OCTOBER 5, 1662 New Style (September 25, Old Style): “Carried or Guarded away to the Dungeon”

JOURNAL OF JOHN BOWNE, FOLIO 51

Previous post: September 21, 1662- Ordinance Against Conventicles

“[...so I was kept there till the 25 day of that month.] Then came the Fiscal and Scout in great rage. [They] demanded of me to answer the Court sentence, which I denied as before. So I was presently carried or guarded away to the dungeon and there put, a strict charge being given to the guard of soldiers, which was by both day and [night] to let nobody come at me or speak with me. So I was kept there and allowed nothing but coarse bread and water than they knew of ‘till the 6th day of the 8th month.”

(Red stars marks the beginning & end of today’s passage.)

 
 

Notes on the Text

“the 25th day of that month”: the 25th of September in the old calendar used by John Bowne and other English subjects (October 5th New Style)

“the Fiscal and Scout”: The Fiscal, or public prosecutor, of New Netherland in 1662 was Nicholas de Sille. The Provincial Schout, or Sheriff, was named Peter Tonneman, although here Bowne may actually be referring to Deputy Schout Resolved Waldron, the Anglo-Dutch officer who had arrested him. These men’s salaries were partially funded by the fines that they collected, which no doubt contributed to their “great rage” at Bowne for refusing to pay.

the Court sentence: Bowne had been found guilty of violating the Ordinance against Conventicles, and been issued a fine of 150 guilders, or 25 pounds Flemish.

the dungeon: Until this point, Bowne had been confined in what he calls “the cort-a-gard.” It is unclear exactly what this term refers to, but it may have been a cell adjoining the sentry box or the barracks at Fort Amsterdam. The “dungeon” was presumably also located in the Fort, as the only alternative place of detention in New Amsterdam was the Stadt Huys, or City Hall, where Bowne was not moved until the following month. The word calls to mind the account of Robert Hodgson, who was nearly martyred by Stuyvesant following his 1657 arrival on the Woodhouse, which brought the first Quakers to New Netherland: “I was cast into a dungeon, so odious as I never saw, for wet, dirt, and nasty stink.” The move clearly marks an escalation in the pressure campaign against Bowne.

“…that they knew of”: One of the mysteries of Bowne’s imprisonment is how he managed to survive and remain healthy on a bread and water diet. Here, Bowne hints that, in fact, he did not have to. In fact, a separate page towards the back of Bowne’s journal, where he sometimes jotted down accounts and memoranda, reveals that Bowne had a relationship with an English couple who owned a nearby tavern, and that they were able to smuggle provisions to him. We will explore this arrangement further in a separate post at a later date, as Bowne remained a customer of theirs throughout the Fall. (Bowne’s aside also suggests that he was not overly worried about his captors reading his diary.)

Sentencing of the Tiltons and the Spicers

On the same day that Bowne was remanded to the dungeon, the four Quakers from Gravesend who had been arrested around the same time as he were sentenced. These were the Tiltons, a middle-aged married couple, and the Spicers, a widow and her adult son. As all were repeat offenders who had been arrested in past years, the Tiltons and the Spicers were not given the same opportunity as Bowne to mend their ways. The fire-damaged sentencing records appear below, courtesy of the New York State Archives. (Fortunately, translations commissioned by Governor DeWitt Clinton before the fire have survived.)

Sentence of John and Mary Tilton of Gravesend. October 5, 1662, Dutch Colonial Council Minutes, 1638-1665. (New York State Archives.) View and download in hi-res

Sentence of Michelle and Samuel Spicer of Gravesend. October 5, 1662. Dutch Colonial Council Minutes, 1638-1665. (New York State Archives.) View and download in hi-res

Interestingly, only the Tiltons’ sentence contains an order in English. John Tilton was also the sole member of the Gravesend group who had insisted on received a written copy of the complaint against him from the Notary Public. He had served as Town Clerk in Gravesend for many years; possibly this role had given him an appreciation for the importance of getting things on the record.

Council Resolution re: Sentence of John and Mary Tilton

“Presented and read the conclusion of the Attorney-General versus John Tilton and his wife, and the frivolous and obstinate answers of the defendants,—so was adopted the following resolution:

[In Dutch] Whereas Director-General and Council are certainly informed, and actually find it so, that John Tilton, and so too, his wife, residing at Gravesend, continue yet pervicacious and obstinate in entertaining and lodging the Quakers, and frequenting their conventicles, notwithstanding the aforesaid Tilton was for it, in the year 1658, on the 10th January, condemned to a fine, and since, in the year 1661, on the 20th January, was commanded to leave this province, but has so far conspired, in the hope of his reformation; but whereas he, as it is already said continued obstinate, so it is resolved and deemed necessary, to avoid, as far as possible, confusion and schism in this youthful province, to banish the aforesaid John Tilton and his wife out of this province.

[In English] The Governor-General* and Council of New Netherlands do ordain and command you, John Tilton, with Mary Tilton your wife, to depart and remove out of this province before the 20th day of November next ensuing, upon pain of corporal punishment. This enacted and ordained, in our assembly kept in Fort Amsterdam, the 5th October, 1662: _____"

*Stuyvesant’s title was actually Director-General; Governor-General was a higher rank reserved for administrators of larger, more important colonies. However, the English residents (such as the English Secretary, who would have written this addendum) may not have been fully aware of the distinction.

Council Resolution re: Sentence of Michelle and Samuel Spicer

“1662: 5th October.___Whereas the Director-General and Council in New Netherland are certainly informed, and found it actually to be so at different times, that those of the sect called Quakers keep an unusual correspondence, and are continually supported, kindly received and lodged at the House of Michel Spicer, residing at s’Gravesende,* now a prisoner: she, with her son Samuel Spicer, before more than once have been arrested and fined, with an express warning to be on their guard in the future, and avoid it, on the penalty of banishment, nevertheless they thus far continue in this with great obstinacy; but what is more, lately dared to distribute and spread seditious and seducing pamphlets among the inhabitants of this province, to propagate the aforesaid heretical sect of Quakers: wherefore, it being necessary, to avoid confusion and schisms in thi new-rising province, to crush this abominable sect of Quakers, who aim at nothing else but to bring the word of God, religion, and government into disrespect, so is it, but the Director-General and Council, resolved to keep all others under a better control in this province.

The Director-General and Council in New Netherlands command you, Michel Spicer, that ye shall depart from this province, with your son Samuel Spicer, before the 20th November next, on the penalty of corporal punishment.

Done and commanded, in our meeting in Fort Amsterdam, in New Netherlands, on the day as above.”


Notably, the prisoners were given a generous amount of time to get their affairs in order before leaving the province- despite the fact that John Tilton had simply ignored a previous sentence of banishment. Later records show that the Quakers did not, in fact, leave the colony; in fact, the following May, Stuyvesant was still trying to remove them. Shortly thereafter, the Dutch effectively lost administrative control of the English towns in New Netherland, due to the maneuverings of neighboring Connecticut, which was aggressively asserting the English claim to all of Long Island. Samuel Spicer was living in Gravesend as late as the 1680s. The Tiltons also resided there for the rest of their lives. While Stuyvesant had autocratic tendencies, the thinly-stretched administrative and police state available to him simply lacked the capacity to enforce them out on Long Island.








SEPTEMBER 21, 1662 New Style: Ordinance Against Conventicles (English)

director and council of new netherland: ordinance against conventicles, in english - september 21, 1662

Previous post: September 20, 1662- The Register of Salomon Lachaire

“Because the Governour Generall and Councell of New Netherland find by experience that their heretofore issued publications and Edicts, against Conventicles and prohibited assemblies are not observed and obeyed as they ought, therefore by these Presents, they are not only renewed, but also enlarged in manner following:

 
 

First, the Governor Generall and Councell forementioned, Like as they have done heretofore, so they prohibit and interdict as yet, that beside the Reformed worship and service, no Conventicles or meetings shal[l] be kept in this province whether it be in houses, barnes, ships, barkes, nor in the Woods nor fields, upon forfeiture of fifty guldens for the first time for every person whether man or woman or child, that shall have been present in such prohibited meetings, and twice as much for every person, whether it be man or woman or child that has exhorted or taught in such prohibited assemblies, or shall have lent his house barne or any place to that purpose; for ye second time twice as much; for the third time foure times as much, and arbitrary punishment besides.

Secondlie, because Governour General and Councel are informed, that now and then, through diverse persons seditious and erroneous boecks [books] writings & letters are brought in & dispersed among the Common people, The Governour Generall and Councell prohibit by these presents not only the importation of such printed or unprinted boecks, writings or letters, but also the communicating or dispersing, receaving, hiding of the same, upon forfeiture of an hundred guldens, to be paid by the importers and distributers of such boecks, letters or writings and fifty guldens for every one that shal[l] receave them from those that distribute them, with confiscation of the important boecks when they are found out.

Thirdly, because the Governour General & Councel are informed that in the particular Villages and hamlets of this province many & diverse persons doe sojourne & more and more doe dayly come in the forementioned Villages and tarry there, without that such persons (as they ought) doe make themselves knowne & shew from whence they came & to what end, or that they (as other inhabitants) doe performe the oath of fidelity, the Governor General and Councel doe ordaine & command by these presents dat [sic] al[l] and every particular person, that in the same manner beforementioned, without Leave and foreknowledge of the Governour Generall and Councell are come within this province & have not performed the Oath of fidelity shall within the tyme of six weekes come to ye office of the Secretary of the Governour Generall & Councell that their names may be regist’red and may performe the oath of fidelity like as other inhabitants & to subscribe it, upon forfeiture of fifty guldens & arbitrary punishment besides.

And to prevent in the future such disorder & prohibited assemblies the Governour General & Councell forementioned doe ordaine & command all Magistrates, Schouts, Marishals, Officers & Commanders within this province to obey & execute & to command to be obeyed and executed, every one in his owne precinct & power as wel[l] against the Conventicles & prohibited assemblies as against all fugitives & Vagabonds which without foreknowledge and leave of the Governour Generall & Councell & not having performed the Oath of fidelity, in any place shall hide themselves. And if any shall be found to lodge, entertaine, hide or conceale such persons, he shall forfeit for the first time fifty guldens, for the second time twice as much & for the third time four times as much & besides that to be punished arbitrarily. And if any Magistrate, Schout, Marishal or officer shall be found to winke in this case, he shall forfeit the dobble value & declared incapable to serve any more in any publike service.

Thus concluded in ye Fort of New Amsterdam in New Netherland the 21 Septr A 1662

Notes on the Text

“their heretofore issued publications”: the 1656 Ordinance against Conventicles and the lost anti-Quaker laws

Conventicles: forbidden or unauthorized religious meetings, held in private or secret settings

barkes: sailing ships, typically with three masts

guldens: Dutch guilders (short for “gulden florins” or “golden florins.”) Roughly equivalent to $6.00 in contemporary money.

shall be found to winke: “connivance,” or turning a blind eye to unorthodox but peaceful worship

“publike”: public

This law supersedes the previous Ordinance against Conventicles passed in 1656, before Quakers had entered New Netherland. The latter was primarily aimed at Lutherans throughout the province, and secondarily at Independents in Middelburgh (Newtown), who began holding meetings after their minister “died of a pestilential disease.” The new law does significantly more than restate the 1656 law as a reminder to the unobservant and disobedient. It rachets up the existing fines, and extends them to more people; it criminalizes distribution of unauthorized religious writings; and it requires all visitors to the colony to register with the authorities and swear a loyalty oath within six weeks of arrival, or be subject to anti-vagrancy laws. These measures mark an escalation on the part of Director-General and Council in their struggle against religious pluralism in the province, particularly Quaker activity. Taken together, they significantly expand the restraints on the liberties of the colonists and the level of intrusion on private activity.

The 1656 ordinance imposed a flat fine of 25 pounds Flanders upon “everyone, whether man or woman, married or unmarried, caught in such meetings,” and a 100 pound fine upon any “unqualified” person officiating, “whether Preacher, Reader, or Singer.” The 1662 edict doubles the previous fine for the first offense, doubles it again for the second offense, and quadruples it for the third- an eight-fold enhancement- and threatens additional, unspecified “arbitrary punishment.” This could include anything from corporal punishment to confiscation of property, imprisonment, or banishment. It also expands liability to the owner of any property where conventicles are held, whether or not they attend the service, and provides for children to be fined as well as “men and women.”

The second article of the 1662 ordinance bans “seditious and erroneous” literature, whether published or unpublished, not excepting works distributed for private consumption rather than liturgical use. It does not define the terms “seditious and erroneous,” although the language of the 1656 ordinance probably applies: “differing from the customary and not only lawful but scripturally founded and ordained meetings of the Reformed divine service, as observed and enforced according to the Synod of Dordrecht in this country…” This provision may have been prompted by reports that Michelle Spicer, one of the Quakers arrested in the same sweep as John Bowne, had distributed tracts in Gravesend. John Bowne himself probably smuggled Quaker literature into the province- oblique references in letters he sent his wife from exile hint that he was also shipping contraband books back to New Netherland, and given his occupation as a trader he may have distributed them earlier. In the English period, Bowne openly acted as the local agent of the Quaker publisher William Bradford.

Finally, the third provision of the Ordinance, requiring all persons in the province to register in person with the Provincial Secretary, and to take a loyalty oath within six weeks of arrival, was clearly a broadside against Quakers in particular. Quakers’ interpretation of Scripture forbade them from swearing oaths, which they interpreted as a violation of Jesus’ words in the Sermon on the Mount:

But I say unto you, Swear not at all;
neither by heaven; for it is God's throne” – Matthew 5:34 (King James Bible)

This constraint kept early Friends from holding public office, as they could not be sworn in. (In the 1680s John Bowne was actually elected to the New York Provincial Assembly, but had to surrender his seat as he could not take the required oath. In the English period, many Quakers resettled in the new Colony of New Jersey, which had more lenient policies and allowed them to substitute an “affirmation” for an oath.) The Act also subjected legal residents to fines- on the same schedule as those for attending Meetings- for “lodging” or “entertaining” visitors who had not registered and sworn the oath. Faced with the threat Stuyvesant perceived from “heretics, seducers, and deceivers,” the laws were moving away from a simple ban on conventicles, and expanding to encompass a whole penumbra of expression and association surrounding them.

As with the arrest warrant for Bowne and his counterparts issued on September 9th, the local authorities are tasked with enforcement, with the drastic threat of removal from public office if they “winke.” “Winking,” or “turning a blind eye” in the English idiom, was a pragmatic Dutch tradition for dealing with peaceful and otherwise law-abiding sectarians without actually condoning “heresy.” Known as “connivance,” this approach prevailed in more liberal enclaves like Amsterdam, and allowed for some level of co-existence between the public Church and covert faith communities. But New Amsterdam was not old Amsterdam, and Director Stuyvesant was a more militant model than some Directors of the West India Company. In fact, the Directors had even rebuked him for passing the 1656 edict without their knowledge, and particularly for arresting several Lutherans (including a minister) under its auspices.

These were not the only departures from the previous version of the Ordinance. The edict of 1656 offered assurances that it “did not intend any constraint of conscience in violation of previously granted patents.” Notably, the Act of 1662 omits any such reassurances. Stuyvesant had already seen the Patent of Flushing, with its “liberty of conscience” guarantee, thrown in his face by the 1657 Flushing Remonstrance, whereby the inhabitants proclaimed themselves exempt from his Quaker bans by virtue of their Charter. To the contrary, Stuyvesant would go on to pass still more restrictive regulations against Quakers and anyone in their sphere of influence.

SOURCES:

“Ordinance Against Conventicles, September 21, 1662.” [N.Y. Col. MSS. X. 221] pp.428-30 in Laws and Ordinances of New Netherland, 1638-1674, ed. & trans. by E.B. O’Callaghan (Albany : Weed, Parsons, & Co., 1868.) Available from Haithi Trust.

Translation, Ordinance Against Conventicles, February 1, 1656: Gehring, C., trans./ed., New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch, Vol. 6, Council Minutes, 1655-1656 (Syracuse: 1995). A complete copy of this publication is available on the New Netherland Institute website.

“Chapter 2: Connivance,” pp.34-81 in New Netherland and the Dutch Origins of American Religious Freedom, by Evan Haefeli. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012).

“William Bradford's Book Trade and John Bowne, Long Island Quaker, as his Book Agent, 1686-1691,” by Gerald D. MacDonald. Offprint, pp.209-222 from Essays Honoring Lawrence C. Wroth (Portland: The Anthoensen Press, 1951).

SEPTEMBER 19, 1662 New Style: Complaints Against John and Mary Tilton, Quakers

CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS AGAINST JOHN AND MARY TILTON, FOR ATTENDING QUAKER MEETINGS

—Continued from September 15, 1662: The Sentence of John Bowne

John Bowne’s arrest did not happen in a vacuum. The documents below, having survived both time and fire, show that he was one of several Quakers caught up in a purge around the same time. John and Mary Tilton were a married couple in Gravesend, Long Island who had long been known to host forbidden religious meetings in their homes.

Complaint against John Tilton for attending Quaker Meetings. New York State Archives Digital Collections. Dutch Colonial Council Minutes, 1638-1665. View & Download

Complaint against Mary Tilton for attending Quaker Meetings. New York State Archives Digital Collections. Dutch Colonial Council Minutes, 1638-1665. View & Download

Criminal Complaint Against John Tilton, a Prisoner, for attending meetings of Quakers

To the Great and Respectful Director-General and Council of New Netherland,

Showeth, reverently, Schout Nicholas de Sille, how that John Tilton, now a prisoner here, continues to frequent all the conventicles of the Quakers, and even permits the Quakers to quake at his house, not remembering the great favor and merciful sentence given by your Honors on the 10th January 1658, nor the sentence pronounced on the 20th January, 1661, by which he was commanded to depart out of this province, on the penalty of corporal punishment, but that he treats it with contempt, and proceeds in his malice, protects that heretical sect, contrary to the orders and placards published on this subject, for which he, as an example for others (being that the Quakers are such forgetting men), ought to be punished; so is it, that the Attorney-General, nominee officin, concludes that John Tilton aforesaid ought to be condemned to a fine of £100 Flanders, and further, to remain in prison until the aforesaid fine shall have been paid, with the costs and fees of justice.

 Done in Fort Amsterdam, 19th September, 1662.

                                                                        Your N, G, and R servant, Nicholas de Sille

Complaint Against Mary Tilton, a Prisoner, for attending meetings of “that abominable sect called Quakers.”

To the Noble, Grand, Respectful Director-General and Council of New Netherland,

Whereas Mary Tilton, wife of John Tilton, now a prisoner here, has dared not only to assist at all the meetings of that abominable sect who are named Quakers, but even has presumed to provide them with lodgings and victuals, and has endeavored to go from house to house, and from one place to the other, and to lure the people, yea, even young girls, to join the Quakers, and already with several succeeded, encouraging and supporting them; so it is highly necessary now, to prevent all calamities, schisms, and confusion, as far as it is possible, that there be a stop put to it, and that such persons be punished, as an example for others, on which the Attorney-General concludes, ex officio, that the aforesaid Mary Tilton shall be condemned in £100 Flanders, and further, to be banished out of the province of New Netherland, and to remain in prison until the sentence shall be satisfied, with the costs and fees of justice. 

Done in Fort Amsterdam, in New Netherland, on the 19th September, 1662.

                                                                        Your N., G., and R. servant, Nicholas de Sille

Notes on the Text

JOHN TILTON:

Nicholas de Sille: the Provincial Schout-Fiscal, similar to Attorney-General. Referred to by Bowne as “the Fiscal.”

conventicles: forbidden religious gatherings held in private homes or other hidden places

“permits the Quakers to quake at his house”: Quaker was originally a derogatory label applied to Friends, whose bodies would quiver and quake with the fear of God when they worshiped or testified.

“the merciful sentence [of] 10th January 1658”: John Tilton had previously been charged with harboring Quakers, in the aftermath of the Flushing Remonstrance. As a first-time offender, he was just charged twelve pounds Flemish (one-half of the usual fine for attending conventicles.)

“the sentence pronounced on the 20th January, 1661”: Tilton had been exiled out of the province on pain of a severe whipping after resuming his Quaker activities in 1661, but clearly he slipped through the cracks and never actually left.

“contrary to the orders and placards”: The text of the Quaker ban has not survived; we know about it from references such as these in court proceedings.

£100 Flanders: Four times the fine assessed to first-time offender John Bowne. Roughly equivalent to $36,000 in contemporary money.

“Your N., G., & R. servant”: Noble, Grand, and Respectful

MARY TILTON

“schisms, calamities, and confusion”: the devout Dutch Reformed officials of New Netherland feared that other sects would lure their citizens away from the “true Church” with false doctrines, potentially jeopardizing their souls. They also believed that God would punish the colony with epidemics, Indian attacks, or other disasters if the populace sinned.

“to be banished out of the province”: Mary’s recommended punishment of £100 and banishment is more severe than John’s, although she has not been sentenced before. One genealogy written by a descendant of Nicholas de Sille notes the Schout-Fiscal “was especially severe on female offenders,” citing a case in which he deported a housewife to Holland stand trial for fighting with another woman, also recommending a prison term for hoisting her petticoat too high in respectable company. De Sille’s comments about “young girls” being enticed to join the Quakers is revealing in this light.

Coming September 20: Bowne must pay to read his own sentence.

REFERENCES

New York State Archives Digital Collections. Dutch Colonial Records. Minutes of the Council of New Netherland, 1638-1664. http://digitalcollections.archives.nysed.gov/index.php/Detail/objects/55296

Religious Society of Friends, “The Early Settlement and Persecution of Friends in America.” Friends’ Intelligencer I, no. 5 (Fifth Month, 15th, 1838): 54-59, 83-87, 102-106. Google Books 

Reference to Nicholas de Sille found in: Kip, Frederick Ellsworth, The Kip Family in America, (Boston: Hudson Printing Co., 1928) 32-3. Internet Archive


SEPTEMBER 15, 1662 New Style (September 5, 1662 Old Style): Sentence of John Bowne for Lodging Quakers

JOURNAL OF JOHN BOWNE: FOLIO 51

—Continued from September 14, 1662: John Bowne On Trial

“So the next morning he came and gave me a writing in Dutch, and told me the Governor had sent me a copy of the Court’s sentence. He was not ashamed of what he did, and if I would I might have it in English. It was that for such and such things I was fined and must pay a hundred and fifty guilders and charges, and other particulars of what must follow if I did so again. I told him I could pay nothing upon that account.

So I was kept there till the 25 day of the month…”

 
Reproduction from Bowne House Archives. Original from NY Historical Society

Reproduction from Bowne House Archives. Original from NY Historical Society

 

Notes on the Text

he came: Schout Resolved Waldron (Deputy Sheriff and head of the military police)

a writing in Dutch: a copy of his sentence (see below)

I might have it in English: The register of Solomon La Chair, notary public of New Netherland, show that on September 20 Bowne was charged another 3 guilders for an English-language copy of his sentence.

150 guilders: 25 pounds Flanders, roughly equivalent to $9,000 in today’s money

upon that account: on those terms

Bowne’s sentence, passed by the Director and Council of New Netherland, has been preserved in the New York State Archives as part of the Dutch Colonial Records. Like many of the Colonial records, it was damaged in the 1911 Capitol Library fire. (The original document, seen below, can also be viewed and downloaded in high-res from the Digital Collections on the NYSA website.)

SENTENCE. JOHN BOWNE, OF FLUSHING, L. I., FOR LODGING QUAKERS, AND ASSISTING AT THEIR MEETINGS -Dutch Colonial Council Minutes, 1638-1665. September 14, 1662

 
 

A full translation of the two-page sentence is not readily available, but the following partial translation gives the gist:

“Whereas John Bowne, now a prisoner, residing in Flushing, on Long Island, has dared, in contempt of our orders and placards... to provide with lodgings some of the heretical and abominable sect named Quakers and even permitted that they keep their forbidden meetings a his house... [we] condemn the aforesaid John Bowne to an amend of twenty-five pounds Flanders and to pay all costs... for the second time, he shall pay double amende, and for the third time to be banished out of the province.”

This penalty appears to be in line with those proposed in the 1656 Ordinance Against Conventicles. Unlike the targeted Quaker bans that followed their 1657 arrival in New Netherland, this earlier law imposes a more general ban on all unauthorized religious gatherings outside the Dutch Reformed Church, which was the official public church of the Netherlands and its colonies. (Read a translation of the text. ) Despite the authorities’ extreme antipathy to the Quakers, and Bowne’s personal confrontation with Stuyvesant over his refusal to doff his hat, he does not seem to have been singled out for unusually harsh treatment.

Bowne and the government had arrived at a stalemate. Even if he had been willing to pay the fine, he would have been forced to discontinue his Quaker worship, or risk the larger fine and ultimately exile. He was left to languish in the Barracks of Fort Amsterdam and contemplate his future. Meanwhile, the dragnet was about to tighten around other Quakers on Long Island- a part of the story that is not often mentioned in accounts of Bowne’s trial.

Coming next: More Long Island Quakers are caught up in the purge.

SEPTEMBER 13, 1662 New Style (September 3, 1662 Old Style): Bowne at Fort Amsterdam

JOURNAL OF JOHN BOWNE: FOLIO 49, VERSO (back)

—Continued from September 12, 1662- The Arrest of John Bowne, Day Two

“So the next day, seeing the Governor about to take horse, I sent the Sergeant of the company to tell him I did desire to speak a few words with him. So the man came and told me in Dutch, and shewed me by his actions, that the General said if I would put off my hat and stand bare-headed he would speak with me. I told him I could not upon that ground. So he sent me word again: then he could not speak with me. So the soldiers did break out in laughter at it.”

(Red star marks the beginning of today’s passage.)

 
Journal of John Bowne, photostatic copy (Bowne House Archives). Original at N.Y. Historical Society.

Journal of John Bowne, photostatic copy (Bowne House Archives). Original at N.Y. Historical Society.

 

Notes on the Text

the Governor: Director-General Peter Stuyvesant, sometimes called “Governor” of New Netherland.

the General: abbrev. of “Director-General”

“if I would put off my hat”: Quaker men were infamous for refusing to doff their wide-brimmed felt hats in deference to their superiors, a custom called the “hat honor.”

This refusal stemmed from their belief in the “Inward Light,” or the spiritual equality of all people, and the corresponding conviction that honor is due only to God. The hat honor was part of an elaborate system of etiquette that also included bowing or curtsying, called “scraping,” and addressing people with honorifics according to their rank and class. These practices governed comportment in the courts, at church, and even in the privacy of the home, which was seen by early Protestants as a microcosm of society. So pervasive was the hat honor in the 17th century that adult sons were expected to always remove their hats in the presence of their fathers, who in turn were expected to keep their heads covered even indoors. Such observances were seen as necessary to uphold the European social order in the 1600s, a time of civil and religious war and social unrest. The Quaker failure to show due respect enraged the authorities on both sides of the Atlantic. Hence Stuyvesant’s refusal to speak to Bowne. The question of hat honor would also loom over Bowne’s trial, set for the following day.

 
George Fox in his Quaker hat. (Library of Congress)

George Fox in his Quaker hat. (Library of Congress)

“Hat, Curtesie, Scraping and Complements … are Customs and Fashions of the World, which will pass away … not that which comes from God.”

- George Fox, founder of the Religious Society of Friends, 1661

 

Such incidents were very much the product of a fleeting historical moment. By the 1680s, people had come to understand that this peculiar stance of the Quakers was not necessarily intended as disrespect or provocation- simply as fidelity to their reading of the Scriptures. No longer a gesture of subversion, it was regarded as merely eccentric.

Next: September 14, 1662 - John Bowne’s trial before Director-General Stuyvesant

REFERENCES

Watkins, Susan Wareham. Hat Honour, Self-Identity and Commitment in Early Quakerism. Quaker History, Vol. 103, No. 1 (Spring 2014), pp. 1-16


SEPTEMBER 12, 1662 New Style (September 2, 1662 Old Style): The Arrest of John Bowne, Day Two

JOURNAL OF JOHN BOWNE: FOLIO 49, VERSO (back)

Continued from September 11, 1662: The Arrest of John Bowne

“So the next day like a wicked hard-hearted man he carried me in a boat to Monhatons, leaving my family in that condition, and put me in the Cort a gard before the Governor’s door…”

Journal of John Bowne, photostatic copy (Bowne House Archives). Original at N.Y. Historical Society.

Journal of John Bowne, photostatic copy (Bowne House Archives). Original at N.Y. Historical Society.

To be continued September 13, 1662.

Notes on the Text

he carried me: “He” being Resolved Waldron, the Schout of New Amsterdam

Monhatons: Manhattan (also known as “Mannados,” “Manahatta,” “Manatus”, “Manhados,” etc.)

leaving my family in that condition: At the time of his arrest the previous day, Bowne and others were nursing his sick wife and child at home. As it was too late in the day to depart for Fort Amsterdam, Waldron left his company of soldiers behind to stand guard over the sickbed scene, while he went drinking in the town until evening. Presumably he and his men then bedded down for the night in this house of contagion. We can only speculate how the soldiers felt about being confined for so many hours in a one-room farmhouse in proximity to two patients “so ill that we kept watch two and three together.”

the Cort a gard: apparently an archaic word for “jail”

the Governor’s door: Peter Stuyvesant was often called “Governor,” though his actual title was “Director-General.” His house is shown just down the street from the Fort on the map below.

“The Towne of Mannados or New Amsterdam,” aka “The Duke’s Plan.” circa 1664. (British Museum)

“The Towne of Mannados or New Amsterdam,” aka “The Duke’s Plan.” circa 1664. (British Museum)

This map, known as “The Duke’s Plan,” shows the layout of New Amsterdam at the time of the British takeover in 1664; it was based on a Dutch original dating from circa 1661. The quadrangular structure at the tip of the island is the Fort where Bowne was taken. Stuyvesant’s nearby residence is labeled as “Governor’s House.” (Note that the top of the map faces East, not North.) “Longe Isleland” barely appears in the frame, illustrating its socially and geographically marginal status in New Netherland. Virtually the only feature identified along its shoreline is the “Passage” through which Waldron would have brought Bowne via the boat, namely the East River. The remoteness of the so-called “out-plantations” left the settlers vulnerable, but also more remote from central authority, leaving room for the smugglers of Oyster Bay and the Quakers of Flushing alike to take root.

Next: September 13, 1662: John Bowne at Fort Amsterdam

"LIVE-BLOGGING" JOHN BOWNE'S TRIAL: 1662-1664

The Bowne House in Flushing, N.Y. was built in 1661 by John Bowne, an English settler in what was then the Dutch colony of New Netherland. Today the Bowne House is the oldest house in the Borough of Queens, and the second-oldest house in all New York. However, its chief significance lies not in its age and original architecture, but in its builder’s courageous stand for religious liberty in the face of persecution.

Starting in Fall 2020, Bowne House will be “live-blogging” John Bowne’s ordeal on behalf of religious freedom in real time, as recorded in his journal and correspondence from September 1662 to April 1664. Bowne House archivist Charlotte Jackson and our research team will flesh out his story with other 17th century voices, ranging from the edicts of New Netherland’s Director Peter Stuyvesant to the correspondence of Quaker leader George Fox. We invite our community to follow the saga of Bowne’s arrest, trial, imprisonment, exile, appeal, and homecoming- in his own words.

 
JB Journal Folio 63 sepia.jpg

“In the year 1662 … on the first day of [ye] seventh month, Resolved the scout came to my house at Vlissing with a company of men with swords and guns (where I was tending my wife being sick in bed and my youngest child sick in my arms…)”

JOHN BOWNE’S JOURNAL, 1 SEPTEMBER 1662

 

The Story of John Bowne’s Trial

John and his wife Hannah belonged to the Religious Society of Friends, popularly known as “Quakers.” In 1662, the couple were hosting Quaker Meetings in the newly constructed Bowne House. However, only the Dutch Reformed Church was legally permitted to hold public worship services in New Netherland. The Quaker faith had been outright banned by Peter Stuyvesant, Director-General of New Netherland- this despite a guarantee of “liberty of conscience” in the Flushing Town Charter. Eventually the magistrates from neighboring Rustdorp informed on Bowne, and he was arrested and put on trial in New Amsterdam. Bowne refused to recant, pay a fine, or agree to discontinue meetings, instead choosing to endure several months of imprisonment, at times on a bread and water diet. In January 1663 he was exiled aboard ship to Europe. Undaunted, he made his way to Amsterdam to appeal his case before the Board of the Dutch West India Company. He carried with him a copy of the Flushing Charter, with its promise of “liberty of conscience.” Although the Directors never gave him the full public endorsement of free worship that he sought, they did rebuke Stuyvesant in writing and order him to cease persecution of the Quakers. Bowne’s challenge to Stuyvesant thus led to an early affirmation of the principle of tolerance in the New World. Bowne was able to return to his family via an arduous eight-month ocean voyage that detoured through the West Indies. Upon his return, he hosted the Flushing Quaker Meeting for the next thirty years. Nine generations of his descendants lived in the Bowne House, preserving their ancestor’s legacy and his commitment to “liberty of conscience.” You can learn more about the House and family on our Bowne House History page.

Bookmark and share this blog, or follow our updates on social media: