The Age and Date of Birth of Capt. Peter Knight
First of all, let’s get the age of Capt. Peter Knight out of the way. On 20 Aug 1655, Capt. Peter Knight gave a deposition in a court case stating that he was 35 years old. (Virginia Colonial Abstracts Vol. 2 Northumberland County Records 1652-1655; Record Book 14, page 51)
Searching the English records for a Peter Knight born in 1620 gives back the following as the most likely:
Name Peeter Knight
Gender Male
Baptism Date 02 Jul 1620
Baptism Place St Bride Fleet St ,London,London,England
Father Peeter Knight
Mother Sisseley
The Wrong Genealogy for Capt. Peter
So, having found a plausible birth record for Capt. Peter, who gave a deposition as to his age, can we find anything on his father, listed as “Peeter” in the records? Many have selected a Peter Knight whose records are found in the church of St. Margaret Pattens, London. I’ve combed through the parish registries and the results are as follows: (all from the Parish Registers of St. Margaret Pattens 1559-1660, personally viewed by myself):
First appearance of a Knight in this parish:
Peter Knight and Katherin Swan married 19 January 1589.
Nine months later:
Peter Knight son of Peter Knight christened the 21st day of September 1589
Then follows:
Mary Knight daughter of Peter Knight Christened the 24th of February 1591
Jane Knight daughter of Peter Knight christened the 5th of May 1594
Ellin Knight daughter of Peter Knight Christened 21 of September 1595
Margarett Knight daughter of Peter Knight christened 6 of July 1597
Ann Knight daughter of Peter Knight christened 23 of September 1599
George Knight, son of Peter, christened 14 May 1601
Anne Knight, daughter of Peter Knight buried the 27 of July 1603.
Peter Knight sonne of Peter Knight buried the 16th of September 1603
Peter Knight was buried the 4th of October 1603
William Miller et Mary Knight married 29 Oct 1609
Then, we have what seem to be outliers with no previous mention:
Ann Knight daughter of Richard Knight bapt. 8 May 1614
William Knight and Elizabeth Herbert married 12 August 1621
The only conclusion we can draw from the above records is that Peter Knight of St. Margaret Pattens, is NOT Capt. Peter Knight or his father or his family because both of these Peters died and were buried in 1603. Captain Peter Knight’s mother cannot be Katharin Swann and Peter Knight of St. Margaret Pattens. We are thus thrown back on Peter Knight baptized at St. Brides, Fleet Street. Unfortunately, at this time, there is no further information as the church registries do not seem to be online in any form.
The Records of Peter Knight, Merchant and Capt. Peter Knight
So, let’s go to what other records are available. I’m going list them chronologically and number them and make a few comments as we go along.
Land records are from: Cavaliers and Pioneers Abstracts of Virginia Land Patents and Grants 1623-1666 Compiled by Nell Marion Nugent, Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc., Richmond, VA, 1934, 1983, 2004.
Records noted as (Fleet) are from The next set of records, unless otherwise noted, are from Virginia Colonial Abstracts Vol. 2 and Northumberland County Records 1652-1655 Abstracted by Beverley Fleet, Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc. Baltimore, 1971)
Records noted as (Haynie) are from: Records of Indentured Servants and of Certificates for Land Northumberland County Virginia 1650-1795, Compiled by W. Preston Haynie; Heritage Books, 2008.
Other records will be cited in place.
The very first record of Peter Knight in the land records of Nugent is the following:
1) Peter Knight, Merchant, 200 acs. Isle of Wight Co., 13 Mar. 1638, S.W. into the woods upon land of Leift. John Upton. Sly., & upon the Batchelors plantation Nly. Due by assignment & exchange to & with sd. Leift. Upton to & with Mr. Thomas Hill for 200 acs. In any other place ungranted & by sd. Hill sold to sd Knight for a valuable consideration. (P.105)
2) Peter Knight, Merchant, 14 acs., being an island in Nansamund Riv., Up. Co. of New Norfolk, 10 April 1638, p. 529, S. side the Riv. Opposite land of Oliver Sprye & adj. Land of Robert Newman and Randolph Crew. Sd. 14 acs. & 36 acs. Not yet taken up, due for his own per. Adv. (p. 83)
3) Peter Knight, Merchant, 400 acs. Up. Co. of New Norf., 18 Nov 1618 p. 543, On S.E. side of Nansamund Riv., & about 3 mi. up the E. side of a Cr., lying over against land of Richard Bennett & adj. Land of Robert Bennett, Due by assignment from Thomas Burbage. (Note error in date). (p. 85)
There is a note with this entry by the transcriber that there is an “evident error in date” apparently because it is so early. That is surely the case because the Bennetts were not established at so early a date. Taken in the context of items 1 and 2, we can probably assume that the actual date was 1638. These would be the first acquisitions of Peter Knight, Merchant (clearly designated as such). Considering that we know from his own deposition that Capt. Peter Knight was born in 1620, these records are extremely unlikely to have belonged to him because he would have been only 18 years old at the time. I’m not going to say it is impossible, it is just pretty much vanishingly remote a possibility. Therefore, we have to consider that this Peter Knight was the father of Capt. Peter Knight of Northumberland or he was an altogether unrelated individual.
Notice that item 1 is “due by assignment and exchange” and item 2 is “due for his own personal adventure”. That would suggest he arrived some three years earlier, i.e. in 1635.
4) From: Library of Virginia; Richmond, Virginia; Chancery Patent Rolls. 14 Charles I, Part 16; Public Record Office Class: C 66/2811; Survey Report 10943, We find in the Chancery records that, in 1638, Peter Knight was known as a “merchant” and paid 60 shillings for a license to retail tobacco in the Twifird and Hursley, and Southampton England areas.
Again, I will reiterate, this Peter Knight, Merchant, could not possibly have been Capt. Peter Knight of later activities as we will see. I believe that the next record is where we first meet our 18 year old Peter:
5) From the Public Record Office of the British High Court of Admiralty. Instance and Prize Courts: Examinations, May 1639 to May 1640: (There are several cases in this volume dealing with incidents involving Virginia. It is the third case in which we are interested. It involves the voyage of the Flower de Luce. On 11 October 1638, the Flower de Luce of Weymouth, of which John White was Master, left newfoundland for Virginia, and, on 21 October following, arrived at Point Comfort [VA]. Later, on 2 November, the vessel reached James Town. On 11 April, 1639, the homeward voyage was started. However, the day before the ship set sail from Point Comfort, White and Samuel Leddoye, the purser, on behalf of the owners of the vessel, protested against Nicholas Stourfield, George Grace and Simon Hake, freighters of the said ship, at the terms of schedule made over to them. Grace and Hake returned to Weymouth in the Flower de Luce. Leddoye and White, protesting at their failure to load the ship in time, went to James Town where their complaint was lodged in the suits of the “Quarter Court.” From the depositions in this case we find the following involved by their dated depositions: 11 July 1639: Samuel Pearce of London, a merchant, aged 24. Same date: Thomas Davis of “Chuckatucke”, Virginia, a merchant, aged 26. … Joseph Sanders was cited as Chief Merchant of the venture and Peter Knight, his factor.
Further searching shows that Joseph Sanders was a merchant in England. We find this:
6) M.S. Giuseppi, A Guide to the Manuscripts preserved in the Public Record Office, vol. II (London 1924) pp. 128, 129. Cm. Andrews, G. Davenport, Guide to the Manuscript Materials for the history of the United States to 1783, in the British Museum, in Minor London Archives and in the libraries of Oxford and Cambridge (Washington D.C. 1908) pp. 170-177. Privy Council Office. List of records. P.C.2. (December 1958) p.2. p. 183: Oateland, 27 August 1637. A letter to Sir Henry Marten, knight, judge of the Admiralty. Enclose a petition from Joseph Sanders, merchant, who about a year ago (i.e. 1636) sent to Virginia goods to a value of 3500 [pounds] and also 83 servants. All Sanders’ factors died during the journey and one Hugh Weston then took unlawfully possession of all the goods. Weston has now been arrested and will appear before the Court of Admiralty. The Privy Council recommends this case into the special attendance of this Court.
We pass over the further adventures of Mr. Sanders, the point being the question: is this Peter Knight, factor of Joseph Sanders, the son of Peter Knight who is already in Virginia and acquiring land and functioning as a merchant? Notice that Peter Knight, Merchant, executed his first land transaction in March of 1638 and the Flower de Luce, bearing Peter Knight, factor, did not arrive until October. It appears that this Peter Knight, connected to Sanders, came FROM England at this point in time, i.e. 1638; Capt. Peter would be about 18 at this time. Did his father come to Virginia, first (1635) and he followed later?
The Basses Choice Problem
At this point, we need to consider some background to the next item coming up: the Basses Choice land patent. We will start with Edward Bennett, recalling that Peter Knight, Merchant, in item 3 above, patented land next to the Bennett tracts in 1638. From John Bennett Boddie’s book Seventeenth Century Isle of Wight County Virginia (Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc. 2003)
Edward Bennett, former Elder of the Ancient Church at Amsterdam, succeeded in establishing a colony in Isle of Wight County… Edward Bennett was the son of Robert Bennett, a tanner of Wivelscombe, Somerset, and his wife, Elizabeth Edney. …
Edward Bennett is nearly always referred to in the record as “wealthy.” … In Virginia records he is mentioned as a wealthy merchant of London. (Wm. And Mary Quarterly, Vol. 7, p.206) …
Edward Bennett seemingly made a fortunate marriage as he married into the Bourne family… of Somerset. … The Bourne family recorded its pedigree in the Visitation of the Heralds to Somerset in 1623. …
When Edward Bennett fled to Holland is not known. … He was the owner of several vessels. It is probable that the “Gift of God” which arrived in Virginia in 1618, about the same time as Elder Blackwell’s ship, was owned by Edward Bennett. This vessel often referred to as the “Gift” or “Gods Gift,” a good Puritan name, brought over 200 emigrants to Martins Hundred in that year. …
The Neptune left England in 1618 with 180 emigrants and arrived with 150. … On this ship came Thomas Bennett and Richard Evans, who were living at Basse’s Choice in 1625. …
November 21, 1621, Captain Nathaniel Basse received his patent for 300 acres on the west side of Pagan River, near its mouth and just east of Bennet’s tract. So, it appears they were closely associated. Boddie reports:
Nathaniel Basse represented his plantation called “Basse’s Choice” in the House of Burgesses in 1629. The last account of him in the Virginia records is that he went to New England in 1631.
The way Boddie writes this makes it sound like Basse moved to New England which is not the case. Let’s turn momentarily to another source. From the Dictionary of Virginia Biography:
Nathaniel Basse… came to Virginia in March 1619 with Christopher Lawne. In 1621 he received a grant of 300 acres of land; his settlement, Basse's Choice, was among the first English settlements in Isle of Wight County. Knowledge of his personal and family life is obscured by a lack of documentation, but tradition holds that he may have been the father of John Bass, who married a member of the Nansemond tribe in 1638 and from whom the Bass family of lower Tidewater Virginia is descended.
Basse was the second of twelve sons and second of eighteen children of Humphrey Basse and Mary Buschier Basse. His mother was of Italian descent, and his father was a prosperous London girdler of French ancestry who invested in the Virginia Company of London. Basse was probably born in London and was christened there in the parish of Saint Gabriel Fenchurch on December 19, 1589.
Basse first arrived in Virginia, so far as is known, in March 1619 with Christopher Lawne and other colonists associated in the settlement of Warrosquyoake Plantation in what is now Isle of Wight County. During 1620 Basse returned to England and obtained from the Virginia Company a confirmation of the patent to Warrosquyoake in November of that year. The company reconfirmed this patent in January 1622. In November 1621 Basse received a separate patent in his own name for a 300-acre tract a short distance west of Warrosquyoake on the east side of the Pagan River that has been called Basse's Choice ever since. He returned to Virginia on the Furtherance about August or September 1622, after the Powhatan uprising on March 22, 1622, when, according to John Smith's Generall Historie, the Indians "had fired Lieutenant Basse his house, with all the rest there about, slaine the people, and so left that Plantation."
Basse represented Warrosquyoake in the General Assembly sessions of February and March 1624, May 1625, March 1628, and October 1629. In June 1625 he signed a petition requesting Charles I to preserve the General Assembly as a fixture of the new royal government of the colony. Soon after arriving in Virginia late in March 1630, Governor Sir John Harvey appointed Basse to the governor's Council. The length of his service is unknown, but he is named as a member on documents dated December 20, 1631, and February 21, 1632. On March 6, 1632, Harvey commissioned Basse "to trade between 34 and 31 degrees North Latitude and to go to New England, Nova Scotia, or the West Indie Islands with instructions to invite the inhabitants hither if any so inclined," and sometime the same month Basse became presiding justice of the court of Warrosquyoake.
Extant records do not indicate whether Basse traveled to the other English colonies as directed, or whether he ever returned to England. He probably either remained in Virginia or returned to the colony following the voyages. The dearth of documentation also obscures much of Basse's personal and family life. Tradition has it that he married Mary Jordan in London on May 21, 1613 (Gentry, Daphne. "Basse, Nathaniel." In Dictionary of Virginia Biography, Vol. 1, edited by John T. Kneebone et al., 382–383. Richmond: Library of Virginia, 1998.)
So, the last we hear of Nathaniel Basse seems to be about 1632 and then he disappears from the record. In the meantime, Peter Knight, Merchant, comes to the colonies (c. 1635/6)and gives the impression of being associated with the Bennetts and others of that same circle which would include the Basses.
Before proceeding, I want to attempt to clear up a matter that has quite a few Basse researchers in an uproar:
A puzzling reference to Nathaniel Basse with information about the family of his father, Humphrey Basse, is the deposition recorded on Aug. 30, 1654, at Lord Mayors Court of London, recently published by Peter Wilson Coldham: "Major Edward Basse, citizen and merchant of London aged 60, and Dame Mary Poole (Pole) wife of Sir John Poole of Bromley, Middlesex, age 62, depose that Hester Hobson of Bromley, widow, Abigail Thorpe of Chelsea Hampton, Oxon, widow, and Sarah wife of Thomas Hastler, citizen and barber surgeon of London, are sisters and are daughters of Humphrey Basse of London, Merchant, and Mary his wife, both long since deceased.
The sisters are co-heirs of Luke Basse who died a bachelor and was brother of Nathaniel Basse lately deceased without issue in Virginia.
Thomas Hastler is appointed attorney."
Without getting into a long aside, let me just say that it seems clear that the issue was that Luke Basse had died in Virginia without issue, being also a brother of Nathaniel Basse. However, the archaic wording of the sentence is confusing. It would have made perfect sense this way: The sisters are co-heirs of Luke Basse who died a bachelor (and was brother of Nathaniel Basse lately deceased) without issue in Virginia.
Aside from the badly worded document, we glean the information that Nathaniel Basse probably died in England (lately deceased) and his brother, Luke Basse, was in Virginia as late as 1654. The sisters were claiming the inheritance of a bachelor brother and were, in no way, claiming anything from Nathaniel Basse (which seems clear from the wording). Obviously, if Luke Basse was living right there in England, it would not have been necessary for this court case.
I don’t think it is too much of a stretch to think that Peter Knight, Merchant, may have been acquainted with Nathaniel Basse in England, nor would it be a great stretch to think that their children might have been acquainted in England. This brings us to the next record: Peter Knight’s acquisition of Basses Choice. The main question is: was this Peter Knight, Merchant, or Peter Knight later to be known as Capt. Peter?
7) Peeter Knight, 255 acs. Isle of Wight Co., called Basses Choice, May 10, 1643, Page 86. Near Pagan Bay & Dawsons Cr. & land of Mr. Peter Hall. Trans. Of 6 pers: Peter Knight, Thomas Harris, James Foster, Edward Wells, William Nicholas, Thomas Cobb.
Notice that he is acquiring this land for the transportation of 6 persons including “Peter Knight” who makes the total of 6. However, if one gets 50 acres per person transported, that adds up to 300 acres, so we are one short. One can only assume that he was counting himself, and this means it must have been the younger Peter, aged 23 at this time, because Peter the Merchant already obtained a patent for “his own personal adventure”.
Just for the sake of comparison, let’s look at an unrelated patent, p 341 of Nugent’s Vol. 1, under the name Lt. William Cockeram, dated 27 Feb. 1656 which says: “1100 acs. Due said Cockeram as marrying the daughter of Mr. Spencer (Nicholas) to whom it was granted, & 130 acs. For trans. Of 3 pers…” I suspect there are a few similar land records, and quite a few more where that was the case, but it was not written down explicitly. The bottom line here is that Peter Knight acquired Basses Choice and there is no record of its escheatement or abandonment which would, most likely have been noted if either condition had been the case.
Now, the alleged first wife of Captain Peter Knight is said to have been Genevieve Basse, born in 1624; she would have been 19 at the time of the patent. She and Peter could have married 3 years earlier when she was sixteen and Peter was 20, and it was through this connexion that Peter was able to claim the Basse land probably through the offices of Nathaniel Basse himself, back in England. It just seems that the weight of evidence about the acquisition of this land falls on a marriage being at the center of it. Now, back to Boddie:
After the return of Edward Bennett to England, Richard Bennett, his nephew, probably a son of Thomas Bennett of Wivelscombe, Somerset, became the leader of the Virginia Puritans.
Edward Bennett, it will be recalled, represented his own plantation, “Bennett’s Plantation”, in the House of Burgesses in 1628 but in a short time left for England, and the next year Richard Bennett, together with Capt. Nathaniel Basse, represented the County of Warascoyack.
Soon afterwards, Richard Bennett and the Puritan Colony moved to Nansemond which was becoming largely populated by the Puritans. A number of these Puritans had been early landowners in Isle of Wight. Among them was Peter Knight who repatented Basse’s Choice in 1638 and later received a grant of 150 acres in Nansemond. …
The Nansemond county records were destroyed by fire about 1888 so there is no information obtainable about the Puritans of that county. … (Boddie)
Let’s stop right here and take note of this loss of records. This is the single biggest barrier we face in sorting this mess out. We may have to rely on information that was compiled before the loss of the records if there is any to be found. Here I must make a correction to Boddie: Peter Knight did not patent Basses Choice in 1638; rather, a Peter Knight patented it in 1643 as noted above. There is no indication that it is a “re-patent”; rather, it states part of the case in that Peter has transported persons into the colony including himself in the list.
So, from 1643 until 1649 when Peter Knight, Gent, soon to be known as “Capt. Peter Knight” showed up in Northumberland County, we know nothing. Did Peter marry Genevieve Basse? Did they live in Nansemond County where children were born to them? Did she die there? The clues are going to be pretty slim on those questions, but there ARE a few very small clues.
The Move to Northumberland
It seems that Capt. Peter made his big move in 1649.
8) Peter Knight, Gent., 500 acs. 17 Oct. 1649, p. 183. On the S. of great Wicocomocoe, being a neck of land bounded Ely. Upon the great bay, Wly. On the Cr. That parts same from the Indian Town of Cattalowmen, N. & N.E. upon the mouth of sd. River. Trans. Of 10 pers.* (p. 184)
We know for certain that the above patent belongs to young Peter because he is there pretty much from here on out, including the time when he gives his deposition as to his age. Note that he is designated “Gent” here, and not “Merchant”.
9) 24 May 1650 – According to sufficient proofe made to this Court, there is due to Mr. Peter Knight One hundred & Fifty acres of Land for the transportation of these persons into this Colony [Northumberland] , Viz his own transportation, Wm Knight, John Cloberry. Deeds, Orders 1650-52, 43. (11, Haynie)
10) Record Book # 14, page 21. Mr Knights acquit to Geo Nott – “R’d the 20 June 1652 of George Knott in part of a greater sum the sume of 4549 lbs Tobacco By me Peter Knight”. Recorded 20th Jan. 1652 (1652/3) (Fleet)
11) Peter Knight, 1,000 acs. Glocester Co., 16 July 1652, p. 95. On S. side of Poropotank Cr., on N. side of York Riv., & bounded from the head of gutt issueing out of sd. Cr. Dividing this from land formerly surveyed by Mr. Richard Lee &c. Trans. Of 20 pers: William Vert (or Uert), Robert Young, Godfrid Niren (or Nixen), William Evans, Law. Evans, Humph. Hawoods, John Fulcher, John Knighthill, John Farmer, Wm. Chamberlin, Mathew Bradford, John Lastly, James Foster, Ursela Smith, William Right, John Smith, Thomas Jervis, Stephen Collin, Thomas Powell, Eliza. Monke, (or Mouke.) (pp. 258-9)
12) Mr. Peter Knight, 700 acs. Gloster Co., 25 Aug. 1652, p. 197. Cr. Upon Easternmost side of Poropotank Cr. Towards the head of same, beg. At a branch dividing this & land of Mr. Blunt &c. Trans. Of 14 pers: John Ball, Alex. And Richard Weston, John Henton, Thomas Cobb, Tho. Taberer, Richard Lathberry, James Clarke, Saml. Clarke, Margery Chamber, Thomas Miller, Kath. Huse, Arthur Carpenter, John Simson.
13) Peter Knight, of Wicocomoco, 500 acs. Northumberland Co., on S. side of great Wicocomoco Riv., 26 Feb. 1653, p. 47. Beg. At branch of sd. Riv. Dividing this & land of Thomas Scoggin, extending E.E.E. to another branch of sd. Riv. To a point near or against the Island &c. Trans. Of 10 pers: Wm. Fluellin, James Donnell, Marmad. Atkins, Wm. Saines, Silvester Jones, Wm. Jenking, Mary Wilkey, James Traverse, Mary Sealing, John Allinton.
14) Record Book # 14, page 31. George Nott, his patent – Grant. Sir William Berkeley to George Nott, senr., 200 acres in Northumberland “on the west side of the head of Youocomocoo River abutting South East upon the head of the said river Southwest upon an India Bridge and a Vallye Northwest and North eas upon the main woods”. 50 acres being due to Nott by assignment of George Berry and the other 150 acres granted for the transportation of 3 persons into this colony. Dated 22nd December 1650. George Nott, his assignmt of a pattent to Mr Knight – Nott assigns above to Mr Peter Knight. Dated 30th January 1652/3. Signed Geo Nott his marke. Witnesses: Nathan Hickman, Rich Holden. Recorded 20th Sept 1653 (Fleet)
15) Peter Knight, 1,000 acs. Northumberland Co., 13 Oct. 1653, p. 64. Upon N.W. side & on the head of Wicocomico Riv., 200 acs. Part thereof S.E. on the head of sd. River, N.E. on land of one Pallen, dec’d. 450 acs. S.E. on the main branch of the head of Yeocomico Riv. & N.E. on sd. 200 acs., & 350 acs. S.E. upon this land & N.E. upon land of John Shakley. 200 acs. Formerly granted unto George Knott & assigned to sd. Knight & 800 acs for trans of 16 pers: Charles Roe, John Roe, Edward Morris, Mary Morris, William Stephens, Nicho. Allen, Fra. Leake, John Skiddiner, Jane Stoe (or Aloe), Alice Howell, George Shaw, An Shaw, Marjary Green, Ralph Millett, Abraham Stronge, Robert Barnett. (p. 252) (Note that Col. John Mottrom – often associated with Peter Knight – acquired land in Northumberland Co. 6 days after Knight’s Patent recorded.)
16) Peter Knight & Baker Cutt, 1850 acs., 13 Oct. 1653, p. 228. Bounding Sly. Upon Capt. Brent’s land, Ely. Upon Potomeck Riv. & Nly. Upon Chapawansick Cr. Trans. Of 37 pers: William Clayre, John Sysone, (or Sipsone), James Westbrooke, William Valence, Elinor Ramzee, John Fairbanks, Fra. Mott, Richard Spurnell, Rice Morrice, Robert Knott, Eliza. Lawrence, Eliza. Morrice, James Barber, John Drap, Toby Ingram, Wilmott Jones, Adam Daniell, Thomas Charnold, Mary Davis, Michael Poope, John Fuller, John Robinson, John Spreatt Susan Pungly, Rice Thompson, Christopher Bennett, Eman. Wille, Elizabeth his wife, & 6 children; Wm. Murdure, Georg Airea (or Acrea), 3 Negros: Robt., Sampsons & Thom. & one Indian Thomas. The three last names due. (p. 282)
17) Order Book # 2. November 21st 1653. Page 19 Peter Knight agt Edmond Perry, his estate – Perry owing Knight 274 lb tobacco. The Court orders payment from his estate. (Fleet)
18) Order Book # 2. 21st November 1653. Page 20. This page mutilated – Peter Knight agt Mr Turney – Richard Turney having arrested Knight and not appearing against him is ordered to pay him 50 lb. Tobacco, and to pay Court charges. (Fleet)
19) Order Book # 2. 21st November 1653 Peter Knight agt John ffaucett - Faucett having arrested Knight and not appearing against him, is ordered to pay him 50 lb tobacco and to pay Court charges. (Fleet)
20) Peter Knight, 1200 acs. Northumberland Co., on the S. of great Wicocomoco Riv., 2 Oct 1654, p. 290. On the head of the Swd. Branch of sd. River, E.S.E upon land of Tho. Coggen &c Trans. Of 24 pers: Robert Burrell his wife & 3 children out of Holland; James Haly, Ann his wife; Fra. Ann & Alice, their children; John Foster, Ruth Darling, James Hill, James Lloyd, Deborah Come, James Jones, John Jerrell, Wm. Bradly, Wm. Slinton, Jno. Waddington. (p. 295)
Now, let’s stop here a moment and take stock. Peter Knight is now about 34 years old and is piling up land like a baron. I’ve put in bold the names of James Hawley and family above to show that the daughter, Ann, was still a Hawley at this point in time: 1654 though she later married Capt. Peter. Was he still married to a first wife at this point? He never uses her for any land rights. Or if he did, it was in Nansemond County and we have no records from there so I’m still assuming she has died there and that is one of the things prompting his relocation.
21) Mr Knight, his gift to Thomas Waddy “XX I Peter Knight in consideration of my love unto Thomas Waddy” gives a calf. Dated 17 Nov. 1654. Signed Peter Knight. Witnesses: Rob Yeo, Daniel ffoxcroft. Recorded 20 Nov. 1654. (Fleet)
22) Order Book # 2. 20th November 1654. Page 30. Mr. Knight agt Wm Jones – Mr. Peter Knight to have attachment agt. Estate of Wm Jones for 1500 lbs tobacco due to Mr. Edward Bland in the hands of Hugh Lee. (Fleet)
23) Record Book # 14 page 49. Mr Knight, his gift to Thomas Prichett – “XX I Peter Knight in consideration of my love unto Thomas Pritchett Junr” gives a heifer. Dated 7th November 1654. Signed Peter knight. Witnesses Wm. Spicer his marke, Geo Marsh. Rec. 20 Nov. 1654. (Fleet)
24) Order Book # 2. 20th August 1655, page 32. Mr. Knight agt Laurence Damorell – The Court orders that Laurence Damorell shall by the next Court deliver up to Mr Peter Knight his bond concerning the acknowledgement of a Patent Land which XX Mr Knight hath acknowledged in Court.
25) Order Book # 2. 20th August 1655, page 32. Mr. Knight agt Jno Hopper – “Whereas Peter knight was summoned to this Court to declare himself upon oath at which time John Hopper interrupted the sd Mr Knight and taxed him with swearing falsely.” The Court orders Hopper to pay Knight 300 lbs. Tobacco by Nov. 10th.(Fleet)
26) Record Book # 14, page 52 – 20 August 1655 – Knight, his Depo – “Peter Knight aged 35 yeares or thereabouts sworne and examined saith That the general report of Alice Atkinson that hee ever heard was shee was an ill liver and one that never would live with her husband but that shee rather always was desirous of absence from her husband then for to live with him and further this Depont sayeth not Peter Knight 20 August 1655 Jurat in Cur” (Fleet)
27) Order Book # 2. November 20th 1655. Page 34. – Mr Peter Knight, his motion – Regarding an action of debt betw. Knight and Col. John Mottrom, deceased. (Fleet)
28) From Surry County Records, Surry County, Virginia, 1652-1684, compiled by Eliza Timberlake Davis: 17 Jan 1656. At a Court in Surry County, 13 Jan 1656 It was ordered to audit and settle and deliver all accounts depending between Capt. George Jordan and Mr. Richard Hill, deceased… a bill in the hands of Mr. Jno. Dibdall, also Mr. Jennings, etc. Test: Peter Knight, John Flood, Benjamin Sidway. Rec.: 6 Feb 1656.
This next item is curious because it shows that Peter Knight, Merchant, also moved to Glocester County. Notice items 11 and 12 above: these may belong to Peter Knight, Merchant. Item 11 appears to have been land surveyed by the Richard Lee who now acquires it a small portion of it. Notice also that it is specified that this tract was granted to Peter Knight, Merchant:
29) Col. Richard Lee, 5 acs. Gloster Co., 4 June 1656, p. 30 (47). Towards head of Poropotanke Cr. Whereon the store of sd. Col. Lee stands, & is part of a devdt. Granted Peter Knight, merchant, 25 Aug. 1652 which is deserted. Trans. Of 1 servant: Morris Plummor. (p. 330)
From Lucien Lamar Knight: “The following entry appears in an old volume, entitled “Virginia Carolorum”, a work which treats of Virginia during the reigns of Charles I and II; we quote from page 203: “A public market was established in 1649 at Jamestown and the space allowed it was from Sandy Hollow) on the west, to Peter Knight’s store, on the east”. We can’t assume that Peter Knight, Merchant, has died at this point because of revelations further on, but he may have retired from mercantile affairs to devote himself to his plantation.
30) Mr. Peeter Knight, 925 acs., in Petowmack Riv. Adj. Chappawansicke Cr. 9 Oct 1656, p. 71 (104). Moiety of patent for 1850 acs. (As above) Renewal. Retaken up by new rights & trans. Of 19 pers: John Waddington, Andrew Cockerin, Wm. Ballingall, Edwd. Meeres, Wm. Mundy, Rich. Wall & 1 servt. Name Thomas, James Hawly, Ann his wife, 3 children, Jno. Foster, Ruth Darlinge, James Hill, James Loyd, Jno Seaman, Wm. Seaman, Gilbert Seaman. (p. 340)
Compare this item above for land on the Petowmack River (Potomac) which is the same land as in item 16 patented in partnership with Mr. Cutt. Notice that he now, again, uses the Hawley’s as headrights as he did in item 20 for land in Northumberland County! This would suggest that he is still not married to Anne though it may have been shortly after this time that they did marry as we will see further on. This was a busy time for Capt. Peter. According to Lucien Lamar Knight:
In 1657, he appears for the first time in the House of Burgesses as a member from Northumberland. With John Haynie, Esq., he was the first burgess to represent this county at James City. He next appears as a member from Gloucester, which county he represented in the years 1659 and 1660.
Then we find him back in Northumberland. This county returned him for the years 1684 and 1685, when he must have been quite an elderly man. (Records of the Virginia House of Burgesses). He was justice of Northumberland in 1671 (William and Mary Magazine LXVII, p. 229)
Lucien Lamar Knight was persuaded that Captain Peter Knight was the same as Peter Knight, Merchant, and thus believed that he was quite old in 1684. He did not find the testimony as to Capt. Peter’s age that is now available (item 26).
31) Mr. Peter Knight, 500 acs. Northumberland Co., 30 Mar. 1657, p. 83, (122). On S. side of great Wiccocomico Riv., N.N.E. upon another seate belonging to him, formerly Mr. Flints, & S.E. upon a lyne dividing this from land of Gervase Dodson. Trans. Of 10 pers: Robert Burwell, & his wife, 3 children, Wm. Bradby, Deborah Conne, James Jones, Jno. Gerrell, Wm. Flinton. (p343)
32) Peter Knight, 1500 acs. Northumberland Co., 3 June 1657, p. 94, (138). Renewal of 2 patents for 500 acs. Each. 700 acs. N.N.E. upon a creek deviding this & land of Mr. Nicholas Morrice, W.N.W. upon Scoggins Cr., etc & 800 acs. N.N.E. upon said land, W.E. upon land of Thomas Read & David Kiffin, etc. 500 acs. For trans. Of 10 pers.* (p. 346)
33) SAME. 1200 acs. Same county, date & page. Renewal of patent for 700 acs. Granted him 2 Oct. 1654 & 500 acs granted unto Thomas Scoggin, who deserted same, and now due for trans. Of 10 pers.” The name Rich. Shortland appears under this record. (p. 346)
34) Mr. Peter Knight, 925 acs. In Patomeck river adj. Chapawansicke Cr., 7 Mar 1658, p. 269 (370). Being the moiety of a patent granted to sd. Knight & Capt. Baker Cutts, 13 Oct. 1653, renewed by order of court & for trans. Of 19 pers.” Renewed 15 Mar. 1663. (p. 389)
35) From Northumberland County, Virginia Record Book 1658: P. 80 – p. 56 5 February 1660, Knowe all men by these presents that I James Hawley for & in consideration of my love & affection I doe give unto my Grand Child Elizabeth Knight one Cowe Calf cropped on both ears a staple underneath the left ear & over keeled under the right ear & a slit, the sd. Elizabeth Knight to enjoy the sd. Cowe Calf with her increase to her & Her heirs forever; Witness my hand this 15th day of February 1660. Test Edward Hawley, his mark /w/ James Hawley. 26th February 1660. This Deed of Gift was acknowledged in Court by Abraham Bryam. Attorney of the sd. James Hawley and is recorded. Knowe all men by these presents that I James Hawley doe make my loving Friend, Abraham Byram, my true & lawfull Attorney to acknowledge this Bill of Sale in Court; Witness my hand this 5th of February 1660. Witness Richard Robards /s/ James Hawley. 20th Febr: 1660. This Letter of Attor: was recorded.
Capt. Peter Marries Anne Hawley
So, we know that now Peter is married to Anne Hawley and it happened after 1656 (see item 29). This gift may have been given to the child, Elizabeth, at the time of her birth and that might suggest the marriage took place a year earlier (at least 9 months), that is, Spring 1659; Peter would have been 39 not “quite elderly” as Lucien Lamar Knight thought.
36) Peter Knight, 2700 acs. Northumberland Co., 26 Nov. 1661, p. 292, (398). 1200 acs on S. side great Wiccocomico Riv., ESE upon land of Thomas Scoggin: 1500 acs. On S. Side of sd. Riv., 700 acs. Of which being N.N.E. upon a Cr. Dividing same & land of Mr. Nich. Morrice & W.N.W. upon Scoggins Cr. 800 acs. N.N.E. upon sd. Land & S.E. upon land of Thomas Read & David Kiffin, part of which next to land of sd. Read formerly called Palmers land. Renewal of patent dated 3 June 1657. (p. 395)
37) 12 March 1662/63 – These are to Certify that M. Peter Knight made his right appeare to 250 acres of land for the transportation of five persons into this Contry (viz) Richard Roberts, William Allcocke, Richard Phillips, Elizabeth Ward and Mary Passas. OB 1652-65, 173.(250, Haynie)
38) Peter Knight, 2700 acs. Northumberland Co., 23 Nov. 166{2} p. 75, (545). 1200 acs on S. side of great Wicocomoco Riv., adj land of Thomas Scoggin; 1500 acs. On S. side sd. River, ESE upon a branch dividing this & land of Nich morrice, adj. Land of Tho. ___ & David Kiffin. *** part of which land next Tho. Read being formerly called Palmer ___ (mutilated.) (3 June 1657)
39) Mr. Peter Knight, 925 acs. In Patomeck river adj. Chapawansicke Cr., 7 Mar 1658, p. 269 (370). Being the moiety of a patent granted to sd. Knight & Capt. Baker Cutts, 13 Oct. 1653, renewed by order of court & for trans. Of 19 pers.” Renewed 15 Mar. 1663. (p. 389)
40) Peter Knight, JR., 925 acs. In Potomack Riv., adj to Chapawansick Cr. 15 Mar. 1663, p. 203 (101). Renewal of his patent dated 8 Mar. 1658.
Peter Knight, JR
Note that this last item is a “renewal” and refer back to item 20. But, what is up with the “Jr”? If Capt. Peter had a son named Peter with his first wife, that son would be 23 at this point in time. Do we have here a record of Capt. Peter transferring land to a son? Here’s the history of that land up to this point:
13 Oct. 1653 - Peter Knight & Baker Cutt, 1850 acs…. Trans. Of 37 persos
9 Oct 1656 - Mr. Peeter Knight, 925 acs., in Petowmack Riv. Adj. Chappawansicke Cr. …Moiety of patent for 1850 acs. (As above) Renewal. Retaken up by new rights & trans. Of 19 pers:
7 Mar 1658 - Mr. Peter Knight, 925 acs. In Patomeck river adj. Chapawansicke Cr., …Being the moiety of a patent granted to sd. Knight & Capt. Baker Cutts, 13 Oct. 1653, renewed
15 Mar. 1663 - Peter Knight, JR., 925 acs. In Potomack Riv., adj to Chapawansick Cr…. Renewal
Considering some of the loose language of these patents which is probably faithfully recorded, if in brief, by the transcriber, it is not impossible that this was a transfer from father to son.
We can track the fate of the other half of this parcel of land, that belonging to Mr. Cutt:
Col. Garrard Fowke, … 20 Oct 1665, 925 acs. In Potomack Riv. Adj. Land of Capt. Giles Brent… p. 428 (505). Being the moiety of a patent granted to Peter Knight & said Capt. Cutt 13 Oct. 1653. Granted to Mrs. Eliz. Cutts 26 Feb. 1656 & by Capt. Jackson, who marryed sd. Elizabeth, sould to Capt. Tho. Fowke & now become due to sd. Col. Gerrard as heire to sd. Thomas, dec’d.
All that being said, it looks like Peter had a new family, was now 43 years old – old for that time – he may have been sorting out his land/property affairs somewhat. We see him selling off a piece of land and his new wife, Anne Hawley Knight, signing away her dower rights. Apparently, she could read and write.
41) Northumberland County Record Book 1662 – 1666, p. 12 – p. 98, Bee it knowne unto all men by these presents that I Anne Knight for consent to the Sale of Land that my Husband, Peter Knight, sold unto Richard Feilding & doe renounce all my right & title of the said Land & doe make my loving Friend, Thomas Laine, my true & lawfull Attorney to acknowledge the sd: land in Court & what my sd: Attorney shall doe therein shall stand in as full force & virtue as if I were then present; As Witness my hand the 20th of April 1663. /s/ An Knight, Teste James Hawley, Richard Robards, 20th April 1663. This Writing was acknowledged in Northumberland County Court by Thomas Laine, Attorney: of Anne Knight & recorded.
It seems that 1663 was a bad year. Again, from Lucien Lamar Knight:
In the celebrated uprising of indentured servants, known as “the Servants’ Plot of 1663”, it was on one of Peter Knight’s plantations in Gloucester that a rendezvous of the-conspirators was discovered. For the reason that he employed labor on a some what extensive scale, he was doubtless marked for an early victim; but happily an insurrection which might have ended in wholesale murder was checked in its incipient stage, and no fatal results are recorded.
At the trial which was held in Jamestown, then called James City, four witnesses testified that the plot was hatched at “Peter Knight’s little house in ye woods”. On September 16, 1663, the-House of Burgesses gave a reward to Birkenhead, the servant, who revealed the plot, while the date of the providential deliverance, September 13, was designated by the assemblage as Thanksgiving Day, to be perpetually observed in recognition of God’s mercy in preserving the country “from a desperate conspiracy entered into by certain mutinous villains”. (Virginia Historical Magazine, XV pp. 38-43). This attempted insurrection is the subject of Lary Johnston’s famous novel, “The Prisoners of Hope”.
42) 29 Sept 1664 (At a Court held for James City) – Whereas Alice English, servt. To Mr. Rich. Cole, came to Capt Rogers to complain of the abuses yt he had made from her Master & was by him committed unto Mr. Knight (the Sherr.) his custody till the next Courty & she appearing to make good her complaint notwithstanding many summons Mr. Cole appeared not & by reason of the sickness of the sd Alice & her child Mr. Knight was exposed to very great charge & trouble, this Court hath ordered yt the sd Mr. Rich. Cole pay unto ye sd Mr. Pet. Knight in consideration of his troubles & charge one hundred pounds of tob & cask a month wth costs else execution & the sd servt to remain in Mr. Knight’s Custody till further order. OB 1652-65, 202.(337, Haynie)
43) 20 Jan 1664/65 – Whereas by reason of ye misdemeanor of Mr. Rich. Cole… and there beinge in Mr. Knight’s hands a woman servt of ye sd Cole, It is ordered yt ye sd servant be appraised by fower sufficient men & forthwith sold by Mr. Pet. Knight & yt he give an account thereof ye next Court. OB 1652-65, 204.(343, Haynie)
44) 6 Sept. 1665 – Whereas Eliz. Michell, servt to Mr. Peter Knight, hath brought a Bastard Child in ye time of her service, It is ordered yet ye sd. Elizabeth serve her sd Master according to Act. OB 1652-65, 211.(369, Haynie)
45) 20 Nov. 1665 – Whereas Summar Adams hath got a woman Servt of Mr. Peter Knight wth Child, It is ordered by this Court yt ye sd Adams give security for ye keeping of ye sd Child & yt he be fined according to Act for his default. OB 1652-65, 213. (375, Haynie)
46) Mr. Peter Knight, 400 acs. Gloster Co., a mile below Olliver Green, by a Great Sw., by Mr. Cookes land, &c. 2 Mar. 1668, p. 333. Granted to Wm. Newman 20 Apr. 165_, part of which he sold to Elias Cobson, who assigned to sd. Knight.
47) Mr. Peter Knight, 574 acs. Gloster Co., E. side of Poropatanck Cr., 3 Apr. 1668, p. 137. Beg. At Tottapotamoyes Cr., adj. Mr. Fra. Ironmonger’s Plantation, along Mr. Fra. Morgan’s line to tancks Poropotanck (Cr.), to cor. Of Purtpn dividend, &c. The sd. Land patented by sd. Knight 16 July, 1652 for 1000 acsl, & on resurvey found to be 574 acs.
48) 5 Nov. 1668 – Sam. Ortland, servt to Mr. Peter Knight, adjudged by this Court to be 18 yeares of age & ordered to serve his sd Master according to Act. OB 1666-78, 23. (459, Haynie)
49) 21 Feb. 1670/71 – Certificate is granted Mr. Pet. Knight for 200 acres of Land for ye Importation of 4 persons (viz) John Stephens, Geo. Browne, Sam. Oakland, Elin Price. OB 1666-78, 58. (531, Haynie)
50) James Ennis & His Sonne James, 200 acs. Low. Par. Of Is. Of Wight Co., upon the mayne br. Of Pagan Cr., adj. Land of Capt. Jno. Upton now in Jno. Wheatelye’s possession, & the Batchellors plantation, now in possession of Peter Garland; 2 Apr 1670, p. 285. Granted to Mr. Peter Knight 13 Mar 1638, who sold to sd. Ennis last day of Jan. 1665.
51) From: Lord Mayor’s Court of London: Depositions Relating to Americans 1641-1736 Compiled and with an introduction by Peter Wilson Coldham; National Genealogical Society, Washington, D.C., 20036, 1980. P. 3 – Samuel Auckland and Peter Knight of Virginia: 1 October 1672. Samuel Auckland of Bexley, Kent, yeoman, age 50, deposes that his son Samuel Auckland, now living in Virginia with Mr. Peter Knight, was born in January 1648 and baptized on 28 January 1648/9, according to an entry in the Bexley Parish Register.
This Sam. Oakland is undoubtedly the Sam. Auckland mentioned in the Mayor’s Court record cited above. The following entry may explain why testimony was being taken about Sam. Auckland/Oakland.
52) 18 March 1673/74 – Whereas it appears to the Court yt Sam. Ockland, servt to Capt Peter Knight, did beat & abuse his master, It is ordered yt ye said Ockland make his sd master satisfaction for his said default according to Law. OB 1666-78, 99. (617, Haynie)
So, an 18 year old servant beat up his 53 year old master. We don’t know what the “satisfaction” was, but it may have included physical punishment and additional time as a servant. One can hardly imagine how distressing this must have been to a wealthy and powerful man such as Capt. Peter Knight.
The Death of Peter Knight, Merchant, Fate of Basses Choice
53) Samll. Clerke, 700 acs., Gloster Co., E. side Poropotanck Cr. & maine Sw; 8 Apr. 1674, p. 511. Granted Mr. Peter Knight, dec’d., 25. Aug. 1652 & due sd. Clerke as heire & next of Kinne.
Now, this is a fine find just to confuse things. We have a Peter Knight, deceased here, and a “next of kinne” named Samll. Clerke. Not only that, when we refer back to the original patent, item 12 above, we find among the importees is a Mr. Tho. Taberer, James Clarke and Saml. Clarke. Taberer will come up again in a moment. But for now, we here are confronted with the death of Mr. Peter Knight and reference to a patent he was granted in 1652 that we previously suggested was made to Peter Knight, Merchant, and found that a portion of this patent was handed over to Col. Richard Lee as being abandoned (item 28). Now we have Samll. Clerke/Clarke laying claim to it as “next of kinne”. On what basis could he have made such a claim?
We know that Capt. Peter Knight is not dead yet because he is going to make his will in 1702, so this shows us with certainty that there were two Peter Knights. Other transactions make it certain that they were related. The only way I can see such a claim being valid would be if there was a marriage relationship between Peter Knight, Merchant, and Samll. Clerke; that is, if Samll. Clerke married the widow or daughter of Peter Knight, Merchant, and if other “next of kinne” did not contest his claim. The more valid claim would be if he married a daughter. The Peeter Knight I found in the St. Bride’s parish registry, married to a Sisley/Sissely/Cicely, did have daughters: Elizabeth, b. 1618, and Alice, b. 1621 d. 1621. That leaves only Elizabeth, potentially, who would be in her 50s at this point in time. Of course, Peeter Knight, Merchant, could have married again in the colonies and produced additional offspring. I can think of no other explanation for this. And, since there was such a loose use of headrights among these people, one simply can’t know when Mr. Clerke/Clarke actually came to the colonies. He could have married a daughter of Peter Knight, Merchant, soon after his importation. What this DOES strongly suggest is that Peter Knight, Merchant, died not too long before this claim was made, i.e. 1673/4.
Here we learn a bit about what happened to Basses Choice and, again, it involves a man listed as headright by Peter Knight, Merchant, in item 12 above, dated 1652:
54) Major Tho. Taberer, 400 acs., Up. Par. Of Is. Of W. Co., & commonly called Bassetts Choice (sic), neer mouth of Pagan Cr., 23 Apr. 1681, p. 71. 150 acs. Granted Mr. Peter Knight in 1640 who sold to Mr. John Bland, merchant of London, & by Mr. Giles Bland, his sonn & Atty., conveyed to sd. Taberer 4 Dec. 1675, together with confirmation of the sale & a relinquishment of dower by Mrs. Sar. Bland, wife & Genl. Atty. Of sd. John, 6 Oct 1679;… (p. 217)
Notice that this patent says that the original patent to Peter Knight was dated to 1640; this was likely when he married the Basse daughter and the application for the transfer was put in, finally granted in 1643. It is not 100% certain that this patent was granted to Capt. Peter Knight as opposed to Peter Knight, Merchant, but it seems relatively certain.
Further, in Wills and Administrations of Isle of Wight County, Virginia 1647-1800, Bookes 1-3, compiled by Blanche Adams Chapman (Heritage Books, 2001), on page 36 we find:
Taberer, Thomas: Leg. – grandson Joseph Copeland, my land called Basses Choice… D. Jan 24, 1692.
What strikes me about the history of Basses Choice is that it is not absolutely essential that a Peter Knight must have married a Basse in order to obtain a patent on this land, but in view of the fact that there is no other transaction of this parcel between the time Nathaniel Basse took possession, and a Peter Knight patented it, and that he did so very early in the life of the colony when inheritance rights to patents were being generally observed, it is still more likely that a Peter Knight did marry a Basse.
The Will of Capt. Peter Knight
Regarding firmly documented children of Capt. Peter Knight, there are only four and they are named in Peter’s will. Ann/Anne must have died sometime between 1663 when she signed the land transaction above and 1702 when Peter wrote out his will; he did not include her. In fact, her death may have prompted the writing of his will.
Abstract of Peter Knight's will Recorded in Northumberland County Virginia Record Book 1706-1720 pages 175-176:
Will dated 28 Nov 1702 Wicomico Parish, Northumberland Co, Va.
Will proved 18 Jul 1705.
Peter Knight of Wiccocomoco Parish in the County of Northumberland Gent., 28 November 1702:
Son Leon’d Knight a parcel of land bounding upon a branch of the Eastern Neck wch branch is next to his spring branch and southerly Upon the swamp and northerly upon a line of marked trees up the branch unto a marked poplar at head of the sd branch and from thence northwesterly unto a marked white oak standing in a thicket and so along to a marked red oak standing nigh the road to my house and nigh Mr Mayes path and so along his path to the head of the spring branch to Mr. Rich’d Nutts marked tree at the head of the branch and so along his marked trees southerly unto Mr Peter Presleys marked trees and so thence easterly along his line unto ye swamp and so along the swamp to the branch where it began; to him and his heirs etc.
Son James Knight all the rest and remainder of my land to him and his heirs.
Daughter Eliza Knight shall have as much land as a couple of hands can tend during her life and not to be molested with land she now lives on.
Son Leon’d Knight my silver seals and one hundred pounds of tobacco
Daughter Elizabeth Knight one hundred pounds of tobacco to buy her a ring.
Daughter Mary Knight one hundred pounds of tobacco to buy her a ring.
Son James Knight my sole executor.
Son James Knight all my personal estate to him and his heirs.
Witness: mark of Robt R Nash, Patrick Maley PM his mark, Joan O Maley her mark
July 16th 1712. This original will was presented into Northumberland County Court by Jno Coppedge and the book of Records wherein the same was recorded being burnd with the office on the sd Coppedge motion. it is again admitted to Record.
One gets the impression that James was the elder child and that would make sense as Ann’s father was a James. We don’t know where the name Leonard may have come from. Leonard was given a large parcel of land, seals and tobacco, one of the major currencies of the time. James got almost everything else and was executor. We notice that Elizabeth is given use of land and “enough tobacco to buy her a ring” while Mary only received a chunk of tobacco and nothing else. Perhaps she was already taken care of in some way?
In Northumberland County we find an apprenticeship record as follows:
Record 239, p. 52: 21 September 1715 – Ariskam Crowder orpht Son of Tho Crowder deced is hereby bound an apprentice to serve Mary Knight her heirs Execrs & Admrs in all lawfull Services & imploymts until he shall attain the age of One & twenty years (he being Seven years old on the fifth day of last Augt) in Consideration whereof ye sd Mary Knight doth hereby oblige her self her heirs Execrs & Admrs to ye Justices of this County their heris & Successrs for & on the behalf of the said Orpht in ye penal sum of five thousand pounds of toba to find and allow him ye sd Ariskam during the sd terme Sufficient Apparel, Dyet, Washing & Lodging to teach him or Cause him to be taught the trade of a Weaver and give him sufficient learning & Christian Education according to Law. OB 1713-19, 130. (Northumberland County Virginia Apprenticeships 1650-1750, Compiled by W. Preston Haynie, Heritage Books, 2007)
If this was not the widow of a Thomas Knight of the same County, (who may or may not be in some family relationship to Peter) then it might indicate that the daughters of Capt. Peter Knight were either very independent or unmarriageable for some reason. Peter’s will makes a peculiar bequest to his daughter, Elizabeth: “Daughter Eliza Knight shall have as much land as a couple of hands can tend during her life and not to be molested with land she now lives on.”
Why would anyone want to molest her land holding or lifestyle? It appears it may have been peculiar for some reason for such a stipulation to have been made in the will. Her grandfather, James Hawley, gave her a calf in 1660 probably when she was born. And again we notice, no mention of grandchildren in Capt. Peter’s will though he hopefully mentions heirs forever etc. It is as though these four children of Capt. Peter Knight just sort of fade into the twilight after Peter, himself, made such a strong and dramatic impression.
So, from the above, it seems cut and dried that Peter had two sons, Leonard and James, and two daughters, Elizabeth and Mary; but things are not quite that simple. But, for the moment, let’s see if we can follow these children.
In Virginia Colonial Abstracts Series 2, Vol. 1 Northumberland County, Virginia 1678-1713 compiled by Lindsay O. Duvall, (Southern Historical Press, Easley, SC, 1979) we find:
Court 15 Oct. 1701 Motion of Mary Hornsby Relict and Widdow of John Hornsby, a Probate of the Will of her dec’d husband John Hornsby, proved by Leonard Knight and Elizabeth Knight. (p. 85)
Here we must be seeing Leonard acting in concert with his sister, Elizabeth (an interesting activity for an unmarried woman of the time, perhaps reflecting the odd wording of her father’s will?) unless he was married to an Elizabeth who died and he quickly remarried before the item below this next one:
Court 18 July 1705 Motion of James Knight, Exor., a Probate to him of the Last Will of his dec’d ffather Mr. Peter Knight, proved by Patrick Maley and Robert Marsh. (p. 102)
Court 16 Aug. 1705 Leonard Knight and Anne his wife Ack. A Deed of Indenture of Land to William Short of Lancaster County. (p. 102)
Knight, Leonard m. bef. 19. Sept 1705 Ann. Their son, Ephraim, b. 13 Oct 1706 (GVAT (NCRB):467; NCOB 1699-1713 Pt 1:373)
From "Virginia County Records - Spotsylvania County, 1721-1800, Volume I" edited by William Armstrong Crozier.
25 Dec 1723 Leonard Night (Knight) purchased 140 acres of land in Spotsylvania County from Francis Thornton of Essex Co. and Antho. Thornton of Stafford Co., Gentl., for 530 lbs of tobacco yearly for 99 years. Rec. April 7, 1724.
So, Leonard moved to Spotsylvania with his wife Ann and son Ephraim. The next we find on this family is probably Ephraim, son of Ephraim because the dates are too late to be Ephraim, son of Leonard. From the same source (Crozier):
13 Feb 1760 Spotsylvania Co., VA, Ephraim Knight purchased 165 acres From Zachary Garton and Alijah Garton and Frances, his wife.
2 Mar 1765, Spotsylvania Co., VA, Ephraim Knight of St. Geo. Par. Spts. Co., to Hugh Lenox & Co, Mercht. 28 pounds, 18s 11d curr. Mortgage, 165 acres in Par. And Co. afsd., purchased by sd. Knight of Zachary and Elijah Garton, 5 Mar 1765.
11 Dec 1789 Spotsylvania Co., VA Ephraim Knight purchased from John Knight of Stafford Co. and Winifred his wife, 79 acres for 60 pounds.
1 Nov 1790 Spotsylvania Co., VA, Ephraim Knight Deed of Gift: 79 acres in Spots. Co., also cattle, goods and chattels; tract of land in same Co., also cattle, goods and chattels; and stock, etc. to his children: James Knight, Lewis Knight, Elizabeth Ann Knight, all of same County. Deed of Gift to James Knight, 79 acres in Spots. Co purchased of Jno. Knight. Etc etc.
3 Sep 1793, Spotsylvania Co., VA Ephraim Knight and Sarah his wife, and James Knight their son, to John Billingsly, 79 acres purchased by sd. Ephraim of his brother Jno. Knight, in Berkeley Parish, Spots. Co., for 60 pounds currency.
9 Nov 1795 Spotsylvania Co., VA Ephraim Knight deceased. Jno. Knight and Winifred his wife, of Stafford Co. sell to Elijah Knight of Spots. Co. for 32 pounds currency, 85 a., part of tract purchased by Ephriam Knight, decd., of Zachariah and Elijah Garton, in Spots. Co., etc., etc. Uriah Knight, Zachariah Knight
We have acquired a small bit of knowledge of this family from these land records. We now know that Ephraim Knight, son of Leonard, had at least two sons: Ephraim and John and that John’s wife was named Winifred. We know that Ephraim and Sarah had three children: James, Lewis and Elizabeth Ann. We don’t yet know who Uriah Knight, Zachariah Knight, or Elijah Knight are.
Peter Knight, JR and William Knight Problem
Let’s go back to the Peter Knight, JR problem.
Now, we can look at this Peter JR problem two ways: either Capt. Peter Knight was a Junior – and here he is thereby giving us the name of his father – or Capt. Peter Knight had a son named Peter who was a Junior in 1663. If Capt. Peter is the son of Peter the Merchant, there are the two possibilities in 1663 since we strongly suspect that Peter the Merchant died around 1673. Additionally, we note that it was in that same year that Capt. Peter sold a tract of land and his wife, Anne Hawley Knight, signed off on her rights. So it certainly looks like Capt. Peter was making provisions for a son of a previous wife and settling into life with his new family.
Keep in mind that Capt. Peter was 43 years old at this point in time, and life expectancy wasn’t that long in those days so he may have been getting his affairs in order, selling land to provide for children by a first wife, and thereby making sure there would be a peaceful transition when he departed this life. But that is just speculation.
One thing is notable: there was no Peter or other children mentioned in the will of Capt. Peter Knight and this could be because they never existed (which is doubtful), or because they had already been provided for, or because they were dead at the time of the making of his will. Why do I think that a Peter Jr. existed? Because it was almost certain that a first son would be named after his father and the sons named in Peter’s will were James and Leonard; where was the Peter? Being named Peter, he would probably have been the first born, and his absence from the will, suggests that he died young or was the son of a first wife and had already been provided for.
Was this Peter Jr. also named William, as in “William Peter” or “Peter William” as some folks suppose? I don’t think so because the use of second given names was not yet a practice. I’ve seen way too many conflations of two people by combining names this way.
We know there is a strong tradition that there was a William Knight, son of Captain Peter, so what can we determine about that? The line of force of the tiny bits of evidence available tend to support the marriage of Peter Knight to a Basse by which he obtained the rights to patent the Basse land, and that he had a son named Peter, and now I want to consider the possibility that he had a son named William. Let’s look at another piece of evidence that may help us – or make things worse!
Recall this item from: Records of Indentured Servants and of Certificates for Land Northumberland County Virginia 1650-1795:
11. 24 May 1650 – According to sufficient proofe made to this Court, there is due to Mr. Peter Knight One hundred & Fifty acres of Land for the transportation of these persons into this Colony, Viz his own transportation, Wm Knight, John Cloberry. Deeds, Orders 1650-52, 43. (p. 24)
That is, Capt. Peter Knight obtained a smallish land right claim in Northumberland County in 1650, based on himself, a William Knight, and a John Cloberry. Notice that he does not include a wife or any other children, no “Peter Jr.” If there was a Peter Jr born in 1640, he would have been 10 years old in 1650. But here Captain Peter is in company with a William Knight.
The name of John Cloberry is interesting in and of itself. There was a London merchant/shipper by the name of William Cloberry involving himself in affairs in Virginia as early as 1627. The records compiled by Peter Wilson Coldham show that this individual got into a dispute with Cecil, Lord Baltimore in the 1630s, and the disposition of the dispute in 1638 was:
14 July: The King advises Cecil Lord Baltimore not to interfere with William Clobery, David Moorehead and other planters in Kent Island (CSPC) (Coldham, p. 199)
Obviously, William Cloberry had some clout and this John Cloberry could very well have been his son being “borrowed” for headright purposes. Was John Cloberry a friend and companion of a son of Peter Knight named William? Is it possible that Peter sent his sons to live with family or friends while he pioneered in Northumberland County?
One thing about this item is that Capt. Peter was using himself and just two other people. Most of his land records show him transporting loads of other people, but only one other time, as far as we have records, is he, himself, included as one of the transportees. If we look at Nugent’s land records volumes, we do not find anything relating to the above land record. There is one record dated to a year before, and one some time after and they are both obviously about a single tract of land being patented and re-patented.
In Chapman’s volume on Isle of Wight County, we find this:
Knight, William: Dying intestate, administration requested by Frances Knight, Aug. 10 1672. R. Nov. 13, 1672. Security, Captain Arthur Smith, Mr. George Moore. (p.69)
We note Capt. Arthur Smith acting as security. Earlier we find this regarding the father of this Capt. Arthur in the same volume:
Smith, Arthur: Of Warrisqueake. Leg. – sons Arthur and Richard etc… Overseers, Peter Hull, Peter Knight and George Hardy. D. Oct 1, 1645. R. Feb. 9, 1693.
As suggested above, it is altogether possible that when Captain Peter Knight made his will in 1702 leaving everything to Leonard, James, Elizabeth and Mary, they may have been the only children he had left. If he had children from an early marriage, born in say, 1640 and 1642 or thereabouts, they would have been well past middle age and possibly deceased. And there also may have been some disconnection in the family due to a second wife and a second batch of children.
I think the conclusion is that Captain Peter Knight did, indeed, have a first wife and family only we are denied any details since the records of Nansemond County were destroyed as were many other records. He possibly had at least one son with his first wife, more likely two, who may or may not have been Genevieve Basse based on the evidence of land records: 1) he obtained the patent to Basses Choice which is weight in favor of him having married one of the family; 2) he is associated with a William Knight in a very peculiar way as though this William were part of a single parent household; 3) There is a Peter Knight Jr on one land record. Regarding the latter, it could have been Captain Peter himself, and we might be entitled to think that he thereby gave us the name of his father, but then why would he not name his own first son “Peter” as well? And what is UP with the name “Leonard”?
The Hawley Problem
I want to go in another direction here and look at what I call “The Hawley Problem” which really isn’t much of a problem, but a lot of people are listing Capt. Peter’s wife as “Francis Ann”.
In 1641 James Hawley was awarded 300 acres in Isle of Wight County on the headwater of Baye Creek for transporting himself, his wife Ann, his children Francis, Ann and Alice.
James Hawley, 300 acs. Isle of Wight Co., Apr. 22, 1641, p. 748. Upon the head of the Lower Baye Cr., adj. John Rowe. Due for the per. Adv. Of himself, Ann, his wife, & trans. Of 4 pers: Francis Ann & Alice, his children, John Foster & Richard Darling. Patent renewed Sept. 27, 1643. (p. 125)
Sixteen years later, he is patenting land in Northumberland County.
James Hawly, 1000 acs. Northumberland Co., 13 Mar. 1657, p. 160, (236). On S. side of Petomeck, on head branches of Matchotick Riv., beg. At corner of George Watts. Trans. Of 20 pers: Susan & Rebecca Orly, Jno. Hill, Dan. Ryly, Jno. Benton, Sarah Rasee, Mr. Geo. Coltclough, Mrs. Ursula Coltclough, Sarah Tompson, Phillip Nut, Ral. Stevenson, Wm. Osborne, Jno. Highland (Highlander?), Geo. Cuny, Amy Steevens, Amy Yeomans, Elizabeth Exe. Renewed 24 May 1664.
Curiously, we find Mr. Geo. Coltclough listed above patenting his own 300 acs. In Northumberland Co. on 4 June 1655 (p. 309), two years earlier. So, he was already there, but could be used as a transportee by someone else. (Yes, I know that grants were often written down some time after the arrival of the person and record-keeping wasn’t what an OCD archivist would wish, but still, we see repeated evidence of prestidigitation of lists of persons in order to obtain huge tracts of land. And that is another reason that the 150 acres Peter obtained with William and John Cloberry is so odd.
There has been a lot of confusion about the children of James Hawley, many people assuming that “Francis Ann” is one child, never mind that the spelling is that for a male, not a female, i.e. Frances. Apparently, Peter Knight used the names of his father-in-law and family for a land grant in Northumberland three years before Hawley’s own Northumberland grant viz:
Peter Knight, 1200 acs. Northumberland Co., on the S. of great Wicocomoco Riv., 2 Oct 1654, p. 290. On the head of the Swd. Branch of sd. River, E.S.E upon land of Tho. Coggen &c Trans. Of 24 pers: Robert Burrell his wife & 3 children out of Holland; James Haly, Ann his wife; Fra. Ann & Alice, their children; John Foster, Ruth Darling, James Hill, James Lloyd, Deborah Come, James Jones, John Jerrell, Wm. Bradly, Wm. Slinton, Jno. Waddington. (p. 295)
From the above two grants mentioning the children, you can see how people might have derived the name “Francis Ann” from “Fra. Ann”. But, the same land described previously as being patented by Peter Knight JR, for the transport of 37 persons, and then 19 persons, actually first appeared in relation to the transport of the Hawly family:
Mr. Peeter Knight, 925 acs., in Petowmack Riv. Adj. Chappawansicke Cr. 9 Oct 1656, p. 71 (104). Moiety of patent for 1850 acs. (As above) Renewal. Retaken up by new rights & trans. Of 19 pers: John Waddington, Andrew Cockerin, Wm. Ballingall, Edwd. Meeres, Wm. Mundy, Rich. Wall & 1 servt. Name Thomas, James Hawly, Ann his wife, 3 children, Jno. Foster, Ruth Darlinge, James Hill, James Loyd, Jno Seaman, Wm. Seaman, Gilbert Seaman. (p. 340)
And, as we know, in 1663, Peter Knight JR, re-patented this same tract.
Aside from the issues of Peter Knight vs. Peter Knight JR that we have already discussed in relation to this grant, it seems obvious that James Haly of the earlier patent is likely James Hawly of the second patent; and here the children are being numbered as THREE which, by the name Francis, may have included a son who may not have lived long. It seems likely that Ann was just that: Ann, and not “Francis Ann”; second names were not yet common so this is the most likely explanation.
Now, if James Hawley imported himself and his three children in 1641, can we assume that Ann Hawley was, at the very least, a small child at the time? I haven’t found a single piece of evidence for the dates of birth of the four named children of Capt. Peter Knight, i.e. Leonard, James, Elizabeth and Mary, but they seem to be grown-up at the time of Peter’s will in 1702. Evidence suggests that Ann, the mother, died between her last appearance on a document in 1663 and Peter’s will in 1702; that’s a stretch of 39 years. We can’t make too much of that because Ann could have died any time during that period even just shortly before he made his will. In fact, he may have been prompted to make a will by the death of his wife which would be the interpretation I prefer.
Based on my assessment that there were three children of Hawley, Ann was possibly the middle child and thus possibly five years old when she came to the colony around 1640. There is testimony (below) that James Hawley was born in 1605 and Ann Hawley the elder born in 1615. They could have begun their family as early as 1631. That, taken together with the existence of an elder brother, Francis, might mean Ann Hawley the younger was born around 1635. In this instance, she would be 16 and marriageable by 1651 or thereabouts and we have seen that Peter Knight obtained a grant in Northumberland County in 1650 with a William Knight and no other family included unless William Knight be considered family.
Thus, it appears that Ann Hawley married Capt. Peter Knight only AFTER 1656 when he again used her under her maiden name as a headright. Thus, her children’s birthdates could begin after that, and the evidence suggests this to be the case (gift from grandfather, James Hawley, to grandchild, Elizabeth Knight in 1660. One doesn’t know the birth order for certain, but, as discussed above, the first son would be James, who received the eldest son’s portion in the will and was made executor.
The John Knight Problem
There is another strange clue: From Records of Indentured Servants and of Certificates for Land Northumberland County Virginia 1650-1795:
p. 34 – P. 193 Northumberland County Court 22nd of October 1658, The difference depending between Mr. Charles Ashton, Plt., and Mr. James Hawley & Jno: Knight, Defendants, being tried by a Jury whose names are subscribed, vizt.
Mr. Wm.: Thomas, Thomas Brewer, Henry Toppin, Richard Spann, Mr. Nicho: Jernow, Simon Richardson, Antho: Linton, Justinian Tennis, John Motley, Abraham Joyce, Wm: Colman, Jno: Bailes. We of the Jury being empannelled to try the Cause between Mr. Charles Ashton, Plant: & Mr. James Hawley & John Knight, Defendants, do award as followeth: vizt., That the Plaintiff shall forthwith: have a sufficient able Servant delivered him by the Defendants,: Mr. Hawley to allow for two thirds thereof & John Knight the other third: And each party to beare his own charges, the sd. Servant to have one complete year to serve Wm: Thomas
So, we find James Hawley, undoubtedly close to Capt. Peter Knight who either has, or will soon marry his daughter, closely associated with a John Knight. Who was this John Knight? He was obviously old enough to be involved in a court case over a servant so he is unlikely to be a son of Capt. Peter. Could he have been a brother?
Mention is made in the Virginia records of a certain John Knight who, in 1666, was living in Isle of Wight County and was then over seventy years of age. (William and Mary Mag., Vol. 19, p. 101). Could this be the John Knight associated with James Hawley in the above cited lawsuit of 1658? There is no other reference to this particular John in the records. If he was at least 70 in 1666, that would put his birth year at about 1596, of an age to be brother to Peter’s father and thus his uncle.
This may be the same John Knight associated with James Hawley, found in Haynie:
12 May 1760 – Anne Osborn, a servant belonging to John Knight, Came into Court and agreed to serve her said master over & above her usual time of service two years in Consideration of her said Master’s curing her of the foul disease and paying the Costs and if the said John Knight agrees that if she is not Cured the above agreement to be void. OB 1758-62, 179. (304, Haynie)
