deaths was noted and the daily account was then calculated on the basis of so many less the previous totals. (44)

These subsistence accounts were kept in a "ledger," as it was called though it was really a daybook, in which so many days' subsistence was charged to someone as it was issued. This "ledger" had cross references to a "journal," which would be called a ledger today, made up of the alphabetical list of Palatine families with their charges. (45) The accounts, based on the regular subsistence allowances of six pence per day for adults and four pence, all in sterling, for children under ten years of age, were not accurate. Hunter himself admitted on two occasions, that all other miscellaneous expenses, such as the salaries of the officers, came out of the Palatines' meager subsistence allowances. (46) Indeed, since the Palatines were to repay the subsistence allowed to them, it can be concluded that they were also bearing the cost of the miscellaneous expenses as well as the officers' salaries.

Another direct source of dissatisfaction was the subsistence furnished. The food supplies furnished by Livingston were to be deficient in amount and inferior in quality, (47) despite Cast's certification to the contrary. In those days this was almost sure to be the case with farmed contracts. The


44 N. Y. Col, MSS., LVI, 97, 98b. Bagge complained in January, 1712, that he could not keep an exact account. Liv. MS., January 9, 1711.

45 The "Journal" and "Ledger" are P. R. O., C. O. 5/1230 and 1231 respectively. The summary of the "Subsistence Lists," taken from the "Journal," are published below in Appendix E., with certain modifications explained there.

46 N. Y. Col. Docs., V, 342, 449; C. C. 1711-1712, 305.

47 Osgood op. cit., I, 514.


Page 168: contract was well drawn and Livingston could certainly have been required to furnish good food, and it seems that Cast took care that Livingston did not gain too much from the transaction. Yet in spite of their best intentions and efforts the service of supply apparently left much to be desired.

Cast wrote to Hunter, May 1,1711: "The experience of the tare [weight marked when empty] of the Barrels is very incorrect, and that such deception causes the people not to take the flour in barrels according to the Tare, but ordinarily to return the barrels to me that I may make a new tare, led me to make a bet with Mr. Robert Livingston, Jurn that a barrel, tared 17 tbs., weighed 20 lbs. I was universally censured for making such a wager. But when the Barrel was emptied and well shaken and cleaned, it weighed 21 lbs. tare. Judge, Sir, what a loss of flour this is. I sent Mr. Bagge 20 barrels today ... and requested him to investigate the cheat. The 18 barrels are tared 16 lbs., 1 barrel 17 lbs. and one 19 lbs. I would make another bet that not one of them runs below 20 lbs. tare. It is too palpable a fraud to mark so many at 16 lbs, Mr. Bagge will not fail to advise you how the tare turns out."(48) Again on July 13, 1711, Cast wrote the governor in complaint of Livingston, "But since the reconstruction of our Board, I have found that his design has ever been to obtain the management of all the supplies for the People, and had I not had the foresight to demand a declaration from the general commission he would have seized it altogether and had made Mr. Meyer his clerk whom he would have got to do what he could not get me to do--that is, everything that may content his cupidity."(49)

As for the supplies of meat Hunter simply bought much of it in New York and salted it well before sending it up the river. As time passed, and Hunter's credit with it, the meat apparently became worse. In a letter of May 1, 1711, Cast wrote to Hunter, "I have received the 20 barrels of Pork


48 Doc. Hist., III, 660.

49 Ibid., 674.


Page 169: which I distributed among the people at this side and supplied all with some to the 10th of May.... I never saw salted meat as, poor nor packed with so much salt as this Pork was. In truth one eight of it was salt." (50) Some two months later, Cast mote again to Hunter, "Whatever little I may receive, I only hope that the meat which is brought me will be of good quality. For however submissive the people are at present ... I could not avoid arranging with the listmasters to induce the people to take the meat last sent me. I shall be in despair should I have again to receive any such.... I beg you, sit, to attend to it and relieve the people as much as possible from salted provisions." But even with such food, orders had been given to retrench in distributing it, which meant even less of that. In the same letter, Cast said, "It is less difficult to retrench bad than good food. But he must also bear in mind that this is carrying things to extremes." (51)

In the first year in New York, Governor Hunter had spent 21,700 pounds sterling on the Palatines. Of this sum, 19,200 pounds went for subsistence at the rate of 1,600 per month. At that time DuPre, the Commissary of Stores, was sent to London to secure an additional 15,000 pounds sterling a year for two years, when, it was asserted, the venture would not only be self supporting but would be repaying the large sums invested. (52) Instead of securing the grants, DuPre was busily occupied, defending Hunter and Livingston from the attacks of the Earl of Clarendon, formerly Governor Cornbury of New York. (53) On arriving at New York in 1710 Hunter had helped Cornbury, to escape his creditors, and when the noble lord


50 Ibid., 659.

51 Ibid., 672. July 13, 1711. On July 30, 1712, retrenchment of beer was ordered by issuing it ?only to the men that work and not for their familys." N. Y. col. MSS., LVII 191a; Doc. Hist., III, 682.

52 B. M. Harleian MSS. 7021, 282, P. R. O., C. O. 5/1050, 33; H. L., L. O. MSS., 7.

53 N Y. Col. Docs., V, 289; C. C. 1710-1711, 172, 389; Liv. MS., December 11, 1711.


Page 170: departed, July 31, 1710, he wrote a note to Hunter, telling him how much he appreciated his help and that it would be a pleasure to be of service to him at any time. (54) When the time came however, within a year, Cornbury, then Lord Clarendon, forgot his obligation to Hunter in his hatred for Robert Livingston. (55) Clarendon wrote, March 8, 1711, to Secretary of State Dartmouth that it was unfortunate that Hunter had fallen into Livingston's hands and that, were any more outlay made, it would only contribute to Livingston's further wealth. (56) The Board of Trade apparently favored Hunter and desired to go ahead, (57) but the Treasury was apathetic with sad results for the governor as we shall see.

Meanwhile Hunter was also having difficulty with the only competent instructor in the manufacturing of naval stores available. Having aided in the selection of a suitable tract, Bridger secured Hunter's permission to return to New England until spring, when he would be needed again. In the spring of 1711, he refused to return to New York. Hunter charged him with unfaithfulness. (58)A recent writer, nevertheless, gives Bridget a high commendation for his years of faithful service in the colonies, stating that "actuated by the interest of the Navy, which he had previously served as a shipwright, he did more than any other man to inaugurate the Broad Arrow policy." (59) Why did Bridget leave Hunter and his project and


54 Ibid., 406.

55. H. L., L. O. MSS., II. Livingston, who bitterly opposed Cornbury in New York, wrote to England, describing Cornbury's weakness for promenading in women's attire and his Lordship's day "after dinner till twelve at night" as spent at the bottle. Cal. Treas. Papers 1702-1707, 512. Clarendon's animosity might also be attributed to Hunter's dismissal of Sheriff Anderson, despite Clarendon's strong recommendation of him. N. Y. Col. Docs., V, 406; I. N. Phelps Stokes, Iconography of Manhattan Island (New York, 1928), IV, 472.

56 N. Y. Col. Docs., V, 195.

57 H. L., H. M. MSS., 1642; C.C. 1712-1714, 170.

58 C. C. 1711-1712, 98.

59 Albion, op. cit., 243.


Page 171: refuse to return from New England to instruct the Palatines? It might have been because of the influence of someone who did not wish the project to succeed. Hunter insinuated to the Board of Trade on January 1, 1712, "how basely Mr. Bridget has eadeavor'd to betray this service, he has since wrote to me that it was not by his own will that he absented himself, he best knows whose will determined him to see black a purpose. . . ." (60) so It is explained more probably by Bridger's requests for his traveling expenses, which the Board of Trade referred to Hunter to pay, and which, it appears, he referred back to the Board. At least, Bridget wrote, "I have apply'd to Col. Hunter, who refuses me travailing charges." (61) This he followed with insinuations 1711, which seem tainted with an ambition of his own: "I am told that the victualing of the Palatines and not the raising of naval stores induced a general to undertake an affair he was wholly ignorant of." He then made a proposal to manufacture naval stores in New England with soldier labor, providing he was made lieutenant-governor of New Hampshire. (62) On September 12, 1711, Hunter complained that Bridget refused to return to the Palatine settlement, "pretending want of sufficient encouragement," (63) although Hunter had recommended to the Board of Trade that he be granted an additional salary.


60 C.C. 1711-1712, 194. Hunter hinted that this was Francis Nicholson, in New England in 1711 for the expedition against Canada. N. Y. Col. Docs., V, 449; Doc. Hist. III, 675. Colonel Nicholson arrived at Boston June 8th, 1711, C. C. 1711-1712, 38. In "Androborus," a drama in manuscript undoubtedly written for private enjoyment, Hunter describes Nicholson as a potential enemy. Widener Library, Cambridge, Massachusetts. In 1715, he referred to him as that "Teazer Nicholson," C. C. 1714-1711, 306. Also, see N. Y. Col. Docs., V, 449.

61 Ibid 1708-1709, 20, 259, 693; Ibid. 1710-1711, 253, 524; B. T. Jour. 1709-1714, 227.

62 Ibid. 171101712, 25.

63. Ibid., 98. As early as February 19th, 1711, the Board was assuring Bridger of an increase in salary for his work with the Palatines. C. C. 1710-1711, 369; also, C. C. 1714-1715, 303, 306.


Page 172: It is fairly clear that in their rivalry for leadership in the important enterprise of naval stores production, for the prestige and honor that would come from such success, these two officials had gone beyond indifference to a sharp antipathy in their relation to each other. Bridger, who had been advocating a development of such a manufacture on a large scale in the colonies for thirteen years before 1709, now doubtless felt that Hunter had stolen his fire. On the eve of the new venture in New York, Bridger had sent a proposal from New England in regard to naval stores, for on January 16, 1710, the Board wrote to Bridger,"We have had under our consideration the method proposed by you for encouraging the making of tar and pitch in New England." The Board then stated that as 3,000 Palatines were to go to New York under Hunter, Bridger was to receive further information in that matter upon Hunter's arrival. (64) In short, as one writer put it in commenting on Bridger's action against Caleb Heathcote's proposal of 1705, "Bridger seemed a rather jealous official." (65) Of Heathcote's proposal to produce naval stores in New York and build a ship, Bridger wrote, "I do, with the result of my own experience, say it is impossible and he cannot performe any one thing he aims at." (66) This jealousy and other possibility of seeing another man take the credit for the accomplishment of his dream of supplying England's needs for naval stores in the colonies probably hastened the rupture between him and hunter, if it did not altogether account for it.

The manufacturing of tar in 1711 was held up by the second Canadian Expedition (1711). Hunter was intensely engaged in the gathering of provisions and military forces. (67)


64 Ibid. 1710-1711, 10.

65 Fox, op. cit., 153. Heathcote proposed to build government frigates at New York, out of naval stores from there, thus saving the costs of shipment to England.

66 C. C. 1706-1708, 54. Heathcost also submitted this proposal to Hunter in 1712, who sent it on to the Board of Trade, Ibid. 1711-1712, 242.

67 Ibid. 1711-1712, 97, 100.


Page 173: In July Bridger wrote to the Board of Trade that the Palatines would not work; a number of them were to go on the expedition against Quebec. (68) Two months later Hunter acquainted Bridger at Boston, "that I have employed the Palatines in preparing the Trees this Summer under the direction of Mr. Sackett however the Season drawing nigh for barking again if you think fit you may come and give them your directions. . . ." (69) Since the preparations for the expedition required a great deal of Hunter's time and effort as well as that of some 300 of the most able-bodied Palatines, (70) the tar business on the Hudson River suffered accordingly.

Richard Sackett, whom Hunter placed in charge as instructor of tar-making, was a local farmer who claimed to have lived three years in the "Eastern countries" among the manufacturers of tar. Hunter reported that he gave a very rational account of the method of preparing the trees. (71) Therefore, Bridger who had manufactured both tar and hemp satisfactory to the Navy Board, (72) was superseded by Sackett, whose knowledge and experience, to say the least, was doubtful. Mr. Sackett took charge with energy. About 100,000 trees were barked, a special preparation necessary before the tar burning could take place. (73) A foot-bridge was built across Roeloff Jansens Kill, a creek just above Livingston's gristmill, not far from its junction with the Hudson River. (74) Of the bridge, Hunter wrote, "I have made the best bridge in all North America over the river between the pine woods and


68 Ibid., 25; N. Y. Col. MSS., LV, 112.

69 N. Y. col. MSS., LVI, 18b.

70 Ibid., LV, 112; B. T. Jour. 1718-1722, 207. The Palatines thought by taking Canada to make Schoharie safe for their settlement there in the future. The memory of the sack of Schenectady (1690) was scarcely twenty years old. Doc. Hist., III, 658.

71 C. C. 1710-1711, 485.

72 P. R. O., C. O. 324/8, 276.

73 C. C. 1711-1712, 97.

74 Doc. Hist., III, 673, 679.


Page 174: their settlements. . . ." (75) Carpenters were put to work on storehouses and barrels under a plan whereby they received two shillings a day, half in cash from Livingston, and the other half in credit on their accounts. (76) As early as June 16, 1711, Sackett was using horses and wagons rented from Livingston to bring in tar knots for making tar. Casks were also collected by the teams. (77) At the same time Sackett was having a cart made and on the 19th he purchased two horses for ten pounds for use in the works. (78)

Early in July, the commissioners for the governing of the Palatines made arrangements to hasten the production of tar barrels. The listmasters of the Palatine towns were required to appoint thirty-six men every Monday to take their turn in aiding the coopers. Delinquents were to be reported and punished. The Listmasters were also cautioned to "take care of their people do not straggle again, that if they want to go to work in the Harvest, leave shall be given them provided it may be known whether [whither] they goe, that they may be sent for upon occasion." (79)

The detachment of soldiers held in readiness to enforce the decrees of the commissioners was not conducive to better feeling on the part of the Palatines. For the most part husbandmen and vine-dressers, they were dissatisfied with their work and their location. They disliked to work in gangs and under rigid supervision. (80) There was no incentive to work hard to pay back the funds spent on them; they sought only to receive the forty acres each of soil for their settlement. They remarked to one another that they had come to America "to secure lands for our children on which they will be able to support themselves after we die, and that we cannot do


75 C. C. 1711-1712, 99.

76 N. Y. Col. MSS., LVII, 27b.

77 Ibid., LV, 28g, 101.

78 Ibid., 28a, 29d; Ibid.,LVI, 177.

79 Doc. Hist., III, 671.

80 Osgood,op. cit., I, 514.


Page 175: here." (81) The Palatines worked but manifestly with repugnance, and merely temporarily. (82) Perhaps the repairing of the iron bolts on "the prison door" twice in one year had some significance, (83) for the Palatines were to be punished for laxness and the listmasters were reprimanded on occasion. (84)

The reports on the progress of the manufacturing were nevertheless promising. On June 6, 1711, Hunter wrote from Albany, "Our Tarr work goes on as we could wish God continue it. . . . We shall be at a losse for Casks in a little while for we go to work with the Knots. I have however sett all hands to work. . . ." (85) "That no hands may be idle we employed the boys and girls in gathering knotts whilst their fathers were a barking, out of which hee [Sackett] had made about three score barrells of good tarr, and hath kills ready to sett on fire for about as much more soe soone as he getts casks ready to receive it." (86) Pork barrels were used of necessity but they were not satisfactory. (87) Pork barrels were used of necessity but they were not satisfactory. (87) Another group of interesting items in the Palatine receipts, preserved in the colonial records, are those given for "6 gallons of Rum for use of the Palatines at work in the Tarr work." It was required not only in the winter months such as January, (88) but also in the mild weather of June and July. (89)

The defection of Bridger and the appointment of Sackett as tar instructor caused uneasiness in England, and the Board of Trade began to inquire into the method of manufacturing naval stores. The reports secured were so divergent, (90) that


81 Doc. Hist., II, 658.

82 Ibid., 659.

83 N. Y. Col. MSS., LVIII, 63e.

84 Doc. Hist., III, 670, 671.

85 H. S. P., Greer Coll., Governors of the Colonies MSS., I, June 6, 1711.

86 C. C. 1711-1712, 98.

87 N. Y. Col. MSS., LV, 43.

88 Ibid., LVIII, 61a.

89 Ibid., 61e; H. S. P., Greer Coll., Governors of the Cononies MSS., I, June 6, 1711.

90 C. C. 1710-1711, 369.


Page 176: the Board decided to ask the British representative in Russia as to the method of manufacturing tar there. The representative, Mr. C. Whiteworth, advised the Board from Riga that he knew nothing about the methods, but that he would inquire as soon as he arrived in Petersburg. (91) In April, 1712, he described the "Method of Preparing Tar in Muscovy." The fir trees were barked in the month of October (not in the spring) from the bottom eight feet high, except for a strip three or four fingers broad, which was left up north side. In this condition the trees were to stand at least for a year, (92) and better still, for two or three years. The turpentine settled in the barked parts during this period.

When ready for use, the tree was cut down, usually in winter for the convenience of sledways. The part, which was barked, was cut off, carried to the place where it was to be burned, and split a full lengths into billets about the thickness of an arm. Laid in piles six feet high, a computation of the tar which it was to yield could be made. The slow heating or sweating was then done in a kiln very similar to that of charcoal burning, except that more care had to be taken to prevent leakage and a trench had to be provided to tap the tar from the kiln. (93)

The Board noted immediately that the Muscovy method was somewhat different from that of Mr. Sackett, and they forwarded the account to Hunter with that comment. (94) In the spring, Sackett barked the north quarter of the tree's circumference about two feet; in the fall, the south quarter about two feet, four inches; the second spring, the east quarter


91 P. R. O., C. O. 5/1050, 36.

92 The excellence of this method, the depriving of the trees of their bark and felling them the following year, has been recently approved and might be profitably applied int he U. S. Thomas Gamble, ed., Naval Stores, History, Production, Distributionand Consumption (Savannah, Georgia, 1921), 13.

93 P. R. O., C. O. 5/1050, 40.

94 C. C. 1711-1712, 298. Hunter attributed the differences to climate. N. Y. Col. Docs., V, 348.


Page 177: about two feet, eight inches; and the second fall, the remaining quarter, approximately three feet. The cutting down of the trees, the splitting into billets and the sweating process were the same as in the Muscovy method. (95)

Sackett's method was not productive of results. Not more than 200 barrels of tar, if that, were produced from all the trees prepared. (96) It would appear that Sackett had not barked the trees sufficiently when the sap was flowing toward the roots. Furthermore, the inner bark either had not been removed in sufficient quantities or with proper care. To the latter was attributed the lack of success. Hunter at first justified Sackett's procedure in 1712, attributing the difference to the heat of the sun, "I myself have observed that where by mistake the trees have been first rinded on the side where the sun's heat had most influence, the ground near it was filled with turpentine drained by it from the tree." After tests three years later, (97) Hunter was "at a loss for the true cause of the disappointment from the trees prepared for tar, knowing nothing of the art. . . what I chiefly guess to be the cause of the miscarriage is this, that the trees being barked by an unruly multitude were for the most part pierced in the inward rind contrary to strict directions by which means they become exhausted by the suns heat in the succeeding summer during which they stood, (98) after the time appointed and proper for felling of them, many of them are good but not in the quantity that will answer the expence and labour. . . " (99) It was ten


95 Ibid., 98. It may be noted inpassing that the colonists, generally without instructions, extracted their tar almost entirely from fallen trees and pine knots. The use of this unprepared wood may account for the "burning" quality of the colonial product complained of by the Navy Board.

96 Eccles. Rec., II , 2169.

97 N. Y. Col. Doc., V, 348, 450, 472.

98 But North CArolina planters in 1730 made tar from "Light wood," that is, the trees which had fallen to the ground from decay, the turpentine having been removed from the cavities for three years, Gamble, op cit., 16.

99 N. Y. Co. Doc., V, 479.


Page 178: years later that, Governor Spotswood of Virginia claimed to have convinced the Board of Trade that tar could not be made with the class of labor available in the plantations. He then urged that tar burnes be brought from Finland for the purpose. (100)

Cobb suggested that the failure occurred because the pine trees of the Hudson could not produce tar and pitch in profitable quantities. (101) Other writers have followed this view. (102) Cobb pointed out of course that a different pine, the Georgia pine (pinus palustris) was used successfully in the Carolinas to produce tar and pitch, but he hinted that the New York workers attempted to use the white pine (pinus strobus) which is unfit for the tar industry. He admitted the presence in New York of the pitch pine (pinus rigida),a tree abundantly supplied with resin needed for the production of naval stoes, but argued that it did not occur in sufficient size or forests to permit an expensive settlement in Hudson district for that purpose. (103) Cobb suggested further to support his argument that Bridger discovered his mistake and for that reason absented himself from the foredoomed settlement. This view is most improbable, for Bridger undoubtedly was well acquainted with the difference between white pine and pitch pine, since he was marking the best of the former in New England with the "Broad Arrow," reserving them for masts to be used by the Royal Navy and he used the latter to make tar and pitch, as described earlier. (104) Moreover, there were sufficient reasons, already pointed out in this study, for the Bridger's defection. As for Cobb's argument that the pitch pine was not found in forests of sufficient quantity, Bridger wrote to the Board of Trade and secretary of State in London that he had


100 Osgood, op. cit., II, 333.

101 Cobb, op. cit., 171.

102 For example, see Mary Riggs Difendorf, The Historic Mohawk (New York, 1910), 62.

103 Cobb, op. cit., 173.

104 C. C. 1710-1711, 142; N. Y. col. Docs., V, 169.


Page 178: years later that, Governor Spotswood of Virginia claimed to have convinced the Board of Trade that tar could not be made with the class of labor available in the class of labor available in the plantations. He then urged that tar burners be brought from Finland for the purpose. (100)

Cobb suggested that the failure occurred because the pine trees of the Hudson could not produce tar and pitch in profitable quantities. (101) Other writers have followed this view. (102) Cobb pointed out of course that a different pine, the Georgia pine (pinus palustris) was used successfully in the Carolinas to produce tar and pitch, but he hinted that the New York workers attempted to use the white pine (pinus strobus) which is unfit for the tar industry. He admitted the presence in New York of the pitch pine (pinus rigida), a tree abundantly supplied with resin needed for the production of naval stores, but argued that it did not occur insufficient size or forests to permit an expensive settlement in Hudson district for that purpose. (103) Cobb suggested further to support his argument that Bridger discovered his mistake and for that reason absented himself from the foredoomed settlement. This view is most improbable, for Bridger undoubtedly was well acquainted with the difference between white pine and pitch pine, since he was marking the best of the former in New England with the "Broad Arrow," reserving them for masts to be used by the Royal Navy and he used the latter to make tar and pitch, as described earlier. (104) Moreover, there were sufficient reasons, already pointed out in this study, for Bridger's defection. As for Cobb's argument that the pitch pine was not found in forests of sufficient quantity, Bridger wrote to the Board of Trade and Secretary of State in London that he had


100 Osgood, op. cit., II, 333.

101 Cobb, op. cit., 171.

102 For example, see Mary Riggs Diefendorf, The Historic Mohawk ( New York, 1910), 62.

103 Cobb, op. cit., 173.

104 C. C. 1710-1711, 142; N. Y. col. Docs., V, 169.


<=Reproduction of Pitch Pine, pinus rigida (2/3 natural size) from F. A. Michaux, North American Sylva, 1819 ed., II, 287.


Page 180: "view'd several great tracts of pitch pine proper for making tar and pitch," (105) and he had selected the Livingston Manor site.

Was Bridger trustworthy in choosing the tract on Livingston Manor? Did he deliberately establish the government industry in country barren of the pitch pine and ensure its failure? The botanist Andrew F. Michaux, who in 1807 traveled this country and observed the forest trees, noted the present of pitch pine in abundant quantities in sandy soils and mountain ridges along the Atlantic coast, and in such cases it was compact, heavy and surcharged with resin, (106) necessary for the production of tar and pitch. (107) In a letter to the author in March, 1927, the State Botanist H. D. House wrote that, "the pitch pine (pinus rigida) undoubtedly formed at that time a major portion of the forest upon the sandy and gravelly areas, and in general upon the areas of poor, sterile, or rocky soil throughout the Hudson Valley and north to Lake George. It is still one of the commonest and most conspicuous trees on this type of soil throughout the region, withstanding better than white pine ground fires, etc." (108) As the Palatines claimed the lands were almost barren, (109) and there are certainly hills on Livingston Manor several miles from the river, we may safely conclude that there was at least sufficient pitch pine present some miles back of the Hudson to provide the project with a good beginning, (110) and further, that Bridger was honest in his choice of a location, for the disagreement with Hunter had not yet occurred.


105 Ibid, 253, 261.

106 F. A. Michaus, The North American Sylva (Philadelphia, 1817), I, 151.

107 The pitch pine (pinus rigida) has been successfully used for the production of tar, pitch and turpentine, Romeyn B. Hough, The American Woods (Lowville, New York, 1891), Pt. II, 42.

108 H. D. House, New York State Botanist, letter of March 25, 1927.

109 Doc. Hist., III, 708, map on 690; Eccles. Rec., III, 2169.

110 The Earl of Clarendon, formerly Lord Cornbury and governor of New York, denied that pine forests were to be found on Livingston Manor, but his animous against Livingston and Hunter indicentally are reflected in the entire letter of March 8, 1711. N.Y. Col. Docs., V, 196.


Page 181: While the tar manufacture still promised so much, on March 1, 1712, Hunter distraught with a problem growing more difficult every day, wrote to the Board of Trade, "Your Lordships may guess at my uneasiness having heard nothing from your Lordshipps since last summer neither have I advice of the Paym't of any of my Bills on account of the Palatines, but I go on with work as if I had, having as your Lordships well know her Majesty's Commands to that Effect. I wait with great impatience for your Lordships commands. . . " (111) But Hunter's bills of exchange continued to return to him with legal protests. One protest related that the clerk at the Treasury had answered, "He knew not of any orders touching the payment" of the said bill. Another clerk had replied that the bills "must be kept till the Lord Treasurer should give Direction about them, which would be suddainly. . . " A third gentleman at the Treasury answered that the Lord Treasurer was not in and had not left any orders, touching the payment of the vill, "but believes the same will be paid." (112)

This state of affairs was due to the Ministerial Revolution of 1710, referred to on an earlier page, in which the Tories superseded the Whigs through bedchamber politics and influence. Upon the Tories' accession to office in 1710, the condemnation of all Whig projects was politically necessary to maintain the Tories in power. The Palatine immigration, so distasteful to the native English poor, (113) became a valuable political weapon and any national advantages accruing therefrom were sacrificed to the political exigencies of the moment. (114) The Tories pretended that the whole affair of the Palatines was a design against the Established Church,


111 N. Y. Col. MSS., LVII, 102, 107.

112 Ibid., 29, 57, 148a.

113 Parlia, Hist., VI, 999; Gibson, op. cit., 83.

114 Somerville, op. cit., 367 thought that "a more shocking example of political rancour can hardly be imagined;" Abel Boyer, Political State of Great Britain (London, 1711) 422 mentioned "the great noise the business of the Palatines made [in 1711] both in the Parliament House and without doors."


Page 182: to increase the numbers and strength of the Dissenters. (115) Queen Anne strongly favored the High Church party, as did the Tories generally. Hence, this charge that the Palatines strengthened the Low Church or Protestant party, probably gained the Queen's sympathy for the opposition and lost for the Whig Ministry the Queen's approval of their policy in regard to the Palatines. (116) At any rate, Dr. John Arbuthnot, Anne's Tory physician, represents her as becoming aware later of this Palatine immigration having been foisted upon the Established Church, as a sort of opiate to keep it acquiescent to the Whig Ministry's tolerant religious policy. (117) Old sectarian rancors of the seventeenth century were not yet forgotten; the Glorious Revolution had left them deep in party politics. Hence, despite considerations which we might expect to see more largely emphasized, such as the possible inexpediency of supporting such an immigration in a time of war depression, the issue was fought out in some degree on religious grounds. Francis Hare, Whig pamphleteer, defended the reception of the Palatines almost entirely along these lines, citing the reception of the French and the Flemish immigrants in Elizabeth's reign as a precedent. (118) The official documents as well as the Whig propaganda in favor of the Palatines, invariably referred to them as "Poor German Protestants," although it has been shown that nearly a third were of the Catholic faith.

A parliamentary investigation was conducted in 1711, with the design "to load the late administration with all that was possible." (119) The investigation did reveal that up to


115 W. T. Morgan, "The Ministerial Revolution of 1710 in England," in loc. cit., XXXVI, 188, 210 Kapp Die Deutschen, I,26, calls it a plot; Burnet, op.cit., VI, 39.

116 Gibson,op.cit., 73.

117 Dr. John Arbuthnot's "Law is a Bottomless Pitt," Pt. III, in G. A. Aitken, Later Stuart Tracts (An English Garner, E. Arber, ed., London, 1877-80), 349-352.

118 [Hare], The Reception, passim.

119 Burnet, op. cit., VI, 39.


Page 183: April 14, 1711, over 100,000 pounds had been expended upon the Palatines in various ways. (120) The House of Commons passed two resolutions: first, "That the inviting and bringing over into this kingdom of the Palatines, of all religions, at the public expence, was an extravagant and unreasonable charge to the kingdom, and a scandalous misapplication of the public money, tending to the increase and oppression of the poor to this kingdom and of dangerous consequence to the constitution in church and state; second, That whoever advised the bringing over the poor Palatines into this kingdom, was an enemy to the Queen and kingdom." It was proposed to lay the blame on Suderland because of his letters to the Board of Trade, ordering it to consider plans for settlements, but this was put off from time to time, and delayed by adjournments until the matter was quietly dropped. (121) An insinuation was also directed against Marlborough because of the letter from his secretary Cardonnel of May 21, 1709, described in chapter III. As the 1709 emigration had been under way for several months before that date, the attempt to saddle Marlborough with the role of instigator was hardly to be taken seriously. As the report indicated, the result of the letter was that the Lord Treasurer ordered "Mr. Sweet at Amsterdam to supply him with such sums of money as that Service shall require." (122) The responsibility of Marlborough for the shipping of the Palatines at government expense has already been disclosed. Of course, Mr. Dayrolle and Lord Townshend also shared in the responsibility. But since the arrangement had been authorized by the government with the Queen's approval, there was little the Tories could do about it, except make political capital during the election of 1711. The change in administration as a result of that


120 C. J. .XVI, 598. The act of naturalization of 1709 was repealed (February, 1712) as a result of this investigation, ibid.,472; XVII, 75; Parlia. Hist.,VI, 1088.

121 Parlia. Hist., VI, 1001; Burnet, op. cit.,VI, 39.

122 C. J., XVI, 597. This correspondence has been described in Chapter III.


Page 184: election was to have an adverse effect on the naval stores project in New York. On the very day that Hunter landed in New York, June 14, 1710, Sunderland, the Whig Secretary of State responsible for the New York venture, had been dismissed in favor of Harley. (123) As late as October 31, 1712, the other new Secretary of State, Lord Dartmouth, wrote to Hunter with assurances of the remittances being speedily answered, and though it brought him "New Life," (124) it left him in a state of suspense.

Several incidents are significant as pointing to the conclusion that the failure to support the venture was purely political. Hunter was still pleading without success for financial support when he received his commission as Brigadier, for which he thanked Lord Bolinbroke, one of the leading Tory Secretaries of State, in a letter dated October 31, 1712. (125) Apparently the Tory Ministry did not disapprove of Hunter and perhaps regretted the political necessity that left him in such financial straits. It must be remembered too, that although a Whig and friendly to Marlborough, Hunter had a strong friend in the Tory, Dr. Arbuthnot, the personal physician of Queen Anne. (126)

In great uncertainty and yet with hope, the governor continued to provide subsistence for the Palatines until September 12, 1712. A few helpless widows and orphans were taken care of until the 23rd. The total expenditure was 32, 144 pounds, 1;7 shillings and 2 pence sterling. Of this sum, the greater part of which was secured on Hunter's credit, he received 11, 375 pounds: 10,000 pounds, the parliamentary


123 William Frederick Wyon, History of Great Britain during the Reign of Queen Anne (London, 1876), II, 209.

124 N. Y. Col. Docs., V, 353. Dartmouth had been a member of the Board of Trade and was present when it approved the venture on December 5, 1709, B. T. Jour. 1708-1714, 99.

125 C. C. 1712-1714, 85.

126 N. Y. col. Docs., V, 453; "The Colden Letters," in N. Y. Hist. Soc. Proc.(1868), 196.


Page 185: appropriation made in 1709 for the encouragement of the production of colonial naval stores, intended for the payment of the bounty on tar and pitch; and 1,375 pounds, secured by the sale in 1715 of various supplies left from the unsuccessful venture. Therefore, from the Palatine accounts there was due to the governor about 20,769 pounds sterling. (127)

By 1715 Hunter's finances were in very bad shape. His credit was exhausted because of the debt he had made himself responsible for in connection with the Palatine subsistence, and he had not received his salary as governor, which was then five years in arrears. The New York assembly was disputing the right of the crown to appoint a salary for the governor out of the revenues of the province. (128) When Hunter reported the situation to the Board of Trade, it recommended to the Ministry that Parliament pass an act establishing an independent support for the governor of New York. Although the Ministry approved the bill for presentation to Parliament, Hunter's friends decided to drop the matter, fearing that, if the New York governorship became more attractive by reason of Parliamentary support, the political plum might go to someone with more influence that Hunter. (129)

Having suffered the desperate situation for four years and failing aid from England, Hunter came to terms with the assembly in 1715. It had been pressing him for the unconditional approval (contrary to this instructions) of a general naturalization bill, which would legalize certain deficiencies in the colonial land-titles (see the terms of the act given in Chapter VIII), even offering him a present of several thousand pounds for his assent. Hunter finally agreed to the passage of the bill in return for a five years' appropriation for gov-


127 P. R. O., C. O. 5/1085, 67. These figures vary slightly from the figures presented by the New York agent to the Board of Trade in 1717. C. C. 1717-1718, 117. Also, C. C. 1714-1715, 340; N. Y. col. Docs.,V, 462.

128 N. Y. Col. Docs., V, 481; B. T. Jour. 1708-1714, 228.

129 B. T. Jour. 1708-1714, 228; C. C. 1714--1715, 306.


Page 186: ernment's expenses. (130) Most of the debts outstanding against the provincial government, including the governor's arrears in salary, were also paid at the same time. This relieved the pressure upon the governor and it soon appeared that his friends in England had not deserted him either, for they secured the permission of the Ministry to present a bill to Parliament for reimbursing Hunter for his expenditures in behalf of the Palatines. (131) It was unsuccessful however, as Parliament adjourned before it could be properly pressed for enactment. (132) The appropriate time for approaching Parliament was never found apparently, for in 1722 Hunter petitioned for the grant of islands in the Delaware River as payment for the money due to him. (133) Two years later he had his report of the Palatine accounts audited and certified by government officials and on November 15, 1727 he presented a petition,with the auditor's report attached, to the King. (134) Evidently the petition was unsuccessful, for later Hunter's son and heir, Thomas Orby Hunter, presented a memorial requesting the Manor of Crowland in Lincolnshire, said that no part of the claim had been satisfied. (135)

In 1716 the Board of Trade, under the Whig Ministry of George I, was favorable to a continuation of the naval stores industry. But although Hunter was of as firm opinion as ever that "this country contains pine woods enough to answer the uses of all the navigation of England," and that the industry was beneficial, he refused to take it up again. "After the disappointments I have met with I cannot advise the renewing the project until we have person skilled and practised in the method or preparing the trees in the country


130 N. Y. Col. Docs., V, 416.

131 Ibid., 481.

132 C. C. 1717-1718, 192.

133 Acts Privy Council Col. 1680-1720, 775.

134 P. R. O., C. O. 5/1085, 67.

135 P. R. O., Gifts and Deposits 873 (no date).


Page 187: from whence we have that commodity, for I doubt all others are but pretenders." (136)

The colonial naval stores industry was developed nevertheless, especially in the Carolinas, under the encouragement of the government bounty of four pounds per ton. By 1715 the total barrels of tar and pitch imported into England from the Plantations nearly equaled the importations from Europe. (137) In 1718 the plantations sent England 82,084 barrels, which were seven time the amount secured from the continent. Accordingly, colonial naval stores were produced successfully under the bounty system without the need for a government industry similar to Louis XIV's workshops. The settlement failed because of the lack of continued financial support by the English government, because of an unwilling labor supply under frontier conditions, and perhaps, because of poor management and incapable instruction in the methods of manufacturing naval stores.


136 N. Y. Col. Docs., V, 479; Professor Osgood (op. cit., II, 515) was mistaken in stating that by 1714 all thought of continuing the production of naval stores was abandoned.

137 Appendix B, Lord, op. cit., 142.

Return to opening page of book.

Copyright 1998, -- 2003. Berry Enterprises. All rights reserved. All items on the site are copyrighted. While we welcome you to use the information provided on this web site by copying it, or downloading it; this information is copyrighted and not to be reproduced for distribution, sale, or profit.

Contents Introduction Links Home