Scope and Contents note

Arranged by Sender. This is the largest group of manuscripts in the collection. The letters range in subject matter from support of Martha's court endeavors to more general wishes of good health or observations about the weather. There are more letters from men than women, some of these letters are personal in manner while others are quite impersonal. While many of the letters in this series are written to express support in Martha's court cases, and even some congratulatory remarks on testimony, others were written to set up visits or request her company. There are also letters with inquiries into health and discussions and thoughts on the weather. In addition, several letters offer advice and counsel regarding the court cases and one specifically serves as a letter of introduction to Robert Bradstreet, not a cousin, but one believed to be of potential service. Lastly, there is even an invitation to view the botanical gardens in London.

One noteworthy item in this series is a letter written by Martha's distant cousin, H. Stratton, to Martha. In this letter Mr. Stratton expresses his suspicions with regard to the motives behind the kindness and assistance devoted to Martha by the Bradstreets of Dublin (the same sentiments are echoed in his letter to Edward Bell which we will see below in Series III). H. Stratton writes of Irish deceit and "the necessity of great reserve & caution in every transaction" and it is clear he is speaking specifically of John.

There are a great deal of letters written by cousin John Bradstreet to Martha documenting over a decade of their relationship, beginning as early as 1812 and dating as late as 1824. The majority of John's letters focus on Martha's case, and it is clear that he helps her obtain relevant documentation and support in both Dublin and London. He also writes to her of his own economic situation, the loan by which he is bound to his brother Simon as well as income he is expecting. At one point, in a letter dated 1817, John denies her accusation that he is seeking to support his family on her Delaware property, although it is clear that he does wish to bring his family across to America and perhaps rent some of Martha's land. He is saddened by her mistrust of him and writes several letters in May of 1817 ensuring her of his devotion to her cause and his noble intentions vis a vis his family. Although we do not have her letters that prompted such replies, it may seem that H. Stratton's letter of 1815 mentioned above may have influenced Martha's opinion or at least opened the realm of possibility for mistrust to blossom. It is clear from John's letters that Martha had children; they were mentioned several times during the course of his correspondence, although no names were mentioned.

The letter dated 1858, the latest in this series, was written by Thomas Bradstreet, in all likelihood "Tommy" Bradstreet, the son of cousin John and his wife Peggy Bradstreet. He wrote that based on his reading of her latest letter he believes she "still retain[s] the vigor of younger days." One can infer from this that Martha is continuing her cause as the letter further addresses an interview with a judge and conversations with a couple of lawyers.

The material does not provide much evidence of what was happening with Martha between 1830 and 1858.

Scope and Contents note

Arranged by recipient. Included here are letters concerning C. Bedford and Edward Bell, both of whom Martha believed had insulted her by claiming that she had been abusive in insulting them. There seems to have been some dispute over money owed to each of these men for their services to her in her quest in regaining the property in the United States. Bedford and Bell were Martha's legal council in London, deciphering the wills of her relatives and in the sale of some of her husband Mr. Codd's property. In addition, there is correspondence between these two men amongst themselves as well as with John Bradstreet, discussing Martha's personal character and state of affairs. Martha's letter to John Bradstreet, however, does not mention this, instead, she writes that although she knows Peggy (Mrs. John Bradstreet) feels that in exchange for all they have done for her, Martha should take care of them financially, Martha wrote that it was not feasible, she had her own debts and needed to support her own children. The last letter, dated much later to Martin V. B. Wilconson, refers to the next Judge to be faced on the Herkimer Circuit. It seems that Martha's legal battles extend to the later 1850s.

Scope and Contents note

Arranged by Sender. Many letters in this series include instructions for Mrs. Codd, sent through Mr. Bradstreet. As indicated above, we see Mr. Bell complaining about Mrs. Codd in several letters dated 1815. Edmond Bradstreet also referred to Mrs. Codd and it seems he too would have liked a share of her profit, if she were to win her case. Interestingly, only one of the two letters addressed to John Bradstreet from his brother Edmond was sent. Robert Bradstreet, although sharing the name, was not a relative, but offered Mrs. Codd his assistance. Joseph Hopkinson, Henry Platel, and Mr. Trebeck also offered help. C. Wynne was married to the sister of John, Edmond and Simon Bradstreet and wrote to relay information concerning Martha's case. Through this series it becomes apparent that John Bradstreet owed his brother Simon a good deal of money and there are many letters from Robert Murphy relating to this strained relationship. The majority of the letters were written and sent in 1815.

Scope and Contents note

Arranged by Recipient. Letters include information on John's dire financial situation in addition to his solicitation of help on behalf of Martha. We can see that John helped her obtain the original will of Martha Bradstreet (d. 1782) through the assistance of Charles Morgan. In addition, a thank you letter was sent by Robert Murphy to John for his assistance with Martha who, while in Dublin, paid Mr. Murphy the balance on an annuity.

Scope and Contents note

Arranged chronologically. This series includes wills and legal copies illustrating the divisions of land and various bequeaths. It begins with General John Bradstreet's will dated 1774, and includes questions raised based on the will, the case and a subsequent opinion given by Charles F. Meager. The will of Agatha Evans dated 1794 proved and recorded 1795 includes additional copies subsequently dated 1827-1856. Agatha's daughter Frances, who was married to Edward Bainbridge, died in 1803 as noted by an attestation of Agatha's will dated 1827. Included in this attestation, we find that Frances' will requested the men appointed as executors of her will to dispose of her property in order to raise money for the education of her children. Although we do not have a copy of her actual will, this attestation includes the relevant information. In addition to these wills, there is an 1818 Canterbury Extract from the Registry regarding Martha Bradstreet's will (d. 1782). Finally, the will of Elizabeth Livius dated 1794 makes up the final part of this collection. This will provides that Mrs. Livius leave all of her property and estate to her [niece] Martha Bradstreet, but it is under the understanding that Martha must marry with the consent of Sir Charles Morgan, the executor of this will. We do know that although Martha did not initially have his consent, Mr. Morgan later approved of her marriage. There is related correspondence located in Series III between Henry Platel and Edward Bell.

Scope and Contents note

Arranged chronologically. These are deeds to the tracts of land pursued by Martha Bradstreet. The deeds and documentation here outline various borders, lots numbers, and involve leases illustrating the order of inhabitants. Highlights of this part of the collection include an exemplified copy of a deed dating back to 1772 of land issued by Henry Ten Eyck to General Philip Schuyler as well as a certified copy of a deed between Henry, Duke of Grafton (same as above) to Philip Schuyler in 1793. In 1794, land transferred from Elizabeth Livius (through Charles and subsequently Edward Gould) to Agatha Evans, Samuel Bradstreet and his children Martha and Samuel Bradstreet. There is also a "Certificate of Charges" in Philip Schuyler's grandfather's ledger dated 1844 (orig. ledger 1786-88) with respect to a map of the Cosby Manor lots.

Scope and Contents note

Arranged chronologically. This subseries represents the actual legal documentation produced in the courts as direct results of the lawsuits Martha Bradstreet filed over the course of many years. There are various court documents including the names of many of the men whom Martha sued such as Alexander Johnson, John Stiles, Marcus Hitchcock, Malcolm McKenyon and finally Henry Huntington, the latter of which made it to the Supreme Court in 1831, as judged by Justice Johnson. In addition, there is an 1831 Albany District Court "statement of facts in relation to the dismissal of Mrs. Martha Bradstreet's Suits."

Martha tries to get Judge Conkling removed from the case, which we see in several Memorials dated 1824-1840. For more information on this particular aspect of Martha's court endeavors please see "The Memorial of Martha Bradstreet: Praying for the impeachment of Alfred Conkling, United States Judge of the Northern District of New-York." NY: 1829. (The New-York Historical Society, General Library Collection).

Interestingly, there is a Bill of Complaint that is not attributed to Martha, but a Sarah Mary Anne Bradstreet versus Philip Schuyler et al. It is not dated but clearly comes after Martha's time, mentioning the history of the family and Martha's attempts to reclaim the land. This Bradstreet appears to specifically concern herself with a tract of land, originally part of Lot 53, entitled, Waggoner's Patent. In addition to her quest for land, this Bill of Complaint mentions some earlier documentation, although missing from this collection, that pertain to Martha's divorce from Matthew Codd in 1816. In 1816 Martha issued her own Bill of Complaint to the High and Honourable Court of Chancery provides that her rights and property were to be restored. Secondly, in 1817 Matthew Codd had to turn over to Martha all deeds, patents, agreements, leases and counterparts of leases, papers and evidences of little which do or may related to Martha at the time of their marriage.

Worthy of note would be the fact that not only did Martha lose her various cases, she actually owed money on several occasions. This is evidenced by an 1825 indenture which states that Martha owed money to Josiah Meiss and to John S. Tillinghast. Later, in 1824 she owed money to Henry McKinstry, Additson Porter and Samuel L Penfield as described in the Bill of Complaint above. An undated document from the land office pertains to an offer to give Martha land if she drops suits for 1000 acres. This was unsigned and the wording appears to have been terminated before completion.

Scope and Contents note

Arranged chronologically. This subseries includes a couple of grants of Power of Attorney in addition to billing statements for services rendered. The Granting of Power of Attorney from John Jackson and his wife to Edward Bradstreet is dated 1856, late in the collection. The earliest item in this subseries would be a Schedule B copy of the Power of Attorney granted by the Duke of Grafton to John Watts in 1791. In this subseries, one would also find legal court fees, most likely for the copies of wills Martha had made when she was over in London. Lastly, there is a bill for legal services E. G. Smith performed for Martha Codd.