Return to Home Page


"First Settlers of Ye Plantations of Piscataway and Woodbridge of Olde East New Jersey", by Ora Eugene Monnette, 10/9/1995/KDS

p533, Much of the Woodbridge Town Records were vandalized and destroyed before being received by the Hist. Society.

pp101-102, Oath of Allegiance to Lord King Charles and the Lords Proprietors taken by the inhabitants of Elizabeth Town beginning Feb 19, 1665:

pp103-104, Names and dates of additional Elizabethtown settlers prior to 1700:

pp81,101-102, "Oath of Aleageance and Fidelitie" taken by the inhabitants of Woodbridge beginning Feb 27, 1667/8:

p82, Persons receiving patents in Woodbridge from the Proprietors, principally in the year 1670:

p85, Persons migrating from Newbury, MA to Woodbridge (per genealogical notes).

pp88-89, Population list resulting from the Dutch oath of allegiance which was administered to all of the residents of Woodbridge and Piscataway in 1673:

pp205-209, East New Jersey Patents, Land Grants, Etc. (per Olde East NJ Land Grants, p61):

pp89-93, List constructed by Monnette of the first time each person appears in any of the public records associated with Woodbridge and Piscataway (KDS note - evidently does not include oaths, land deeds, etc. that show much earlier dates; also note that Monnette did not indicate in what record and in what context he found these references; also note his list in the next section of the date of the first mention of people in the Woodbridge Town Records). The list includes:

pp531-533, List constructed by Monnette of the first settlers of Woodbridge and Piscataway based upon the date of their first mention in the Woodbridge Town Records The list includes:

pp107, 351, Patents for lands on quit-rent in Woodbridge; First time of payment Mar 25, 1670. Includes:

Quit Rent Records - Three surviving lists of East Jersey land patentees owing quit rents due in 1683, 1685 and 1696:

pp67-68, Petition of East Jersey inhabitants to the King, circa 1700, against the acts of the proprietors and requesting a competent governor. A nearly identical petition was prepared in 1701 as well. Signers include: Drakes - Francis, George and John; Mannings - Benjamin, Joseph, James and John; Francis Moore.

pp70-71, Land surveys in Piscataway up to 1690: Includes Drakes - George, Capt. Francis, and John; Jeffrey Manning (1678) and his widow Ann (1690); Samuel Moore; Robert Wright.

pp76-77, Piscataway names originating in Piscataqua, New Hampshire: The list includes Drakes - Robert, Nathaniel, George, John, Mary.

pp104-105, 351-355, Warrants of Survey in Piscataway, (per Elizabethtown Bill in Chancery, pp96-97):

p79, Piscataway citizens and freeholders just prior to the close of the Proprietary period, 1702 (per genealogist O.B. Leonard). The list includes: Drakes - Samuel, Francis, Jr., John, Joseph; Mannings - John, Joseph, James, Benjamin; Robert Wright. All but Robert Wright are called sons of the original "pioneer planters".

pp114-115, List of Militia Regiments, under command of Col. Thos. Ffarmar in 1715, NJ (per Report of the State Historian, State of New York, 1898, Colonial Series, Vol. 1, pp529 et seq.):

pp45-50, Petition to the King, July, 1744, by landowners of contested land originally conveyed by Richard Nicholls, esq.:

pp357-358, Middlesex County: List of Freeholders of about the year 1748 (per document at Trenton State Library):

pp379-381, List of Freeholders of Middlesex County, 1750: same names as 1748 list, including John Skinner.

pp552-553, List of Freeholders in the County of Essex, Elizabeth Town, Sept. 1, 1755 (per NJ Historical Proceedings, Second Series, Vol. XIII, p25 et seq.):

pp247-262, Woodbridge Town Records - Marriages, 1668-1781 (KDS note - per an abstract of the Woodbridge Town Records by William A. Whitehead; some of the original records were misplaced in the late 1800's resulting in Monnette having to rely upon the earlier published works of Whitehead, Dally and others):

Woodbridge Town Records - Births, 1668-1781:

Woodbridge Town Records - Deaths, 1668-1781:

pp275-277, Woodbridge Marriages, Births, and Deaths, Liber B (per the published work of Dally; same as above Whitehead abstract lists but appears to be more of a literal copy of the original source documents and includes the time of day of some of the births, though not for any of the Skinners):

pp737-738, Woodbridge Births, Marriages and Deaths, tabulated by H. R. Stiles and as published in the New Yok Hist. & Gen. Register (Vol. 22, pp343-4); This version shown by Monnette because the original Woodbridge records had been lost and(or)disfigured so he went to great pains to show tabulations by earlier genealogists, such as Whitehead (pp247-262 above) and Dally (pp275-277 above) as well as this tabulation:

pp540-541, Court Records, Middlesex County 1683-1712 (per Abstract on deposit with Middlesex County Clerk):

pp543-545, Civil and Military Commissions:

p1512, Woodbridge Church affairs:

pp520-521, Debtors listed in the estate of John Allen, Jan 8, 1683-4, early Woodbridge minister:

pp112, December, 1713, Robert Wright was one of ten persons to petition the Governor of New Jersey for a license to erect a church and for permission to receive contributions for that purpose.

pp732-733, Settlers and Landowners at Rahway:

pp736-737, Persons mentioned in Will of Samuel Shephard, dated Jun 10, 1708, administration Aug 11, 1708:

p738, Journal of John Reading, Middlesex County:


p1036, Cemetery Inscriptions at ?:

p1075, New Jersey Deed Records:

p1516, Piscataway Marriages, performed by Rev. Jonathan Dunham, minister:

pp1517-1522, Cemetery Inscriptions at Metuchen - Old Burying Ground, Main St. and Pennsylvania R.R.:

p630, Genealogical Treatment, as constructed/speculated by Monnette - "Richard Skinner, Sr."

p1586, Genealogy - "John Skinner, First, of Woodbridge"

p1586, Genealogy - "Deacon Richard Skinner of Woodbridge"

pp1513, 1514 - Woodbridge Church Affairs, Comments of Monnette on church member genealogies (KDS note - everything listed after the persons highlighted name are the genealogical assumptions of Monnette):

pp1586-1587, Genealogy - "John Skinner, Second, of Woodbridge"

p1587, Genealogy - "John Skinner of Pennsylvania", (vide, ante, part four, p630)

p407, Genealogy - Bloomfield Family

KDS note -The Bloomfield family is important in that Ezekial Bloomfield was father-in-law to Wright Skinner.

p590, Genealogy - Brittain

pp615-616, Genealogy - Manning Family

The Manning family is important in that Benjamin Manning (an adult in the 1730's & 1740's), , was brother-in-law to both Cornelius and Nathaniel Skinner, according to the Janeway Account Books, and also lived adjacent or close to Wright Skinner:

p1516, Piscataway Marriages, performed by Rev. Jonathan Dunham, minister:

pp1030-1032, Samptown Baptist Church Cemetery Inscriptions:

pp618-619, Genealogy - Moore Family

p878, Genealogy - Robert Wright, Sr., of Woodbridge

pp45-50, Petition to the King, July, 1744, by landowners of contested land originally conveyed by Richard Nicholls, Esq.; I have summarized the original document as follows :

309 persons signed the petition including Thomas Baker, John Baker, Samuel Oliver, and Jacob Wright, but no Skinners or other names of interest. This petition may be in response to the type of land problems that resulted in ejectment suits against Wright Skinner and Ben Manning by the leadership of the Proprietors.

King Charles the 2nd had granted to James,Duke of York, all of the land extending from the west side of the Connecticut River to the east side of the Delaware Bay, the area that later became the provinces of New Jersey and New York. At the time, the land was under the control of the Dutch and Indians. James, Duke of York, appointed Richard Nicholls, esq., to serve as Deputy Governor of the land. In August, 1664, Nicholls arrived here, and the Dutch surrendered their holdings to him.

Six persons from Long Island - John Baylies, Daniel Denton, Thomas Benydick, Nathaniel Denton, John Foster and Luke Watson, petitioned Nichols on Sep 26, 1664 to be able to purchase a portion of the land from the Indians. They had previously been stopped in their attempts to settle the land by the Dutch. Nicholls gave his approval to them on 30 September, and they proceeded to purchase a parcel Oct 28, 1664. The tract they purchased was bounded to the east by the river separating the mainland from Staten Island, to the south by the Rariton River, to the north up the Arthur Cull bay to the point where the first river meets the west side of the bay, and extending westward twice the length as the north-to-south distance. Nicholls confirmed the purchase by a deed dated Dec 1, 1664, and the purchasers proceeded to settle the land with their heirs and assignees eventually numbering some 700 freeholders and families as of the date of this petition.

Before Nicholls had even arrived on the scene, the Duke of York conveyed the land, constituting the future province of New Jersey, to Lord Berkley and Sir George Carteret, in a document dated June 23 & 24, 1664. Berkley and Carteret appointed Philip Carteret, esq., to govern the land, and he arrived in December of that year. He apparently respected the previous agreement for he bought the land of John Baylies, and along with John Ogden and Luke Watson, sold the southern part of the land on Dec 11, 1666 to Daniel Pierce and associates, land on which the towns of Woodbridge and Amboy were eventually settled.

Following that, the Dutch briefly regained control of the land, but again surrendered them to the crown. King Charles the 2nd again granted the land to the Duke of York ,who in turn, granted the eastern half of New Jersey, called East New Jersey, to George Carteret and the western half, called West New Jersey, to Lord Berkeley.

About the year 1693, the petitioners indicated that problems started to develop between themselves, as heirs and assignees of the Nicholls’ conveyance, and proprietors and other persons claiming rights to the land, based upon conveyances from Carteret in East New Jersey and conveyances from Lord Berkeley in West New Jersey. The petitioners indicated that more than fifty years of expensive and exhausting legal problems had resulted from the dual conveyance of the land. These problems included expensive judgments levied against them and the loss of homes and property. The petitioners also indicated that their problems were multiplied by the fact that the civil government and associated courts and officers represented the interests of Berkley and Carteret and later proprietors, and were, in fact, interested parties in the on-going controversy.

The petitioners indicated that they could not remedy their grevances in the Province of New Jersey and requested that the king himself review the dispute or appoint neutral authorities from other colonies to do so. 309 persons signed the petition. The King's response is unknown.