Crenshaw File 1B, compiled by Jack Grantham, 10102 Lanshire Drive in the City of Dallas, Texas 75238 -------- A NOTE ON COLONIAL BOUNDARIES In the various jurisdictions given below, it is helpful to know that at the beginning of Virginia colonization, settlers lived on, or near, the rivers and creeks. Jamestown, itself, was set up on a mudflat in the James River. Early records show a minimum amount of horseflesh in the colony. Boats, not horses, were the means of travel. The Chesapeake area was full of sail, as there were no roads by which the people could get around. Small sloops, known a river sloops, with fore and aft rigging were commonplace. They were a smaller size than ocean going sloops which were the principal means of trans-Atlantic crossing, but in the very early days of the colony there is no doubt that the small sloops did make the crossing. They were fashioned in British ship yards. A colonist in Accomack, on the Eastern shore could easily visit Pamunkey Neck or Jamestown, by sail. Accomack was directly across Chesapeake Bay from Pamunkey Neck, and names from Accomack were also names at the Neck, Custis being an example. Colonel Basset whose land lay east of Crenshaw's property and which adjoined Crenshaw's, had his name given to a creek, shown in early records as Colonel Bassett's Landing Creek (see the year 1679 below). It is very likely that Bassett had access, across the river, to his landing because of the ferry whose route was directly from his north side holding to the boat anchorage he held on the south side. Since it was the rivers, such as Pamunkey, which were the real highways, it was common to set county and parish boundaries along the ridges which separated the rivers. Those dwelling along one river, on both sides, were in a common political and religious community, while across the ridge. and on another stream, were those of a different community. Take note of the item of 26 April 1679 when St. Peter's was established. Note how its boundary was laid out, "...by the ridge between the Pamunkey and Mattaponi Rivers." Here is the earliest example of a boundary line in the time when the sloops were everywhere, and when roads hardly existed and what ferries there were, served to move only a few to church or to militia drill practice. But those few were of a common community strung out along its banks and dependant on the river which they shared. The ferrys and river sloops are often mentioned in this world of early Virginia. It was the beginning of a time when people identified with the river, or the creek, or the run, or the bayou, or any stream no matter how small. The land records speak of streams which have long since surrendered their importance except as evidence that an ancestor once lived there. Later this sort of division was abandoned and the rivers themselves became the dividing line between counties and parishes. When that happened those on the north side of the Pamunkey were in one county (King William) and those on the south side of the Pamunkey were in another county (York). A ferry owner was then a man of two counties, his southern terminus in one jurisdiction and his northern terminus in another. Thus we find Thomas Cranshaw in 1704 on the rolls of two taxing authorities. For a man to be taxed at a place did not mean that he lived at that place. Thomas Cranshaw did not live in King William and also live in New Kent at the same time, even though he is on both tax lists in 1704. In order to determine where he lived, the parish records and other records must be studied. ------------------- A NOTE ON PAMUNKEY Narratives of Early Virginia, p. 35: "The Pamunkey country lay between the Pamunkey and Mattapony rivers. At Uttamussick, the Indians had three long arbor-like wigwams, where medicine-men performed their conjurations and incantations. The king of the Pamunkeys was the celebrated Opechancanough, the second brother and second successor of Powhatan. In 1616 he was chosen by the Chickahominies to be their king. He died, at nearly one hundred years of age, in 1646." In old writings the Pamunkey River was known as Youghtamund and the Mattapony was known as Mattapanient. The writings of Captain John Smith and others use these words. Also it is shown in the writings of Captain John Smith that he visited Pamunkey Neck. In Narratives of Early Virginia, p. 47, he states: "The next night I lodged at a hunting town of Powhatans, and the next day arrived at Waranacomoco, upon the river Pamunkey where the great king is resident." The name of the place which Captain Smith renders as Waranacomoco is correctly spelled "Werowocomoco" meaning "the house of the werowance," or capital of the Powhatan confederacy. It was the Indian Town, access to which made necessary the ferry at Crenshaw's place and at Dabney's place. The Werowocomoco, (or Wereowicki), was located on the north side of the river at Portan Bay, about fourteen miles from West Point on the eastern tip of the Neck. A history, King William County, (p. 2) quoting other sources on the Pamunkey Indians and the area where they live, states: "The Pamunkeys alone have withstood intact the encroachments of civilization for nearly three hundred years. And their preservation is all the more noteworthy from the fact that they live by themselves in their peculiar way in such close vicinity to the busy marts and 'effete civilization' of the East. Although their manners are modified, their language lost, and their prestige vanished, they still illustrate in themselves the law of survival of the fittest. The bare fact of their existence is unknown even in many parts of Virginia, and almost wholly unknown elsewhere. "The Pamunkey tribe live in a queer settlement called 'Indian Town,' situated about a mile east of the historic 'White House' (see the note on White House which follows) where George Washington wedded the beautiful Widow Custis. Their reservation, comprising eight hundred acres, ceded to the tribe by the ancient colonial assembly of Virginia, is an odd-shaped neck of land, almost entirely surrounded by one of the serpentine curves of the Pamunkey River, tributary to the York River, and not far from the junction of the two...There are only ninety Pamunkeys actually present on the reservation proper, and thirty-five more residing on another small reservation twelve miles northward on the Mattapony River, besides twenty others employed during the summer as boatmen on steamers plying the Virginia rivers, making a total of one hundred and forty-five Pamunkeys now living. In appearance they are distinguished by the usual copper-colored skin, straight, coarse hair and dark eyes. They are not particularly strong or robust and their average longevity is less than that of their white and colored neighbors." ---------- NOTE ON WHITE HOUSE In Vestry Book of Blisland Parish, introduction p. lvi, "It is a well-known fact that George Washington's wife, Martha (Dandridge) Custis, was a native of New Kent County, and that at the time of her marriage to Colonel Washington she was the mistress of the White House Plantation on Pamunkey River, in St Peter's Parish, New Kent. It is also well-known that Anna Maria Dandridge, Mrs Washington's sister, was the wife of Colonel Burwell Bassett, of 'Eltham,' in Blisland Parish, New Kent County. Under the circumstances it was natural that Washington stopped frequently and visited somewhat widely in New Kent when traveling through that county on his many trips from "Mr. Vernon" to Williamsburg and back again. Among the entries in Washington's diaries mentioning people, homes, and churches in New Kent County visited by him between 7 May 1768, and 16 Nov 1773, are the following (they are not listed here), which are taken from John C. Fitzpatrick's, The Diaries of George Washington, 1748-1799. CHRONOLOGY OF PAMUNKEY NECK LAND DISPUTE 1653 Early history of Blisland Parish, once the parish of John Granger and his wife. Blisland is a word more commonly used in England and means 'happy land.' A prefatory note in Vestry Book of Blisland Parish, New Kent and James City Counties 1721-1786, "During almost the entire period covered by this Vestry Book (1721-1786) Blisland Parish was partly in present New Kent County and partly in present James City County. The records of both of which, prior to 1865, have been destroyed." During the time when the American Civil War began, the court records were sent to Richmond for safekeeping and were destroyed there when the city fell and was occupied by the aggressor. On page x is this note, "Parish can be traced to 1653." That it was in existence prior to 1653 may be found in the wording of a land patent issued 13 Oct 1653 to Thomas Dunketon, "...in York County, Blisland Parish." 1653 "The Assembly ordered that the commissioners of York County remove any person then seated upon the territory of the Pamunkey or Chickahominy Indians." W.Stitt Robinson, Jr. Mother Earth, Land Grants in Virginia 1607-1699, (1957, The University Press, Charlottesville). 1667 Valentine, p. 2252, footnotes an item which mention Thomas Crenshaw and Ed. Crenshaw as headrights in a patent issued 9 Oct 1667 to William Wickman for land in Accomack County and gives as authority for this Register of the Land Office, Patent Book 6, page 82. This footnote has been the source of an incorrect belief that the first Crenshaws in America were these two men Thomas and Edward Crenshaw. William Niesen researched this in 1989 and found that the headrights were not for persons named Crenshaw but were for Thomas Trenchard and Edward Tremain. Also the name Wickman seems to have been confused from Hickman. The staff of the Virginia State Library reported to him that "The names of the headrights to be unclear. One could make an equal case for the names Trenchard and Tremain as abstracted by Nugent or as Crenchard and Cremain. The original book is very faint, and it is difficult to read the names." Also the staff of the Valentine Museum searched the manuscript and found no further entry concerning this faux patent. 1673 There was christened on 1 March 1673, at Sutton by Croyden in County Surrey, England a child named Thomas Crenshaw, son of John Crenshaw. (From the research of Annie Crenshaw, Wetumpka, AL). 1678 Vestry Book of St. Peter's Parish, ed. C.G. Chamberlayne (1931), in its Introduction, p. xv ff. "Sometime during the year 1678 the Vestry of Blisland Parish, having first obtained the consent of the whole parish thereto, made a division of the parish, the lower part retaining the name Blisland, the new parish being called St. Peter's." (from p. 14 of the old Vestry Book.) 1678 26 June 1678 "Cockacoewe, Queen of Pamunkey, to Colonel Morryson, on 26 June 1678, considers the King of England to be her very good friend and promises to be faithful to him. Her only friends are Morryson, the interpreter Cornelius Dabney and Colonel Bacon." Found in Bacon's Rebellion, Abstracts of Material, by John Neville, page 89. 1679 25 April 1679 Found in the London Record Office and published in English Duplicates of Lost Virginia Records.p. 58 is an Order of the Assembly at Jamestown giving eight men first choice when the King disposes to lands in Pamunkey Neck. No doubt the eight had purchased the lands and awaited royal approval of what they had done in an illegal transaction with the Indians. Langston's 600 acres is included among them. This is only a few days prior to the time that the Assembly established the new boundary for St Peter's. 1679 29 April 1679 St. Peter's Parish was established by the court with its boundary, "...on the north east by the ridge between the Pamunkey and the Mattaponi Rivers. On the south east by John's (or Jack's) Creek (north of the Pamunkey) and by a line beginning at Captain Basset's Landing Creek (south of the Pamunkey). On the south west by the ridge between the Pamunkey and Chickahominy Rivers." There was no boundary established on the north west side, the parish extending in that direction indefinitely. 1680 8 June 1680 Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia, Volume II, 1659-1693. At a General Assembly held at Jamestown in the 32nd year of the reign of King Charles II, there was presented a petition of the inhabitants of Pamunkey Neck praying that they may be made a parish, and that part of that Neck belongs to St. Peter's parish so far as John's Creek and to the ridge of the Neck. The Assembly granted the petition and said, "...they have liberty to make a parish downwards from the said John's Creek and so up the ridge on Mattapony side.." 1684 Vestry Book of St Peter's begins with an entry which states that William Atkinson, "keep the parish ferry...to a former order in the usual place..." For the first 13 years of its history, St. Peter's Parish embraced territory on both sides of the Pamunkey. Although few in number those north of the river were provided a parish ferry so they could attend services and appear at court and be present when the county militia was mustered. Those on the south side were in New Kent County. The last mention of the ferry in the Vestry Book is in 1691 when King and Queen County was erected and all of St. Peter's north of the Pamunkey (in what is now King William County) was cut off and annexed to St. John's Parish. 1685 Vestry Book of St. Peter's, p. xviii, "there were two churches in St. Peter's Parish in 1685." They were known as the Lower Church and the Upper Church. Upper Church may be the one known as Warranay Church which has a long history. Exact location of Lower Church is not known but was not far from Black Creek which empties into the Pamunkey. Lower Church was used until 1703 when the present St. Peter's was built. 1688 24 May 1688, St Peter's Vestry Book. The names of Cornelius Dabney and John Parke, Sr. appear at a meeting of the Vestry. 1688 September 12-25, 1688 Calendar of State Papers of Virginia, by Henning The names, John Granger & wife appear in the Proceedings of the Vestry, concerning the dividing line between the Parish of Blisland and Parish of St. Peters. This is the case of John Womack vs Jno. Granger and wife--action for slander. Vestry Book of Blisland Parish, p. xviii '...no document has been found linking the name of Blisland Parish with any part of the territory to the north of the line of these two rivers [York and Pamunkey]". Therefore in September 1688 John Granger was not in Pamunkey Neck. 1689 15 Feb 1689 Men of Matadequin, p.20 by June Evans (1984) quotes The Parish Vestry Book of St. Peters Parish,(p. 14) that the parish provided residents of Pamunkey Neck with a ferry service, and said that it, " ...is ordered by this vestry yt Mr Pargister doe ferry over ye people of ye neck belonging to this parish on Sundays, Court days and Mustering days..." Evans also notes that "the number of inhabitants living on the opposite side of the river was probably small, since the controversy over whether the Pamunkey Indians had the right to sell land to Englishmen was not acted upon by the government." 1689 4 May 1689 The Vestry of St Peters ordered a processioning of land in the parish to take place between 10 May and 10 June 1689. Named as inhabitants of St Peter's and "In Pamunkey Neck" were: Mrs Susana Page, Thomas Spencer, Thomas Carr, Francis Page, and fifteen others. Listed for processioning, but not shown as resident in the Neck were many others including William Bassett, Jr., Elizabeth Littlepage, George Pargister, John Mask, Edward Burnett, a man named Mr. Dabney, the widow Butler, Thomas Moorman, and others but neither the names Granger, or Cranshaw was shown. Evans, in her listing of those whose lands were to be processioned made the following comment (page 21 of her volume) on this large body of names of parishoners of St Peter's in 1689. This statement bears upon the Granger to Cranshaw spelling of the family name which continued for several generations. Tracing the spelling against the pronunciation of the Crenshaw name requires a study of its orthography, whereby local speech affects spelling. Evans refers to the elasticity of these spellings in her mention of "vowel shift" in the area along the Pamunkey. "The list is given as transcribed by C.G. Chamberlayne from the original manuscript; spelling was not constant through several generations, and the clerk's handwriting is not always easy to read. For example, the vestryman William Pasley is sometimes referred to in the vestry book as Peasley, Pasly, Peasly, Pasley, Paslay, Paisley,--and is not spelled Parsley; these spellings suggest not only the vowel shift taking place during this period but also regional pronunciations brought from England. For this reason, to copy Chamberlayne's transcription verbatim may provide assistance in identifying original inhabitants of New Kent County." Robert Peasley whose relationship to William Peasley is not known acted as interpreter to the Pamunkey Indians. William and Mary Quarterly, first series, Volume III, p. 271 ff, gives a list of names which are spelled one way but pronounced another way in Colonial Virginia. Among names on that list is the name spelled Crenshaw but pronounced Granger in colonial Virginia. Also the name spelled Hairston but pronounced Harston. 1690 Executive Journals, Council of Colonial Virginia, Volume I, page 136. "An Order of the Council, dated 26 July 1690 was carried out by Captain Mathew Page with others who were his neighbors, to examine what quantity of land George Pargitor had bought of the Pamunkey Indians in Pamunkey Neck, and what houses he had built thereon, and making report that the said Pargitor held about twelve hundred acres of land, which he purchased of the Pamunkey Indians (as it is said) and that he had built a forty foot tobacco house on the same, and kept two hands there, all which being contrary to law it is ordered that the said Pargitor forthwith cause the said house to be burnt, and his purchase is hereby declared void, and it is further ordered that the Sheriff of New Kent County serve the said Pargitor with this order, and that the court of said County of New Kent doe make enquiry what persons are seated on any land in their county contrary to Act of Assembly or Order of this Board, how long they have been seated on the same, and the number of Tithables in every of their familyes, and return a report of their proceedings to Mr. Secretaries Office." 1691 Vestry Book St Peter's Introduction by Chamberlayne, p. xvi states that when the Act of Assembly in, April 1691, established the county of King and Queen, it cut off all the territory lying north-east of the Pamunkey and annexed it to St John's Parish (established in 1680 or later), thus making St. John's Parish include the whole of Pamunkey Neck i.e., the present King William County and the other counties lying between the Mattaponi and the north fork (North Anna River) of the Pamunkey. The text of the Law which Chamberlayne refers to is published in Statutes Of Virginia, Volume III, by Henning, page 94. The reason given for the division of New Kent County and creation of the new county of King and Queen was said to be, "...the difficulty in passing the river." This was a hint of the potential for trans-Pamunkey traffic and thus the need for ferry operations. 1691 Statutes of Virginia, Volume III, p 94: "That the aforesaid county of New Kent be divided into two distinct counties, so that the Pamunkey River divide the same, and so down York river to the extent of the county, and that the part which is now on the south side of York and Pamunkey River be called New Kent, and that the north side with Pamunkey Neck be called and known by the name of King and Queen County. And that the inhabitants of Pamunkey Neck that now belong to St Peter's Parish be restored and added to St John's Parish, from which they formerly were taken, and that Pamunkey River be the bounds betwixt the two parishes." 1692 The exact year is not certain to determine the date of the baptism of young Thomas, but the decade of the 1690's is accurate. Probably it is 1692 as another entry that page is so dated. Record of the baptism: "Thomas, son to Thomas Cranshaw, baptized the 25th December 169[]." The above entry in St. Peter's Parish Register, which shows the baptism of "Thomas, son to Thomas Cranshaw" on Christmas Day 169- is the earliest indication of the presence of Thomas Cranshaw in the area. Because the entry is in the Register of St Peters, (although the year is not certain) it is assumed that Cranshaw was not then resident in Pamunkey Neck, but dwelt south of the Pamunkey River on land inherited from his father. Those north of the Pamunkey River were in St John's parish after the Act of Assembly in 1691. Colonial baptisms usually took place within a month or two of birth, and rarely were postponed more than six months. There are several factors which suggest the youthfulness of Thomas of Pamunkey Neck. The date that two of his children were baptized indicated he married in late 1680s or early 1690s and produced his family of at least four children (probably five) by the start of the new century. There is also evidence that the accumulation of some of his property was also during this decade. He built up his business at the time he was probably moving from his late twenties into his thirties. The Quit Rent Rolls of 1704 found him about age thirty five, or perhaps a year or two older than that. In considerations bearing on his age, it is likely that the 1699 paper in London, shows Thomas was in a generation much younger than that of the eight men who were beneficiaries of the Indians after the treaty of 1677. In other words Thomas Crenshaw was in the generation of the sons of the original purchasers of Pamunkey Neck property. His father would have been about the same age as John Langston and perhaps younger by a decade than Cornelius Dabney. That Cornelius Dabney was a generation older than Thomas is evident. Those who initially negotiated the land purchase with the Indians were probably in their prime, but by 1699 several had died. For example the London document lists Thomas Bell, Cornelius Dabney, John Sexton, Peter Adams, Ambrose Lipscombe and Richard Yarborow as deceased, and their property passing to heirs or to men such as Cranshaw and McAllister who had purchased it. McAllister had obtained some of Yarborow's land. The most convincing evidence of Thomas' age is the military record of his son Joseph, who may have been the youngest of all his children. The marriage alliance of John Crenshaw with a granddaughter of Cornelius Dabney moves the generations far away from the possibility that Thomas was a freeholder in 1667. 1693 3 April 1693, at a meeting of the Council of Virginia and recorded in Executive Journal, Council of Virginia, under that date: "Upon representation of the surveying or not surveying the lands in Pamunkey Neck. His Excellency, by advice in Council doth order that Mr James Mings doe attend on his Excellency in Council in James City the 20 day of this instant, when to bring with him, all papers and matters relating thereto." 1693 31 Oct 1693 in the dated entry in Calendar of State Papers of Virginia which removed certain restrictions on patenting certain lands on the South Side of Black Water Swamp and Pamunkey Neck. "The inhabitants of the County being 'hindered from taking up and patenting lands on the South Side of Black Water Swamp, occasioned by an order of the General Court, &c -- The House of Burgesses, in consideration thereof, 'humbly submit and pray' his Excellency, Sir Edmond Andros, their Majesties Governor, &c, 'that ye said restraint on the surveyors may be taken of, and ye inhabitants be permitted to enter & take up any of ye said lands, & likewise any of the lands in Pamunkey Neck, &c." [If the year of the baptism record of his son is correctly assumed to have been Christmas Day 1692, then Thomas Cranshaw was in Pamunkey Neck following that rite but prior to the time of the above entry of October 1693, because Thomas Cranshaw was one of the "inhabitants hindered from taking up land...likewise any of the lands in Pamunkey Neck."] 1695 Malcolm H. Harris in his volume Old New Kent, p.809 lists the large tracts on the Pamunkey River, beginning with the place of Francis Page, "and going upwards." His list shows William Bassett with 1,000 acres over against the land of Charles Edmonds, and next to Bassett he places Ralph Wormley, who patented on 25 Oct 1695 land described, at that time, as 13,500 acres adjoining Page's land, Goodwin's Creek, the Pamunkey River, Dabney's land, Langston's land, and Captain Bassett. Take care to note that this 1695 land description did not mean that Langston resided on this property at that time. Lands were usually described by the name of the first person to have patented the tract and the presence of Langston's name can only be read as that of the first one to own that tract. The date when Langston sold to Crenshaw was prior to 1699 and following 1680, but it is not clear that it was after 1695. Legislative Journals of the Council of Colonial Virginia, Volume I, gives an entry which came before the Council on 10 June 1680, holding that Langston was not capable, by law, to serve as Burgess of New Kent. Langston was expelled for taking part in Bacon's Rebellion. No evidence exists of him in the Quit Rent Rolls of 1704 which is the closest thing to a census available near that time. The June 1699 report of the Committee shows that the land had been sold to Thomas Crenshaw sometime prior to the committee's investigation. 1698 25 Feb 1698, the Executive Journals, Council of Colonial Virginia, state that an order was issued, "that all Sheriffs of the several Counties do make proclamation within their respective counties, that all persons who have any claim to make to any lands in Pamunkey Neck shall lay such claim before his Excellency and the Council by the end of the next General Court." In a meeting of the Council held 21 June 1699 it was ordered that all Sheriffs do make proclamation that the Commissioners will sit and proceed to settle claims to lands in Pamunkey Neck on 27 September 1699. 1699 21 Jan 1699, an entry in the register of St Peters, "Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas Granger, baptized the 21 Jan 1699." ThIs is probably Thomas Cranshaw again, still resident in St Peter's, and thus on the south side of the river when his daughter was baptized, the same situs as when his son Thomas Cranshaw was baptized seven years before. A search for other evidence of a Granger family in this vicinity has come up empty handed except for evidence of the John Granger who is thought to be the father of Thomas Cransha (or Gransha) and donor of the land on which Thomas lived south of the river in St Peter's Parish. For more on John Granger see the entry above for September 1688. Also take note that, in 1923, The Virginia Historical Magazine published the Quit Rent Roll of New Kent County. That list contains many names, but Granger is not one of them despite the use of the Granger name in connection with the baptism of "Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas Granger" in January 1699. The name of Cranshaw (or Gransha) also does not appear if it is insisted that modern spelling practice be the only standard of authenticity. What does appear is this entry: "Granchaw [no doubt our propositus], Tho. 400 acres." This is not the sole reason why it is necessary for Crenshaw researchers to expand their search for evidence of early Crenshaw presence in the colonies. This name is clearly spelled with a G as Granger is, yet it is obviously the same man who increased his holdings with the purchase from Mr Langston. Even when the land patented in 1701 is accounted for, it is evident that Thomas Cranshaw, by whatever spelling, had come into additional land, and was then in possession of tracts on both sides of the river. This extra 180 acres was in the same county (New Kent) with the others, but other than that, we do not know its origin. 1699 A document dated June 1699, found (1957) in The Public Record Office, London by Cognets gives the report of a committee for examining claims in Pamunkey Neck and on the South Side of Blackwater Swamp (this found in English Duplicates of Lost Virginia Records), reveals that eight men, Langston included, had purchased from the Queen of the Pamunkey lands which were located in Pamunkey Neck, on the far side of the Pamunkey River. The date of this purchase by the eight men is given as being confirmed to them 25 April 1679. These lands would have been located in St John's Parish according to the Act of 1691 establishing that St Peter's was to be exclusively south of the Pamunkey River, but were in St Peter's when that parish came into being in 1688. The document of 1699 names Thomas Cranshaw as purchasing 150 acres of the 600 belonging to Langston. Although Cranshaw is shown as having land north of the river, he apparently did not live there in 1699, but used the land as a ferry landing. Andrew McAllister and the Dabneys are also named as purchasers. 1701 25 April 1701 A patent to Thomas Cranshaw for 150 acres in Pamunkey Neck in King and Queen County, adjoining Pamunkey River and a branch. For transporting 3 persons. This patent was a formality of the Burgesses and made in order to clear title to the land in Pamunkey Neck. There is no collateral record that shows Thomas to have imported any persons including himself. This is the same 150 acres he purchased from Langston. 1703 Recorded 31 January 1703 in Book XI, as shown in Valentine Papers, p. 364: Thomas Crenshaw, of St John's Parish, King William County, Planter. To his son John Crenshaw, of aforesaid Parish and County. "The plantation whereon I now dwell lying & being and situate in King William County, containing by estimation 150 acres of land being along the river bounded as followeth, Beginning at a red oak NW along the river to the college branch etc., for which said Thomas Crenahaw had a patent granted to him." No doubt that 'the plantation wherein I now dwell' is in Pamunkey Neck, 'Thomas Crenshaw of St John's Parish, King William County' is Pamunkey Neck. 1703 Valentine Papers, p. 365. Thomas Crenshaw of St Johns Parish deeds to Robert Crenshaw, Deed of Gift, unto my son John Crenshaw, 31 January 1703, Witnessed by Thomas West, Robert Napier, John Rloyne. The gift deed dated 31 Jan 1703 mentions both John and Robert Crenshaw. John is the oldest son of Thomas and he married a granddaughter of Cornelius Dabney. Robert may have been a fifth child of Thomas and the baby brother of John. There was a Robert Crenshaw who married (24 Jan 1830) Elizabeth Hatch in Henrico County, identity not established although certainly of the same family. 1704 Quit Rent Rolls for 1704 show Thomas Cranshaw was the owner of 150 acres in King William County and an additional 480 acres in New Kent County. Prior to the preparation of the Quit Rent Roll of 1704 an act was passed creating the county of King William from territory ceded to it by the county of King and Queen. All of Pamunkey Neck fell into the new county of King William. The tax (Quit Rent) roll for New Kent, mentioned in the preceding paragraph is printed in Volume XXXI, Virginia Historical Magazine, (1923) p. 215 ff. The abstractor copied the name as Granchaw, and bracketed that with Crenshaw. This list of names is shown in the heading as a roll "...of lands of her Majesty in the Parish of St Peters & St Paul, Anno 1704." The Quit Rent Roll for the same year but in King William County spells the name Cranshaw. 1704 St. Peter's Parish divided, the upper (or north western) portion being established as St. Paul's Parish, the dividing line between the two parishes (Matadequin Creek) which in 1720 became also the dividing line between New Kent County and the newly created County of Hanover, became St. Peter's N.W. boundary line. Take note that St. Peter's had suffered a loss of territory in 1691 when the County of King and Queen was established when territory of St. Peter's north of the Pamunkey was included in the territory of St. John's, making all of Pamunkey Neck (present day King William County) in St. John's Parish. It is noteworthy that the cession of territory from St. Peter's to the St. John's marked the tendency to use the rivers as boundaries instead of the ridge lines between the rivers. Those dwelling on one side of the river being in one county or parish and those on the far side being in a different county or parish. (See the item on Colonial Boundaries, page 1 of this file. 1704 Valentine Papers, p. 364 "Isaac ? Granshaw, Pr. several other things as pr the account, the answer in chancery amounting to L68:1:0; per Richard Gessedge, etr of Isod Granshaw L20;12:0 4th Dec 1704. Signed Martin Palmer, Henry Madison, John Waller. Book XI." This entry is not clear, but Mr Richard Gessedge is shown as etr, possibly executor, but more likely assignor of Isod Granshaw, and on behalf of Isod is petitioning (Pr) the court to answer a Chancery hearing. (See the entry of 10 July 1704.) Isod, or Isaac Carnshaw is not dead on 4 Dec 1704, as the entry in 1705 refers to money due him the following April. He is dead, however, by 10 July 1705, and left a widow at that time in New Kent. She probably was residing on his 200 acre plantation. There is no extant record of his purchase of this place so it may be assumed that he inherited it, or his wife did so. 1705 Recorded on 10 July 1705 and reported in Valentine Papers, p. 365. Will of Isaac Carnshaw, i.e. Carnshaw of St John's Parish, King William County, bequeaths to friend Capt. John Walker L18:15: sterling money which lyeth in the hands Thos. Corbin & Richard Lee, merchants in London as by accounts under their hands, doth appeare dated in London the 6th April 1705; beloved wife Honnour, my plantation and land called Reedy Branch on Catopollomay Creek in New Kent County, containing 200 acres. Witnesses, Philip Whitehead, Wm. Chadwick, David M. Woodroofe. 1706 In Calendar of Virginia State Papers, Volume I, p. 105 and dated 6 August 1706 a message to his Excellency, E. Nott, Esquire, Her Majesties Governor General of Virginia. "Wee, the Queen & great men of Pamunkey Towne, in King William County, humbly show-- "That whereas, your petitioner did formerly exhibit a petition to this honorable Court, praying that the several lands sold by us to her Majesties subjects might be confirmed to the several purchasers thereof, & that a patent might be granted to us, our heirs and successors for the remainder; and for as much as we can understand the greatest part of those lands are already confirmed; Wherefore your petitioners, in most humble wise, supplicate your Excellency, that if any purchaser or purchasers, have not the land laid out & confirmed with any of them have purchased of us, that your Excellency would be pleased to order for the surveying & patenting the same, and that a patent may be granted to us, our heirs, and successors for the remainder, and we (as in duty bound) shall ever pray. Worded as a petition, the above sounds more like a manifesto which proclaimed the end of the land controversy in Pamunkey Neck and ordered official surveys as we "shall ever pray." 1748 An Act of the House of Burgesses in 1748 regulated the fees charged by ferrymen and it specifically mentions a ferry "...from Thomas Crenshaw's to the usual landing place." It was grouped with others on York River. The fare for a man was set at three pence on Crenshaw's ferry and an equal amount for his horse. The ferry of George Dabney, which was nearby, but was said to cross the Pamunkey, and not the York had the same charges as Crenshaw's. However another ferry over the Pamunkey at the place of Richard Littlepage was twice as costly. The names Dabney and Littlepage appear on the list of land patents of a half-century before. It was said by one author that the names which are currently found on mailboxes in Pamunkey Neck are the same names which were listed, in ancient days, on the old petitions and which were seen in the records with, "...Wee the Queen and great men of Pamunkey..." <<>> The evidence suggests: 1.) Thomas Cranshaw, his name spelled with a G in some cases, was probably the son of John Granger & wife who were resident in the same parish as Thomas. Isaac Cranshaw was probably a brother of Thomas, and he was also from the same parish. 2.) John Granger dwelt south of the Pamunkey River as Thomas did until about 1693, and then may have had a dual residency not uncommon for a ferryman. The early records, and those which may be considered pre-ferry records always show Thomas Cranshaw as from the south side of the river. 3.) Ferry operations were limited at the beginning of the term shown in the above chronology. George Pargitor may have been the sole ferryman until the Queen of the Pamunkey sold off some Pamunkey land to the original eight. That sale to the eight introduced a larger population north of the river, thus enhancing ferry traffic. 4.) The property of John Granger was inherited by Thomas who used the dwelling place of John Granger as his own dwelling place for several years. Although Thomas owned the land he purchased from Langston, he used it only as a ferry landing until its title was cleared up. In 1704 Thomas is taxed for the property he bought from Langston as well as the property in New Kent. There is no record of a purchase of the New Kent land, which adds to the probability he inherited it. 5.) Valentine's discovery of Robert Cranshaw, in records which mention John Crenshaw, indicate Thomas had sons John, Thomas, Jr., Joseph and Robert and also a girl Elizabeth. 6) The ferry was still in operation in 1748 and known as Crenshaw's ferry.