Court Action of Henry the Immigrant Against Alexander Swan

Present Day Lancaster County Courthouse (2004)

I have seen several transcriptions of the 1706/1707 court action of Henry the Immigrant against Alexander Swan, but often they are incorrect or incomplete. Below is my own exact (to the extent possible) transcription, archaic spelling and all, taken from the original record at the Lancaster County court house. Brackets enclose my comments, "(er)" stands for a special symbol used by the Lancaster clerk for the letters "er," "y" is the thorn when used in "y^e" (The). The year of 1707 in the reference is from the Gregorian Calendar. The record actually gives a year of 1706 for the court proceedings. 

Court of 12 Mar 1707, Lancaster County, Virginia, Order Book 5, 1690-1713, pp. 168A-168B.

Att a Court held for Lancaster County the 12^th day of March 1706/7 att y^e Court House there from her Maj^ts [Majesty’s] Justices (viz)
Cap^t. Henry Fleet                       Capt Alexd(er) Swan
Maj Edwin Lyler                       Cap^t Richd Ball
Capt Wm Ball                            m(er) Tho: Carter
 . . .
[Margin] Tapscott Swan
Whereas Henry Tapscott Exhibited a Peticon [Petition] to this Court ag(ent) [against] Alexdr Swan And in y^e sd peticon Sett forth that he y^e sd Henery came into this Country und(er) the tuition of Cap^t. Jeffry Baylie in the ship in the ship [sic] Wm. & Orian a free passenger on y^e 12^th day of Jan(er)y Last was seaven years and being desirous to stay in y^e Country y^e sd Jeffery Baylie condescended to lett yo(er) pet(er) [petitioner] stay with Capt Swan who writt Letters to yo(er) Pet(er)s mother to give her Consent that yo(er) pet(er) should be with him until yo(er) Pet(er) arived to one & twenty yeares of age And the sd Cap^t. Alexd(er) Swan caused Indentures to be made for Eight yeares and procured yo(er) pet(er)s consent to Signe y^e same And now detaines yo(er) pet(er) A servant without y^e Consent of ye(er) pet(er)s mother to his great prejudice as appeares by Letters from und(er) her own hand. Wherfore yo(er) petr being ordered to come home for England, by his mother, He therefore humbly prays that y^e sd Cap^t. Alexd(er) Swan may be Cited to this Court to shew Cause if any he can why he detaines yo(er) pet(er) & that thereupon yo(er) Worships will please to ord(er) him to be discharged from the servis of the sd Swan and to allow him for his servis what yo(er) worships in yo(er) Consideracon shall think meet & Convenient And the sd Cap^t Alexd(er) Swan being present att Court att ye reading of y^e sd peticon Appeared agt: ye sd Henery and produced the Indenture aforesd :for ye terme aforesd: Certified und(er) the hand of major Wm Lister one of her Maj^ts Justices for the sd County of the free consent of the sd Henery thereto. And upon all the arguments insisted upon on both sides. It appeareing at y^e Court that y^e mother of y^e sd Henery confided in y^e sd Alexd(er) Swan that y^e sd Hen(er)y should serve no Longer than twenty one years as appeares by her Letter dated Febry the 27th 1706 by which Letter it alsoe appeares that y^e sd Henry was of the age of twenty one years y^e 27th of August last past And further that forasmuch as y^e sd Indenture expressed noe consideracon for the servis of the sd Henery It is therefore ordered that y^e sd Henry be henceforth discharged from the servis of the sd Alexd(er) Swan claimed by virtue of the sd Indenture
From which ord(er) the sd Alexd(er) Swan appeales to ye ninth day of the next Gen(er): [General] Court to be held by Her Majestys Hon(er)able president & Councile of state at the Royale Capittole in y^e Citty of Williamsburgh and hath given security to conform to y^e Laws in that case made & provided un(er) Jn^o. Torbervill serving.

Proof, Fact, or Conclusion?

Today, I received an email that included the following:

I have just been made aware that you have ascribed a James Edney as the father of Ann Edney Tapscott George. I have already seen several Tapscott descendants listing that as fact. That you found a person named James with a daughter Ann somewhere in the vicinity would not hold water if a person is going to attempt membership in any reputable historical or genealogical organization. There would need to be a paper trail to firmly establish that, such as a deed or will in which he named Ann Tapscott or George as his daughter. It would be better to say that it is plausible that he is her father with the qualifying statement that it is not a proven fact. We have to consider the possibility that Ann could have been brought into the country under the same conditions that Henry came; under the sponsorship of the captain of a ship just in time for Henry to be searching for a wife.

To me this was a pleasant surprise. Why “pleasant”? It means that there are some “researchers” who rely on more than leaps of faith or unsourced trees, both abominations to me. In fact, I am only upset by one thing in the email — the statement that “I have just been made aware …” The first edition of Henry the Immigrant with the James Edney conclusion (not “fact") was published in 2006, ten years ago!

I have partially addressed some of the Ann Edney question in my blog of 5 Jan 2016 “The Elusive Miss Ann,” but something more is needed. The second edition of my book Henry the Immigrant contains ten pages of information and reasoning about Ann Edney and her marriage to Henry with more than 100 sources provided in footnotes (pp. 48-57), far too much to be put in a blog. If any of you would like a free electronic pdf copy of the book, send me an email and I will immediately return a copy as an attachment.

It is not always necessary that there be “a deed or will” if the evidence is sufficiently strong. No one doubts the existence of the atom, but who has seen one? Although my book never uses the words “proven” or “proof” for Ann Tapscott's parentage, the Board for Certification of Genealogists provides a list of requirements for a statement to have sufficient credibility to be “proved”:

1. Reasonably exhaustive research;
2. complete, accurate citations to the source or sources of each information item;
3. tests—through processes of analysis and correlation—of all sources, information items, and evidence;
4. resolution of conflicts among evidence items and
5. a soundly reasoned, coherently written conclusion.

1. Was there reasonably exhaustive research? I have been to Northumberland and Lancaster County Courthouses several times (in one case spending more than a week on site), reviewing ALL of the court records between 1700 and 1727 (and, of course, outside this time period) and also several trips to the Library of Richmond in Virginia, which maintains microfilms of court records in Lancaster and Northumberland Counties. The book, Henry the Immigrant, contains 2514 sources, nearly all original, contemporary, or from academic historians. Out of these only two family trees are referenced. I refer to one of these as “questionable.” I cite the other only to show that it is ridiculous.

2. All citations are 100% complete. Don’t believe me? Get a pdf file of the book and let me know if you find any incomplete citations.

3. Testing is a matter of opinion. However, the probable ages of Henry’s wife and James Edney’s daughter based on various records (e.g., guardianships, usual marriage ages) are approximately the same, the geographic location of both is the same, associates are the same, dates correspond, etc. Note that Henry and James Edney were not “somewhere in the vicinity.” They appear to have been in what became the Wicomico Parish 6th Processioning Precinct as laid out in 1711.

4. There are NO conflicts, not one, a fact pointed out in the statement in my book that “there is no negative evidence, nothing that needs be explained away.”

5. The conclusion? Rather than repeating what has already been printed, I urge that you refer to the blog of 5 Jan 2016 “The Elusive Miss Ann,” for a synopsis of the evidence from my book. And the synopsis ends with a conclusion, not a “fact”: “The evidence detailed below allows us to conclude that Ann Edney, the daughter of James Edney of Wicomico Parish, and Ann Tapscott, the wife of Henry, were one and the same.”

Again, I could not be more pleased about an email. Some people are thinking for themselves. Perhaps some day we can have an academically oriented “Tapscott Conference.”

Several people have asked about the 2nd edition of my book Henry the Immigrant: The First Tapscotts of Virginia. I am pleased to report that the second edition, which answers some questions in the first edition, corrects some errors (admittedly few), and carries the lineage from the first Henry Tapscott another generation or so, is essentially completed. However, it will be a while before it is printed. I advise that you watch this site to find the publication date. I also will be posting new information on the Tapscott line that I come across.