Philadelphia's Colonial Poor Laws

PHILADELPHIA'S COLONIAL POOR LAWS BY HANNAH BENNER ROACH, F.G.S.P., P.A.S.G. The 1767 assessment list for Chestnut, Walnut and Lower Delaware Wards in the city of Philadelphia which follows is transcribed from the original. manuscript deposited in the American Philosophical Society. Permission by that Society to print the list is gratefully acknowledged. Bound in marble paper the folio, which measures 16 inches high by 61/2 inches wide, contains 70 pages. Only 47 of these pages contain the list. This assessment, "To be Applyed Toward the Maintenance of the poor of the Said City the ensuing year," was the first of two known taxes levied that year by the overseers of the poor. Presumably it was levied in pursuance of an Act of Assembly, passed 21 February 1767, which authorized the raising of additional funds needed to complete the new almshouse and house of employment then being built in the city. As the most recent in a long series of poor laws enacted in the Province, it was evidence of Philadelphia's slowly developing public recognition of civic responsibility for the care and maintenance of the poor. Ancient concern for the poor existed in Mosaic law: "Thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather the fallen fruit of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and for the sojourner." This biblical injunction implied a personal responsibility, rather than a communal or legislative one; its application through the centuries assumed various forms which were generally local in character and according to the exigencies of the moment. Even the earliest poor laws, enacted during the Renaissance, were designed primarily to suppress idleness and disorderly conduct. Actual relief of the poor was left to the local parish officers as an ecclesiastical, rather than a civil responsibility. Such was the state of affairs in the middle colonies of the New World in mid-seventeenth century. Funds for "Provisions for the Poor" were included only incidentally in laws established "for building and repairing the Churches" and for "maintenance for the Minister." Overseers chosen by "the Major part of the Householders of the said Parish" raised whatever funds were judged necessary by assessments levied on the real 159 160 The Pennsylvania Genealogical Magazine and personal estates of all males over sixteen years who were not sick or infirm.' These early laws were first published in 1664 in New York, Long Island "and dependences" under the authority of James, Duke of York. Their application was extended to the west side of the Delaware in 1676 when that area was added to the Duke's jurisdiction. Perhaps because of the sparser population, however, no "ouerzeers" were appointed and "all matters [were] to be determined by the Justices." Occasionally additional provision for the poor was obtained from fines, as evidenced in the case of Ode Oelsen. Sixty guilders of a 210 - guilder fine assessed against him for abusing and beating Justice Israel Helm were to be used "for the poore or Church." 2 Upon William Penn's accession to the government of Pennsylvania and the Lower Counties, a somewhat more specific provision was included in the "Body of Laws" enacted by the first Assembly held at Upland in December 1682. This law, Chapter mom, provided That if any person or persons shall fall into Decay and poverty, and not be able to maintain themselves and children, with their honest Endeavors, or shall die and leave poor orphans, That upon complaint to the next Justices of the peace of the same County, The said Justices, finding the complaint to be true, shall make provision for them, in such way as they shall see convenient, till the next County Court, and that then Care be taken for their future comfortable subsistence.. The law appears to have remained in effect at least through 1690, and probably until 1693 when the Proprietor in England was deprived of his government by the Crown.' It was not renewed that year when Benjamin Fletcher assumed the governorship by royal commission under William and Mary. Then, in addition to a bill to raise funds for support of the provincial government, a "Law About County Levies" was enacted by the Assembly. Staughton George, et al., Charter to William Penn and Lams of the Province of Pennsylvania . . Preceded by Duke of York': Loos in Force from tbs. Year 1676 to the Year 1682 (Harrisburg, 1879), 18, 69, hereinafter cited as Duke of York's Lows. The number of ovuseers, first set at eight ha 1664, was reduced to four in 1666. 2 uphe Record of the Court at Upland, in Pennsylvania, 1676 to 1681," Memoirs of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, WI (Philadelphia, 1860), 41, S4. A guilder was reputed (in 1860) to be equal to forty cents of American currency, according to the editor of the court "Record." The text of this law is from the Duke of York's Laws, HI. Ira title alone is given in "Wm. and Procudioga of the House of Representatives of the Province of Pennsylvania," Pennsylvania Archives, lith Series. I, 12, hereinafter cited as Votes. 4 chapter LDC of the "Body of Laws" passed in 1682 established that "no tax at any tinse shall Continue any longer. thm the space of one whole year." Dyke of York's Law, 121. As a result, during this period it was necessary at each mnual meeting of the Assembly , to reenact the desirable laws. See Minutes of the Provincial Council of Pennsylvania • • • • (Philadelphia, 1552), I, 412, hereinafter cited as Colonial Records. Taxables in Philadelphia, 1767 161 Both of these acts provided for a yearly tax to be laid upon personal and real estate of one penny per pound clear value. Freeman out of servitude for six months and not otherwise rated, whose estates were less than £100 in value, were to be taxed six shillings per head. The provincial supply bill exempted those who had "a great charge of children" and were so far in debt that the clear value of their estates did not amount to £30.' It was only in the county levy that incidental note was made of the "Continual occasion for a publick stock to defray the necessary Charges in each County, for the support of the Poor, building of prisons, or repairing them, paying the salary belonging to the Assembly, paying for Wolf's Heads, the Judges expence," as well as "many other necessary expences." The rate was to be laid by the justices of each county, the grand jury having first determined the sum necessary to be raised "for the publick Utility of the County." In the event the grand jury neglected its duty, the local justices were authorized to act, Provided always That (for the further enc:mragement of the Justices or Overseers of the poor to Disburse money on any sudden or emergent occasion for the reliefe of the poor) Out of the first moneys that shall henceforth be raised by assessment, to pay the County charges, the moneys Laid out for the Poor Before any other Disbursement or payment shall be made[,] shall be first and fully satisfied & paid.° By this act, the office of overseer, long established in the New York government, was first transplanted to Pennsylvania, and the principle of granting priority for the care of the poor was first established by legislation. This law was superseded in 1696, after the government had been restored to the Proprietor, by a more detailed "Law for Raising County Levies." In it the rates remained the same, as did provisions respecting care of the poor, the money to be laid out for them still to be "first satisfied & fully paid." It went further, however, "by stating the methods to be employed in assessing and collecting the county tax, the penalties incurred by assessors, collectors and county treasurers set up by the act, upon neglect of their duties, and the manner of appeals. All these details conformed to the provisions in the act passed the same year to raise a supply of money for the use of the province, as distinct from the counties.' 5 0,55, of York's Low, 221-22. said., 231 See Votes, I, 138, 140, 143, 146, 141 for she passage of she county levy bill through the House. 'Dabs of York's Lox% 256-19. The Pennsylvania Genealogical Magazine 162 William Penn returned to Pennsylvania in December 1699, but it was not until the Assembly convened the following October 1700, that further provision was made for relief of the poor. This new act, passed at New Castle in November 1700, separated the poor regulations from the county levy law. Recognizing the "want of . . . a more speedy relief than can be made by the overseers of the poor," it provided that "indigent and poor persons, as well young as old," could "complain" or apply for relief to the justices as well as the overseers of the counties in which they lived. These officers, taking "due care to relieve same," were still to "receive such money out of the first money as shall be raised in each county." ° That none of these laws were very effective in producing adequate funds seems apparent. Scarcely three weeks after the passage of this last law, Thomas Tress and Nicholas Pierce, "overseers of the poor of the Town of Philadia," complained to the Proprietor and his Council that they were out of purse to the value of £42 "more than they have receiv'd" which they had laid out for the use of the poor; they asked the board to direct some method for reimbursing them. City justices called in to discuss the matter had no solution for the problem. Finally the out-of-pocket overseers agreed to stay in their charge at least until the meeting of the next county court in the hope that the money could be collected. If not satisfied by then, they were at liberty to decline acting further, without being penalized for neglect of duty, but would have to wait until the county levy was raised for their money.° It was not until January 1705/6 that another bill for the better relief of the poor was passed by the Assembly. This act set up what proved to be the basic poor law of the Province. Under it, the county justices annually on 25 March were empowered to meet and appoint two or more overseers of the poor. These officers were to lay the same rate or tax as the county levy of one penny per pound on the clear value of real and personal estates, and four shillings per head on all freemen not otherwise rated. Relatives, if able, were to maintain their own poor. Where parents were unable to care for their children, the overseers were to put them out as apprentices, but no person was to be entered on the poor's Stelater al Large of Peuroylvania frau 1682 to 1801. II (1700-1712), 20, Chapter 301111; hereinafter cited as Statutes at Large. In Votes, I, 250, 251, 261, this bill le called Number IA. It and 28 other bills were sent to the Proprietor and Council on 6 November for approval. They were returned the same afternoon to be engrossed, and were enacted into law with a great body of other laws 27 Novembu 1700. See Colonial Records, I, 620, 624. 0 Ibid., II, 9, 10. Taxables in Philadelphia, 1767 163 books or receive relief until an order was received from two justices. If people refused to pay the tax, their goods and chattels could be levied upon by warrant. Those refusing to serve as overseers were to be penalized. Ten days before each 25 March, the overseers were to produce their accounts of moneys received and disbursed, and to return the names of those nominated to succeed them." Despite this law, in which the mayor and aldermen of the city were to have the same authority as justices, some uncertainty remained as to responsibility for the poor in the city. In the spring of 1708 the mayor, on behalf of the city corporation, reported to the Provincial Council that "the Corporation not only maintains all their own poor without any charge to the County, but almost all the poor of the Province; most of them when distressed in the Countrey, repairing to the Town for relief."" Again in 1712, the city corporation, finding that as "The poor of this city [are] Dayly Increasing[,] it is ye opinion of this Council that a Workhouse be hired immediately to Imploy poor P'sons and [that] sufficient P'sons be appointed to keep them at work." " If this recommendation was followed, the result was apparently unsatisfactory, for early in January 1717/18 the Assembly moved that a workhouse, to be built in Philadelphia at provincial charge, be used for the whole Province. The law which was passed the following month extended this motion to include authority for the erection, within three years, of workhouses and houses of correction in each of the three counties." Under this act were built the prison, or house of correction, at the southwest corner of Third and Market Streets in Philadelphia, and the workhouse further south on Third Street. During the same Assembly session, a supplementary act to the law for relief of the poor was introduced. When it was passed finally in May 1718, it defined with more exactness who was relievable under the poor law. Listed as subjects for relief were apprentices, single servants hired in the city who had been in the same service for one year, annual public Statutes et Large, II, 211, Chapter CLIV. in Votes, I, 161, the poor law is listed as Number 40. Under this law it no longer wig necessary to reenact it nob year for it to continue in force. al Colonial Record; ii, 408. Missalk, of tbe Common Council of the City of Pbiledelybhs, 1704-1776 (Philadelphia, 1847), 304. . 8 Votes, ii, 1236, 1214. The act for the more effectual raising of county rates, passed at the same time, specified that single men with estates not greater than £10 were to be rated at four shillings per head upon the one penny per pound tax. No assessment in any one year was to exceed three pence in the pound and twelve shillings per head. The total amount to be raised was to be determined by the county commissioners in conjunction with assessors elected annually. See Steele, et Large, III (1712-1724), 171. 164 The Pennsylvania Genealogical Magazine office or charge holders who had paid county taxes for one year, and those who held leases of tenements or plantations having a yearly value of B." As immigration into Pennsylvania steadily mounted during the next ten years, the overseers of the poor in the city found that they were laboring under great hardships "from the great Number of Poor from foreign Parts, and the neighboring Provinces," as well as from "the insolvent Debtors Wives and Children." In order to lessen the drain on their resources, the city corporation, under whom the overseers operated, applied to the Assembly for help in May 1729. Since money was being appropriated for the erection of a State House, the Assembly also granted the city corporation permission to borrow £1000 for the use of the poor. The city promptly spent £200 of this money for the purchase of the city square between Third and Fourth, and Spruce and Pine Streets. The balance they applied toward building thereon almshouses "for the Use of the Poor of the said City." " In the succeeding years the Assembly allocated various fines for the support of this institution in order to augment the revenue raised by the penny per pound taxes. But even with this increased aid, as the number of poor continued to increase, the overseers found it necessary to levy several penny taxes in a single year to raise additional funds. As a result, in 1735 the Assembly passed a new supplement to the several acts for relief of the poor. Under it the overseers could henceforth lay a tax not exceeding three pence in the pound on all estates liable to taxation, and on all freemen not otherwise rated no more than nine shillings per head." Still the increased income failed to supply adequate funds for the needs of the overseers. In 1739 they applied for further assistance, but were granted no aid by the Assembly. The House was content to remind the overseers that under the poor laws they were "fully at Liberty to make use of the City Assessment, as well as the County Aseissment, or any other good Information to guide them in their Assessments for the Purposes in the said Laws mentioned." 1-4 Thisl., 221, Chapter CCXXXVII; Votes, II, 1242, 1270. 15 Votes, III, 1931, 1950; Minutes of Common Council, 509, 552. See the Plan of Philadelphia sue veyed by Nicholas Stull, and sold by Matthew Clarkson and Mary Biddle in 1762 for the outlined shape of these building,. 16 Statutes at Large, IV (1724-1744), 266, Chapter CCCXXXVI, passed 29 Mar. 1715. This act was in conformance Ivith the set for raising county rates and levies, passed 20 Mar. 1724/25, whereby no county rates were to exceed three pence in the pound and nine shillings per head, single men with estates less than £50 to be rated at three shillings per head on the penny per pound tax. Ibid., 10, Chapter CCLXXXTV- Taxables in Philadelphia, 1767 165 Unsuccessful in this appeal, the overseers appear to have approached the problem from another angle. In early 1740, six months later, "a great Number of Inhabitants of the City" petitioned the Assembly. They asked the House to make the overseers the collectors of the duties imposed on persons transported into the Province who had been "convicted of heinous Crimes," and that the whole or a part of those duties be used for the poor "with a moderate Allowance to the said Overseers for their Care and Trouble." To this proposal the House agreed, in spite of the objections of Thomas Glentworth, the current collector. The bill as passed laid a tax of twelve pence per head on all convicts, servants or indigent persons imported into the province, half of which was to go to the overseers for the use of the poor. But Governor Thomas refused to approve the bill unless changes were made in it. Sent back to committee for restudy, the bill was never returned to the floor." Again in 1744 the overseers approached the Assembly. With some reason they said that it had become "too great a Burden for any three Men to Collect the Tax of all Philadelphia and at the same Time to take Care of the Poor, which have encreased with the City." They believed that if a collector of the poor tax were appointed for each ward, and qualified persons would accept the job, their own duties could be more effectually performed. In addition, if the overseers were chosen in the same manner as county commissioners, and invested with the power to inspect the circumstances of strangers coming into the city, "it would be a Means to make them better acquainted with their Duty, lessen the Tax, and diminish the Number of our Poor." Certainly if the citizens elected the overseers, "they would have a more equitable Right to assess them, as well as be better acquainted with their Circumstances than the County Assessors generally are." The overseers would then be qualified to identify such people, for instance, as poor strangers who frequently claimed to be relievable "under Pretence of being Sailors"—currently exempted by law from taxation—who often became a charge upon the city. Furthermore, no overseers could legally "sue for or receive Estates or Monies given to the Poor, or to settle Ground-rents in their Behalf," and were thus unable to increase their revenue. Once more the Assembly judged these complaints to be valid, and passed a bill to relieve them. But after it had been sent to Governor Thomas for approval, and returned with suggested amendments, it, too, was allowed to die." 11 For the 1739 application see Voles. HI, 2482, 2490; for the 1740 petition see ibid., 2528, 2532, 2538, 2540, 2546, 2570, 2629. 18 Ibid., IV, 3026-28, 3076-78, 3085, 3086. 166 The Pennsylvania Genealogical Magazine It was not until 1749, when James Hamilton was Diiputy Governor, that both Assembly and Governor reached agreement on further provision for the poor. According to Hamilton this bill, when first presented to him for approval, contained "many New and wise Provisions, tending to the Utility of the Inhabitants of this City and Province." But as it contained "Clauses revoking Powers given by several former Acts, and establishing new in their Places, without assigning any Cause for the Alteration," he did not feel he could assent to it in that form. When finally amended, the bill established the overseers as a body politic, able to accept bequests and gifts for the benefit of the poor. In addition they could now levy taxes up to, but not in excess of, the rates made by the county assessors." In 1755 the overseers found themselves saddled with additional responsibilities. They were now required to maintain soldiers' wives sent back to Philadelphia by General Braddock "on his March from Wills's Creek towards the Ohio." They were also charged with the housing and maintenance of the Acadian refugees sent from Nova Scotia. The latter duty included the binding out as indentured servants of children whose parents were incapable of maintaining them, as well as the care of the sick and aged." While the actual expenses incurred in the maintenance of both these groups were borne by the Province, the need for a new and larger workhouse in which to lodge the able poor was accentuated by their arrival. The workhouse on Third Street was no longer available, having long been used to house criminals who were thus separated from insolvent debtors lodged in the "gaol" at Third and Market. Nevertheless a petition in 1757 for a new workhouse was ignored by the Assembly." Again le Ibid., 3236, 3243, 3245, 3264; Statutes at Large, V (1744-1779), 79, Chapter CCCLXXIX, passed 19 August 1749. Hamilton's first relatively amicable relations with the Assembly may be attributed to his being the fiest—and as ic turned out, only—native governor Of the Province ePP 0inted b7 the Fenn family. His first terns was from 1748 to 1754. as Votes, V. 3927, 4056, 4103. The French Neutrals, as the Acadian, came to I7e called, arrived in Philadelphia in October 1757. For an early petition from them see ibid., 4291; for an early law respecting their care sec Statutes at Large, V, 179, Chapter CCCXVI, mused 18 Jan. 1757. There is no really ide4u1ste lainm7 of these refugn., although descendants were still living in Philadelphia at the end of the eighteenth century, and some still are. Until as late as September 1775, needy Acadian, as a group were under the care of du overseen of the poor; charges for their upkeep appear in the Assembly's accounu. Other references to them are found in both the Colonial Records and the Pennsylvania Archives, 1st Series. Genealogical records, such as births, marriages and deaths, are found in the transcripts of the registers of St. Joseph's Roman Catholic Church, published in the Record: of the Alnerkan Carbolic Historical Society, where they are specifically identified as Acadian.. 28 Voles, VI, 4154, 4562. Actually the overseers themselves were granted permission to bring in a bill to erect a new workhouse; the House was too involved at the moment in military affairs to initiate one on its own. Taxables in Philadelphia, 1767 167 in 1764 attention was called to the lack of a workhouse. The overseers reiterated their complaint that because the "Poor of the said City are of late Years greatly increased, and become extremely burdensome," their time was so taken up in other duties of their office "as to make it impracticable to watch the daily Introduction of strange Poor, and to guard against it, without assistance." The old almshouse was entirely too small to accommodate the influx of poor, "the Rooms being but ten or eleven Feet square." In each of these, five or six beds had been crowded and even the room used for church services contained sixteen beds; "still Numbers suffer for Want of proper Lodging." At present, of the 220 poor persons maintained by the overseers, three-quarters of them were capable of earning in the summer enough to support them in the winter, if they were properly set to work in a well regulated workhouse "or House of Employment." Upon due consideration, the House appointed a committee to consider an appropriate bill. But before it was brought to the floor, the city found itself threatened by irate Paxtangers from the upper parts of Lancaster County, and the matter was put aside for the time being.' It was not until 1766, two years later, in the midst of the post-war depression and general stagnation of business brought on by the Stamp Act, that the overseers once more applied for help for themselves and the poor. They again pointed out that such sums as they could collect by repeated taxations were still insufficient to support all the poor in the almshouse, in addition to some 150 out-pensioners. Money was so scarce it would be impossible to raise or repeat the tax allowed by law. But during the past year upwards of £3200, of which charitable citizens had contributed £815 14s. 1 d., had been spent on poor relief, and at least as much more would be needed during the coming year. Once again the overseers appealed for the establishment of a workhouse as the best means of lessening the burden on the inhabitants. Their case was now bolstered by the representations of the grand jury and the managers of the now well-established Pennsylvania Hospital. The jury's memorial to the Assembly noted that discharged soldiers, "most of them lame, diseased or other wise incapable of returning to the Places they came from, still remained here, under the Disadvantage of having been long in a Course of Life unaccustomed to constant Labour for their Support." If the able among these and the industrious poor were assisted by proper employment, and the "Indolent and Supine" were 22 Ibid., VII, ssos, 5535-35. 168 The Pennsylvania Genealogical Magazine made to labor for their support in a well regulated workhouse, the burden of their care would be considerably lessened. For their part, the hospital managers represented that the great number of distressed poor applying to the hospital for relief was "every Year encreasing," and that unless some further prtivision was made by the legislature, "the Funds of the Hospital will be insufficient to support the Expence." They, too, urged the establishment of a suitable house of employment for "such different Kinds of Business as may suit every Age, and either Sex," which, if placed under the management of suitable persons, would much promote the public interest.' The validity of these claims was obvious, especially in view of the current distressed economy of the Province. The Assembly accordingly promulgated a law "for the Better Employment, Relief and Support of the Poor within the City of Philadelphia, the District of Southwark, the Townships of Moyamensing and Passayunk, and the Northern Liberties." Passed 8 February 1766,24 the law provided that ira "stock" of £1 00 were raised by private contributions, such contributors would then be incorporated into a body politic to be known as the Contributors to the Relief and Employment of the Poor in the City of Philadelphia. Contributors of at least £10 each were empowered to elect from among their number twelve managers. Upon the raising of the private stock, the city corporation, holding title to the old almshouse property at Third and Spruce, was then to borrow £2000 on mortage. With this sum the contributors were to purchase a new lot on which they were to erect a new almshouse and a house of employment. When this had been accomplished, the city was to sell the old property in order to discharge the mortgage, any surplus going to the contributors. In the event the money so received was inadequate for these purposes, an additional amount up to £1000 might be borrowed. As soon as the initial stock was raised, the newly elected managers set to work. Before the year was out they had acquired the square between Tenth and Eleventh and Spruce and Pine Streets, "part by purchase and the rest by donation of the Proprietors." On it they had begun to erect "such buildings as are immediately necessary to accomodate the several kinds of poor intended to be relieved and provided for by the said act." As might have been expected, the cost of this ambitious project a, Ibid., 5823-24, 5829-31. yn as /bid., 5857; Stahaes at Large, (1765-1770), 9, Chapter DMOCIV. The D'istrict of Southwark had been established in 1762. It included that part of the southern suburbs of the city which were bounded by the Delaware River, Cedar or South Street, the Passayunk Road, Moyamensing Road, Keeler's Lane and the Greenwich Road. Taxables in Philadelphia, 1767 169 turned out to be considerably greater than originally anticipated. By the end of the year, upwards of £3000 raised by contributions, the £2000 borrowed by mortgaging the old ahnhouse property, and the further sum of £730 lent by the city corporation had all been spent, leaving a "heavy debt over and above the said sums" still to be paid. Therefore the managers applied to the Assembly in February 1767 to grant them the power to sell the old almshouse property immediately, and to borrow the further sum of £6000 "on the credit of the last mentioned lot and buildings. " 25 Since no other solution presented itself, the House agreed to amend the previous act. Therein the city corporation was directed to grant to the contributors the almshouse lot and buildings which were then to be sold or let on ground rent as seemed most suitable. The proceeds were to be used to pay off the various loans and to finish the buildings. In case these sums, too, proved inadequate, the deficiency was to be raised by a "just and proportionate tax" to be levied in the same manner as funds for the poor were normally levied." Presumably it was pursuant to this act, passed 21 February 1767, that the following assessment was laid. Unfortunately it is only a fragment of the total city assessment. However, although the lists for the remaining seven city wards have not been located—if they are extant—the usefulness of these which have survived is not diminished. They may profitably be compared with corresponding lists made in earlier and later years." The original pages are arranged in double columns, each of which is totalled. In transcribing the lists," the original spelling and arrangement have been preserved, but all superscript letters have been brought down. The reader is reminded that the lists do not include all the inhabitants of the three wards, but only those whose estates were judged ratable. 26 As the law rads, it is not clear whether the E6000 was to be secured on the old almshouse property as a second mortgage, or upon the new property. The hum would seem to have been the more sensible course. Votes, VII, 1982, 6000; Statutes at Large, VII, 75, Chapter DLIL a, For cambia in Chestnut Ward, 1754, me "Taxables in Chestnut, Middle and South Wards, Philadelphia: 1754," The Pennsylvania Genealogical Magazine, XXI (1959), 161. For tuables in Lower Delaware, Chestnut and Walnut Wards, 1756, see "Taxable, in the City of Philadelphia, 1756," ibid., XXII (1961), 10, 16, 59. For taxables in same three wards, 1769, see Pennsylvania Archives, 3rd SeAm, XIV, 110, 161, 217. It should be noted that the entries under the heading 'Tax" in these last lists represent the taxable estate of the individuals listed, and sot the tax as is represented; see the original lists in the Division of Public Records (State Archives). Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Mari.burg, Penna. 28Th, Editors are greatly indebted to Mrs. Elizabeth Parker Pities for the typescript made from the original manuscript.