b. 2 Sept. 1689, Darby Twp., Chester Co., Pa. d. 30 Sept. 1745. Father: John Blunston* (1644-1723). Mother: Sarah Bickerstaff (Blunston) (d. 1692). m. 1718 Sarah ___(?)___ (Bilton) (d. early 1740s). Uncle: Michael Blunston.* Brother: John Blunston* (16 85-1716). Offices: Chester Co.: JP, 1728; Lanc. Co.: JP, 1729-41; clerk of the peace, prothonotary, and recorder of deeds, 1729-41?; surveyor, 1727, 1729-31; collector of proprietary quitrents, 1735-39; deputy register, 1745; Hempfield, Donegal, and Derry twps.: deputy surveyor, 1735-39.

               Samuel Blunston, son, nephew, and brother of assemblymen, served five active terms in the House. Most notably, however, he served Lancaster County as justice of the peace, clerk of the peace, prothonotary, proprietary land agent, and deputy surveyor, and he led Pennsylvania's defense against Maryland incursions along the Susquehanna River, in what is commonly known as "Cressap's War."

               Blunston was born to John* and Sarah Blunston on 2 September 1689 in Darby Township, Chester County. The elder Blunston, a prominent Quaker, served 12 terms in the Assembly (3 as Speaker), 23 years in the Provincial Council, and 18 years as a Chester County justice of the peace, thereby providing an environment of political leadership for his sons.

               In the summer of 1718, several months prior to his thirtieth birthday, Samuel Blunston married the widow Sarah Bilton, owner of the Lower, or Chambers' (later Gray's), Ferry over the Schuylkill River, with its ferry house and 55 acres of land. Blunston became the licensed proprietor of that ferry. Late in 1725, two years after his father's death, Blunston purchased a house and 180 acres in Darby Township for a rent charge of £6 from his stepmother, Margaret Blunston, which property he would have inherited after her death. In 1727 Blunston's tax assessment for Lower Darby ranked him in the top 19 percent of householders. Blunston resided there, however, for only a short period of time; in August 1726 he had purchased for £100 a 300-acre tract from James Logan on the east side of the Susquehanna River in Conestoga Township, Chester County, which area later became Hempfield Township, Lancaster County. He probably moved to that property by 1728, in which year he acquired from the proprietors a 353-acre tract on the west side of the Susquehanna in territory still owned by the Indians and also in dispute between Pennsylvania and Maryland. Even though the Indians surrendered their right to lands west of the Susquehanna in 1736, the Maryland dispute prevented Blunston from confirming that purchase by patent.

               Early in 1730 Blunston sold his house and 130 acres in Darby Township for £215, although he still retained 50 acres, as well as lots on High Street, in Darby, the latter probably inherited from his father. In 1734 Blunston purchased from Logan for £200 another 300-acre tract in Hempfield contiguous with his earlier purchase. Two years later he bought, with a £100 loan from Thomas Penn, the house and 350-acre tract west of the Susquehanna owned by Justice John Hendricks, who had long been caught in the middle of the Pennsylvania-Maryland dispute. Once again, however, Blunston was unable to obtain a patent before his death. Blunston waited five years before adding further to his estate; in 1741 he acquired another 225 acres in Hempfield, 214 acres in Derry Township, and 31½ acres on the west side of Conestoga Creek.

               In 1729, having been one of the signers of the successful petition to the Assembly to erect Lancaster County, Blunston was appointed by the Provincial Council to assist in running the lines for the new county. That same year, in May, Blunston was named to the first Lancaster County commission of the peace; he was reappointed in 1733, 1737, and 1738 and probably served continuously from 1729 until his name was dropped from the commission in 1741. In May 1729 Blunston had also been appointed clerk of the peace and prothonotary for the county, which posts he held apparently until 1741. Moreover, he appears to have been surveying in the region that became Lancaster County as early as 1727 and continued to do so at least until 1731, although probably without a commission. Thus, James Logan in May 1730 discussed a claim by Andrew Hamilton* to land in the town of Lancaster based upon a survey "tho not regularly made by S[amuel] Bl[unston]." The following year Logan advised Blunston that he was "apprehensive" that settlers would not regard his surveys as having the same authority as those made by John Taylor,* who, with his father, had been "for almost 30 years ... the Surveyors for Chester County and ... those parts," and who himself was the only individual "acquainted with the Surveys already made for the Dutch & others" in Lancaster County. Only Taylor, he added, could "make out proper Draughts of them." In any event, Blunston, like his father, had become a significant county official; all that was lacking was service on the provincial level.

               In 1732 provincial service became a reality for Blunston when the freeholders of Lancaster County elected him to the Assembly, where he was joined, after a county by-election (to replace the late George Stuart*), by his close friend and neighbor John Wright* (1667-1749). In the Assembly Blunston received four assignments, the largest total for any of the four Lancaster County representatives. He was named to represent his county on the committee that responded to Governor Patrick Gordon's opening speech lamenting the depressed condition of trade, the poor quality of flour exported from the colony, and the large number of shipwrecks in Delaware Bay caused by lack of both buoys and qualified pilots. Gordon had also called for the establishment of clear property rights, particularly to immigrants "whose peaceable Behaviour may have recommended them." The committee responded rather vaguely on all the matters recommended by Gordon, calling simply for "Remedies" to promote trade; arguing that the "few Losses" in Delaware Bay had been caused more by "Misconduct" than by any "uncommon Difficulty or Danger" in the bay; and insisting that the presence of Thomas Penn in the colony would be sufficient to confirm legal purchasers "in the quiet Possession of their Lands" and to encourage "peaceable and industrious" immigrants to settle in Pennsylvania. Blunston was also appointed to the committee to review the excise and flour acts and to draft a bill for the easier recovery of small debts. However, upon the death of the proprietary heir, Springet Penn, the Assembly questioned Gordon's right to continue as governor without a new proprietary commission approved by the crown, and therefore refused to proceed any further on legislation. Gordon, "with no small Surprize" at the House's action, concluded that the question was intended "to do him a particular Injury, and to introduce Confusion in the Administration." He sent a message to the Assembly criticizing the members for having failed to address such substantive unresolved issues as the need for an excise on liquors and for an amended flour act. Blunston, with John Wright, then visited Gordon "not as from the House, only as friends" to warn him that the House was "under some Uneasiness touching his Message," and they asked him to withdraw the message rather than cause unnecessary friction. Gordon, after discussing the matter with four members of the Provincial Council, including Isaac Norris* (1671-1735) and Clement Plumsted,* told Blunston and Wright that he would not withdraw the message, and that he desired a further explanation for the House's action. The Assembly, in turn, adjourned without further elaborating on its stance; consequently, no legislation was enacted.

               While John Wright would continue to serve Lancaster County in the Assembly virtually every year after 1732 until his death in 1749, Blunston would not serve again in the House for almost a decade. Instead, he focused his attention on developments in Lancaster County, particularly along the west side of the Susquehanna River. Beginning late in 1731 and continuing until 1738 Blunston became the chief correspondent with the proprietors on behalf of Lancaster County settlers loyal to Pennsylvania in their efforts to counter the attempt by Maryland agents to seize control of the west side of the Susquehanna. In a steady stream of letters, directed generally to Thomas Penn, or to James Logan while president of the Provincial Council, Blunston (sometimes in conjunction with Wright) provided graphic details of the violent skirmishes (and often wild rumors) along the border. Blunston was particularly concerned with the actions of Thomas Cressap and his followers, whom Blunston considered "people of Loose Morals & Turbulant Spirrits" who drove the Indians off lands well north of Maryland's previous claims and settled there themselves. From their base at Conejohela (about four miles south of Wrightsville), Cressap and his compatriots terrorized settlers on both sides of the river, with the Pennsylvanians often responding in kind. While deaths were few, verbal and physical intimidation was common, particularly by the Marylanders against Palatine German settlers on the west side of the Susquehanna. A number of settlers from both camps were arrested by opposing authorities and imprisoned either at Annapolis or at Lancaster.

               The border dispute had three dimensions. At the provincial level, correspondence, often harsh and accusatory, ensued on a regular basis between Governor Gordon and James Logan on the one side and Governor Samuel Ogle of Maryland on the other. At the proprietary level, Lord Baltimore and the Penn family put their respective claims before the English government and court of chancery. Finally, and most significantly for Blunston, there was the dispute on the ground.

               As early as October 1731 Blunston warned the clerk of the Provincial Council, Robert Charles, that the Conestoga Indians were demanding protection against Marylanders who had settled on Indian lands west of the Susquehanna and had "Beat & wounded one of their women who went to Get apples from their own Trees And took away her apples." Blunston informed Charles that the Lancaster authorities, unable to prove the charge leveled by the Conestogas, still had "Just Cause" to arrest Cressap "for breach of Law in Entertaining & protecting a bound Servant" who belonged to one of the Pennsylvanians, and that Cressap had threatened "to Shoot any person" who attempted to take away the servant. Yet Cressap remained at large and tensions appeared to ease until November 1732, when some horses belonging to a Pennsylvanian were allegedly killed by the sons of a Cressap associate. Blunston and John Wright issued a warrant to take the culprits into custody, but the ensuing arrest was accomplished with such violence that Lord Baltimore condemned the proceedings as an "Outragious Riot." Blunston and Wright denied the charge and insisted that the real perpetrators of violence were Cressap "& his Company" who had disturbed the peace, "Carrying people out of the province, ... Taking away the Guns from ... the Indians, Tying & making them Prisoners without any offence given, and threatening all who Should oppose them." Blunston and Wright reiterated that Cressap was ultimately responsible, as well, for killing the pack horses of Pennsylvania Indian traders kept on the west side of the Susquehanna. Governor Gordon, writing to Lord Baltimore, strongly defended the actions of Blunston and Wright, two "Gentlemen of ... Integrity, Discretion & good Abilities" who had been "greatly misrepresented" to his lordship, and he reminded the Maryland proprietor that Maryland lacked legal right to the lands in question.

               As some Pennsylvanians settled west of the Susquehanna to protect that colony's presumed rights there, hostilities increased, and Blunston's letters often adopted a shrill tone. By July 1733 two Pennsylvanians had been seized by Cressap's forces and imprisoned in Maryland. In that month, when two more Pennsylvanians, Joshua Minshall and Arnold Costard, were ambushed by Cressap while at harvest, Blunston warned Thomas Penn that the prison in Joppa, Maryland, where they might be carried, was (according to the two Pennsylvanians captured earlier) "So offensive with Dung and other Filth" as to be "almost Intolerable." Even more serious from Blunston's view was the alleged statement by Cressap that if his men had trapped Minshall and Costard in the house and set it on fire, "he would have Vindicated them." Blunston also repeated the rumor that some Indians hired by Cressap to capture Pennsylvanians had fired at them and "narrowly Missed Killing" the intended victims. Several weeks later Blunston warned Thomas Penn that those men who were willing to settle on the west side of the Susquehanna needed to be protected and encouraged by the Pennsylvania government.

               Hostilities escalated; in January 1734, as Blunston reported to Thomas Penn, the Pennsylvanians captured eight of Cressap's men for forceably entering the home of John Hendricks on the west side of the Susquehanna. That event was almost immediately followed with an attack on Cressap's home; in the ensuing skirmish, one Pennsylvanian, a servant of John Emerson's,* was killed. Shortly thereafter, both Joshua Minshall (who had been bailed) and Hendricks were seized by the sheriff of Baltimore County, Maryland, and about 24 other men "Armed with Guns, Naked Swords, Cutlasses & Clubs," who carried the men to Annapolis. Blunston lamented that the men taken "had Invaded no mans property, Nor Commited other Offence then being Pensilvanians & preventing Cressop by their Obstinacy from being Sole Lord on the west side of Sasquehanah." Several days later Blunston learned from Minshall that they were imprisoned at Annapolis "in a nastey stinking lousey hole," and had been denied the right to post bail with Pennsylvania paper money. Blunston maintained constant contact with the prisoners, having money and provisions sent to them and giving them instructions toward their defense. From Maryland's viewpoint, the two men had been provocateurs who had fomented riots and other violent behavior toward Maryland.

               By the summer of 1734, according to Blunston, Cressap "always went Armed with pistols in his belt, A Gun in his hand & Long Sword by his Side Like Robinson Crusoe." In March 1735 Blunston reluctantly supported an ambush devised by John Emerson to capture Cressap; the attempt failed to net Cressap but one of his men was taken and imprisoned. Blunston wanted the prisoner removed to Lancaster quickly before the Marylanders demanded to see a copy of his committal warrant. "I do not think it proper," Blunston noted, that "any precepts Shoud be Signd by us Who Live on the River Side Since they Can So Easily Come over in the Night & Burn our houses or other Mischiefs they Incline to perpetrate." In September 1736, according to Blunston, after a large group of Palatine settlers west of the Susquehanna, influenced by him, had switched allegiance from Maryland to Pennsylvania, the sheriff of Baltimore County, with 300 armed men "Marching with Beat of Drums & Sound of Trumpet," invaded the west side of the Susquehanna to convince the Palatines to reverse course. The Pennsylvanians, led by Sheriff Samuel Smith, countered with 150 men, apparently predominantly Scots-Irish Presbyterians, to protect the settlers. Consequently, Blunston reported to Thomas Penn, the Marylanders, who were using Cressap's house as their headquarters, managed only to "March & Counter March, pillage a few Houses & Talk with a Dutch man." Blunston called on Thomas Penn to provide necessary weapons for the Pennsylvanians, who, had they possessed such arms, "would have given A Total rout to their whole Army." The following month Blunston warned Penn that Cressap, perhaps aided by Governor Samuel Ogle of Maryland, was enlisting recently-arrived Irishmen from around New Castle County and was also laying in provisions, but that the Pennsylvanians were "Endeavouring to blast his designs."

               The Maryland authorities had also acted in another direction, Governor Ogle issuing a proclamation in October 1736 calling for the apprehending of those Pennsylvanians who were abetting efforts by groups such as the Palatines to switch sides in the dispute; £100 rewards were offered for the capture of four Lancaster County magistrates, including Blunston and Wright.

               Finally, in November 1736, in a highly controversial strategy, the Pennsylvanians captured Cressap, but not before setting his cabin on fire with him inside, prompting a concerned Blunston to query Penn: "I hope the way of Takeing Cresap wil not be displeasing; there was no other way to do it." Clearly on the defensive, Blunston complained to James Logan: "You know how that Action is Generally Construed by the Comon people who are no partyes in the affair further then to Give their Opinions & find fault."

               Despite the capture of Cressap, Blunston perceived that the threat had not diminished, and he called on Thomas Penn to finance a standing garrison on the west side of the Susquehanna and speculated about using cannon to flush out Cressap's followers at Conejohela. In fact, the Marylanders, frightened at the prospect of cannon, had "lined the house" where they were living, "brest high with Logs to Defend it against the Cannon Shot." Sure enough, as Blunston had feared, the Marylanders attacked the Palatine settlements in January 1737; what ensued was clearly the most sustained violent encounter of the border dispute. Although the only fatality was a horse, there were several serious injuries, including a pregnant woman who was fired upon; although the bullets missed her, they so frightened her horse that it collided with a tree, throwing her to the ground. Prisoners were also taken by the Marylanders. Blunston, in his lengthy report of the battle to President Logan, labeled the aggressors "a Band of Ruffains & highwaymen." Writing to Thomas Penn the following day, Blunston again called for the funding of a standing garrison, but while cannon or the use of fire could be effective, he admitted that the severe criticism he and his fellow magistrates had received for burning out Cressap made the use of such weapons unlikely. Late in January 1737 a Maryland contingent actually crossed over to the east side of the Susquehanna in an attempt apparently to capture Blunston and other leaders, but they were driven back across the river.

               Armed skirmishes with the taking of prisoners continued through 1737, faithfully reported by Blunston, who in March warned Penn that with each passing day "the prospect of affairs" appeared to be "worse," and who in April lamented to Penn that he suspected several of their own hired men of being "in League with the Marylanders," with the object of capturing him and John Wright, and therefore he had been obliged to "pay them of[f] & discharge them." Consequently, several of the magistrates had taken refuge in Blunston's house where they were "forced night & day to be on . . . Guard & watch and dare not stir from home."

               In October 1737 Blunston angrily informed Penn that the Marylanders had engineered a jailbreak at Lancaster, and he expressed his concern that the Pennsylvanians would be forced into "Such Measures for ... Defence as would be productive of little less then open War." Blunston continued to fear for his own safety: "I believe my Self as much in Danger as any of my Neighbours, Yet Shal Endeavour to act my part with the prudence that becomes a man." By 1738 the crisis had passed, essentially because of the English government's order to cease hostilities while the boundaries were being negotiated by the proprietors.

               Although Blunston played a crucial role along the border, his voluminous correspondence reveals that he and Thomas Penn were often talking past one another. While Blunston, for personal reasons, as well as for the long-term interest of the colony as he perceived it, pleaded for arms, ammunition, money, and understanding from Penn, the proprietor focused much of his attention on land policy, particularly formalization of landholding on the frontier through the normal procedure of warrants and surveys, neither of which had been obtained by most of the settlers on both sides of the Susquehanna. Moreover, Penn was determined to enforce collection of quitrents. With both purchases and quitrents Penn insisted on higher rates than originally promised, to account for the fluctuating rates of Pennsylvania paper money. Letter after letter from Penn to Blunston reflected his concern as he carefully outlined assorted combinations of purchase prices and quitrent rates for the settlers.

               Early in 1734, anxious to encourage settlement under Pennsylvania rights west of the Susquehanna to counter Maryland claims, Penn authorized Blunston to issue licenses in that region to settlers, both old and new, despite the fact that Pennsylvania had not yet purchased the right of the Six Nations of the Iroquois Confederation to that land. Penn made his position clear in April 1735 in a letter to Blunston, who already had granted about 130 licenses: "The Surveying Lands to the Inhabitants over Sasquehannah is what should not be an hour neglected."

               In May 1734 Blunston also had warned Penn that the Marylanders had "begun to Raise Disturbances" among the settlers on Conococheague and Antietam creeks (in present-day Franklin County), two branches of the Potomac River, and that a boundary line had been run for the settlers by John Smith, a surveyor, from the mouth of the Octoraro to the Potomac. The inhabitants to the north of that line were pressing Blunston for licenses to hold their lands under Pennsylvania, and he suggested to Penn that "it woud be no false politicks to Encourage them by Granting them Licence."

               Penn acquiesced but with caution, fearing the boundary might be too far south. His terms of settlement were fairly stringent for those settlers, £15 10s "reduced to Sterling money" per 100 acres, although "with an Exemption from paying anything for the first seven Years." He agreed to send Blunston blank warrants to be completed after surveys were taken. Thus in August 1734 he sent Blunston 100 such warrants "designed for any persons" who were inclined "to settle over Sasquehannah without regard to the distance Westward." The warrants were to be returned to the surveyor general, with signed copies to be given to the parties, and with Blunston "keeping a Register of all the Warrants," to be returned to the secretary's office "that they may be entered there." Blunston was to take the "accustomed fees." Blunston warned Penn, however, that while the terms were "Easy in themselves," yet to the "Loose Settlers on potomac, ... who were always A Sort of Free booters," such terms might seem "Strict Ennough," and thus the money would probably not be paid. He argued, however, that they should be granted warrants and surveys on the supposition that they would assign their rights "to more Industerous & able Persons," that is, Germans, while moving on themselves, for "Such Idle trash" were "Generaly the frontiers of an Improving Colony."

               Penn, in turn, apparently ordered Blunston, with John Taylor, to follow Smith's line and survey the properties to the north, but Blunston, having discovered serious flaws in Smith's line, argued that such a solution was impracticable, because of "the Uncertainty with which ... the line was run," the potential errors causing the possible inclusion of "most of the Inhabitants between Undeedam [Antietam] & Conegochege on one or the other Side," the same inhabitants then in the most danger. The only viable method, Blunston concluded, would be to take the beginning of Smith's line "from or near Octoraro" and then to extend it westward "with an Exactness Sufficient for the present Occasion ... And then to Lay out to the people Setled their Several Tracts." Blunston assured Penn that if that approach were taken "all the Inhabitants in them parts woud Unite to oppose any attempts made on them," although he again stressed that those settlers were "Generally poor & unable to pay for their lands (Even the Surveys)," but he again insisted that they were "Suitable to Keep possession" and while the proprietor might not "Expect Imediate profit," those lands might be ultimately "Transfered to Abler hands before the Day of payment." Although John Taylor, with others not identified, then traveled to the Potomac, returning in the first week of November 1734, there is no clear evidence that such a line as Blunston had suggested was run, or that Blunston issued licenses for land in that region farther south than Chambersburg.

               As discussed previously, Thomas Penn was also anxious to formalize landholdings in the settled parts of Lancaster County, particularly Donegal Township, through the regular process of warrants and surveys, albeit with increased prices and quitrents. In 1734 the settlers in Donegal and Hempfield petitioned Penn to appoint Blunston, who was sympathetic to their circumstances, to lay out their lands. Penn agreed, but by so doing he may have irritated Taylor, the surveyor of Chester and Lancaster counties, for James Steel in June 1734 reassured Taylor that Penn "by his complying with that Petition" had not intended to give him "any Uneasiness, nor did he in the least entertain any Suspicion" of Taylor "relating to those Settlm[en]ts." Whether Blunston accomplished many surveys at that time is uncertain; in any event, he volunteered in October 1734 to undertake the surveying of the two townships. Yet, Penn apparently queried Blunston's motive for proposing such service; thus Blunston, in February 1735, emphasized that the offer stemmed, not from "Self Interest," but from the "Importunity" of his neighbors and his own believe that he might be "a means to Keep peace Among the Inhabitants in Laying out their Lands." Seemingly convinced by Blunston's explanation, Penn appointed him early in April 1735 deputy surveyor for the townships of Donegal, Hempfield, and Derry, although the proprietor insisted that surveys not be undertaken without application for a warrant by the parties involved. Blunston, however, cautioned Penn that matters would not go smoothly with the settlers in Donegal, who believed that they had been promised favorable terms when they first arrived, which terms should still apply. "I Shal not presume to be your adviser," Blunston observed, "nor Do I pretend to be their advocate, yet I think as the thing has Layn & Still Lyes it Grows worse And the Grumblers & MaleContents Encrease ... And as Long as that party Can keep of[f] the Evil day (of paym[en]t) by Raising Objections & fomenting discord, you may be Sure they wil not wilingly Comply with any Reasonable terms." Yet Penn would be unwise "to Disposses them." Blunston suggested that Penn send blank warrants "Upon Such Indulgent Terms" as he was willing "to allow them, And Notice also Given that Such as Neglected or Refused to Close with them Should thence forth Lose the Benefit thereof, And their Lands be Surveyed & Disposed of to Such as would purchase." Penn reluctantly agreed and dispatched 50 blank warrants.

               The unwillingness of the Donegal residents to accept Penn's terms continued, with Blunston acting as go-between; at one point, an exasperated Penn exclaimed with dismay that James Logan had been their "Advocate" and that Blunston had "engaged to Sollicit their Cause." With little choice, Penn agreed to moderate his terms.

               The difficulty of surveying and the constant infighting clearly wore Blunston down. In April 1736 he explained the brevity of his letter to Penn: "I have of Late been and yet am Continuing Imployd in Surveying the Lands among the people & Composing their differences of that kind, the fatigue whereof & want of time wil I hope Excuse the Shortness & Incoherence."

               Penn also called on a reluctant Blunston to distribute tickets for a proposed (and ultimately unsuccessful) lottery of 100,000 acres, which was intended to unload poor vacant land within the existing counties and to encourage the numerous squatters, or presumptive settlers, to gamble on obtaining a legal right to the lands on which they were settled. In all, the Penns hoped to raise £15,500 from sale of the tickets, but apparently they fell far short of that total.

               Despite Blunston's seeming willingness to serve the proprietary family and Thomas Penn's equal willingness to utilize his talents, the correspondence between the two men, each influenced by often diametrically opposed motives, showed constant signs of strain. Penn was particularly annoyed at Blunston's apparent unwillingness to follow orders. Thus, in February 1734, when several of Cressap's associates were captured in a violent encounter at Cressap's house, Penn questioned Blunston as to whether he had followed the instructions laid down by Andrew Hamilton for such an arrest, adding: "I should have been better pleased hadst thou been one of the Number that went." Moreover, Penn added with some regret: "I am sorry you did not deferr proceeding till you had been sure of the Ringleaders which might have been done had you Staid a few days." Later that month, still smarting at a failed assault on Cressap's residence by those he termed "heedless Peoples," Penn demanded from Blunston "a compleat Narrative" of his entire proceedings in order for the proprietor to "judge" whether they had "acted any Part that did not become them." Late in 1736 Penn sent directions to Blunston that, before any action was taken against Maryland aggression, he should be consulted in order that the appropriate response would be taken. Nor was Penn as excited as Blunston about the decision by Palatine Germans on the west side of the Susquehanna to switch allegiance from Maryland to Pennsylvania, Penn believing that it was of little service to his family and that, in fact, the expense involved for the government in such a transfer would "undoubtedly be very great." Again in April 1737 Penn angrily responded to Blunston's account of the capture of a large group of Germans by a Maryland raiding party; the proprietor expressed his concern at hearing "of the taking of so many people," particularly after he had desired Blunston to order the Germans to stay on the east side of the Susquehanna "or acquaint them they must go at their Peril."

               For his part, Blunston clearly believed that Penn was unsympathetic to the plight of the residents along the Susquehanna and was far more interested in milking as much money as he could from impoverished settlers who had carved out homes and settlements in the wilderness. By late 1736 Blunston's letters took on a strident tone as he lectured Penn on the realities of the situation. In December of that year he reacted with some heat to Penn's demand that no action be taken against Maryland aggression until he was informed: "We have never faild to take and ask advice when the nature of the thing woud bear it, but to Send for advice which is to come next week for what must be Executed to day woud be useless. ... You cant Expect things done here & in hast to that perfection you can have them in Town by men of Skill & ability." On 13 January 1737, two days before another serious Maryland assault, Blunston wrote Penn a lengthy letter by which he hoped that Penn would get "a right Understanding of the Contest" taking place in that region, because clearly the two men did not see matters "in the Same light," and Blunston feared that such differing views "of the public Interest" might lead him to take "wrong Steps." In that same letter Blunston ruefully commented: "I wish you truly understood the State of the Case between us and them." As the threat to Blunston and his compatriots seemingly increased, Blunston again complained to Penn on 27 January 1737 that the proprietor "Certainly" failed to "apprehend the Necessity of Dispatch" in sending help.

               Toward the end of 1737 Blunston wrote Penn that he had heard rumors of a possible breakthrough in the impasse, King George II and his privy council having ordered the two sides to cease and desist hostilities, but that he had learned nothing from either the proprietor or the Provincial Council. Blunston grumbled that he and his compatriots had been led to believe that they "Should have Such Inteligence sent with all Dispatch," only to find the opposite true, to their "very great trouble & Surprise." They were therefore "reduced to greater Streights" than at any time theretofore, since those people, that is, the proprietors, who they had tried to serve to the utmost of their abilities appeared content to keep them "in the dark, for Reasons" they could "in no Wise Conceive."

               Although Blunston and Penn were often at odds on strategy, there had been no evidence that Blunston had turned against the proprietary interest. By 1740, however, his support for the Penns had apparently vanished. In November, after the election for the Assembly, in which the faction supportive of defensive measures for the colony was crushed, Penn heard that Blunston had brought an improvement made on proprietary land from a squatter and had received an interlined warrant that apparently showed a purchase price and quitrent obligation higher than normal. Penn then learned that Blunston had used the warrant indicating the higher price for land and steeper quitrents "to Influence the People before the Election in favour of persons" opposed to the proprietary interest. Blunston, in a lengthy letter to Penn, denied the charge, insisting that his intent was not to purchase the property but simply to help out a neighboring family that was in serious debt, albeit with the assumption that he would be reimbursed by the family at some future date. "Now Unless Humanity be a Crime," Blunston defensively intoned, "and keeping Helpless Children from Perrishing be an Evil, which a Gentleman of your Disposition will never Suppose, I hope I may be acquited from any offence herein." Blunston did admit that he had shown the warrant around in order to establish a purchase price to assist in his reimbursement, but he found that "No person" was willing to "take it on those terms." Then, somewhat disingenuously, Blunston contended that, even had he shown the warrant to help defeat friends of the proprietor, "Such a proceedure would not have Answered the purpose," for he had heard that "it was the Inlisting of Servants gave the General offence, ... the Price of Land & proprietary affairs being quite out of the question." He agreed, however, that some people in previous elections had cited pro-proprietary legislation against supporters of Penn, but that he had personally used "what little Interest" he had "to frustrate their designs." Yet, Blunston carefully implied that the higher price he was forced to pay was presumably an exception to a general rule. He concluded with a touch of seeming self-pity, mixed with some bewilderment: "I hope it is no Crime to have Land if I come fairly by it and pay Honestly for it. I have but little in the Governm[en]t nor do I Covet much, And whether I was used in the terms of that warrant as you Intend to use others time will Testifie. If it be not So ...I Shal not complain."

               Despite Blunston's protestations of innocence, his relationship with the proprietor and his supporters took a marked turn for theworse. Thus, in the same letter in which he had detailed his humanitarian gesture, Blunston mentioned that he had obtained a warrant in August 1739 for 200 acres of land in Donegal Township, but that he had failed to pay the purchase price within the six months allowed in the warrant. He asked Penn whether he could still have the land if he paid the amount required. Penn apparently replied in the negative, for the survey was declared "utterly void" the following month and a new warrant and survey allowed to a new purchaser for 185 acres. Then, in June 1741 Richard Peters discussed with an unnamed correspondent another incident involving Blunston, to whom Peters had recently granted a "Ticket" for 250 acres in Hallam Township, on the west side of the Susquehanna, but that Penn, on learning of Peters's action, chastized him for being "so hasty as to give out the Ticket without speaking to him first." He had Peters inform Blunston that he "woud grant no Land there for the present." Blunston ostensibly concurred but then proceeded to have the land warranted and surveyed, prompting an angry proprietor to insist that the purchase price and fees be returned to Blunston. Peters, however, called on his correspondent to ask Blunston if he would insist on the survey (and, presumably, refuse to take back his money). "If he says he will," Peters warned, "the Proprietor will then know what will be proper for him to do on the occasion." Peters stressed that Blunston's response needed to be reported "faithfully, for inter no[u]s Sam will never have that Land." Before sending that letter, Peters received a complaint from John Morris that the land in question belonged rightfully to him by means of a license "from under Sams own hand" and that Penn was agreeable to his claim; thus, Peters ruefully commented, Blunston had "imposed" on him "& cheated John Morris."

               By that time the rupture between Penn and Blunston was complete, for on 4 April 1741 Blunston had been dropped from the commission of the peace and apparently from all of his other Lancaster County posts. The attack on Blunston reached such proportions that in November 1741 Peters wrote to Thomas Penn that the Lancaster County court, "In order to keep out Sam Blunston," resolved that no attorney would be permitted to practice there "without producing the Gov[erno]rs Recommendacion."

               Blunston, however, exacted his revenge, winning election to the 1741 Assembly, along with John Wright, Thomas Lindley,* and Anthony Shaw,* all of whom had been dropped from the commission of the peace, and all of whom opposed the efforts of Governor George Thomas to institute defensive measures for the colony. Blunston received ten assignments, the most for any member of the Lancaster County delegation, and among the five highest in the House. He was immediately named to two standing committees, those involving grievances and accounts. Not surprisingly, he was also named to the committees that drafted a petition to the proprietors complaining of the enlistment of servants for the military expedition against the Spanish West Indies and calling for the removal of Governor Thomas, and that reacted to a published response to that petition from Thomas Penn that was harshly critical of the Assembly. Although Blunston helped to work on two bills, those for the easier recovery of small debts and for deposit of records in the offices adjoining the statehouse, no legislation was enacted because of the continuing bitter dispute between the House and Governor Thomas.

               Blunston's most significant service, however, involved his work on a series of committees that responded to messages and addresses by the governor to the House on a variety of contentious subjects. Judging by the responses, Blunston firmly supported the supposed rights and privileges of the House, which had come to include the appointment of the doctor to visit vessels where disease was rampant, despite the assertions of the governor and Provincial Council that such a post was under their control. Blunston also supported the House's contention that the provincial councilors had acted illegally and arbitrarily in enunciating and publishing resolves attacking the Assembly after it had adjourned. Such action, the committee insisted, was "assuming to themselves a Power the Law hath not intrusted them with," and consequently, was "a high Breach of the Pivileges" of the House. When Thomas insisted that he, and not the House, was the "Zealous Assertor of Liberty" protecting the people from themselves, because they might "grow wanton with Liberty," a House committee, including Blunston, retorted that while people might "grow wanton with Liberty," governors might "play the Wanton with the Liberties of the People."

               The tension between the proprietary forces and the anti-defense faction continued into the 1742 election. In Lancaster County the proprietary supporters, led by James Hamilton* and former sheriff Samuel Smith, believed they could oust all the members of the 1741 House, and Governor Thomas promised Robert Buchanan, another former sheriff, that if they were successful he would name Buchanan a trustee of the General Loan Office. To their dismay, however, the four members of the previous House were reelected; perhaps most galling of all, Blunston received the most votes (1,480), finishing ahead of Hamilton, the opposition's leader, by 1,120 votes. To a large extent Richard Peters blamed Blunston for the proprietary defeat, in that he had "trumpetted ab[ou]t the Country that Robert Buchanan had 200 a[cre]s Land given him by the Proprietaries & that he & Sam[ue]l Smith had taken Bribes to give up the Liberties of the People, that Jimmy Hamilton had given a Lot of ground in the Town of Lancas[te]r to a Roman Catholick Priest to build a Romish Chappel & that he was a great favourer of Jews & Roman Catholicks." Peters attempted to counter what he regarded as blatant falsehoods, particularly about Buchanan's land, but, he complained, "it signify'd nothing, Sam had the Ears of the people & drove all before him by means of the Dutch & the Sheriff [James Galbraith] who p[ro]v'd false after he had given his word to act a neutral & fair part." Moreover, Blunston had composed a letter with Susanna Wright, John Wright's illustrious daughter, which, according to Peters, was sent to "every Presbiter[ia]n Congregacion in the County & read at all publick Meetings of the Party," and which, Peters conceived, demonstrated "to what Lengths a vindictive Spirit will carry people witho[u]t the Rustraints of Hon[ou]r & Concience." The content of the letter, which has not been found, was probably reflected in a missive from Peters to Thomas Penn, written on 17 October 1742: "Sam[ue]l Blunston's Lies ab[ou]t your favouring a Militia with no other design than to use it for ejecting poor People out of their Possessions have put the People of Lanc[aste]r Co[un]ty into such a Ferment that I have been oblig'd, tho much ag[ain]st your Interest & my own Inclinations, to postpone the Survey of the Manor of Mask till the Spring."

               In the 1742 Assembly Blunston again received 10 assignments, the most for his county's delegation, and among the four highest in the House, and he again served on the standing committees of grievances and accounts. Although the proprietary faction anticipated another session of contention between the House and Governor Thomas, Peters reported to Thomas Penn that Penn's published diatribe against the House had angered the leaders of the Assembly to such an extent that they favored providing the governor with at least some of his salary arrears and thereby gain his support against Penn. According to Peters, Blunston "had been open from the first for an Agreem[en]t." In fact, the House voted 22 to 8 to give Thomas £1,500 (of the £4,500 he felt was owed to him); Blunston voted with the majority. That Blunston was still in the anti-proprietary camp was clear, however, during the interrogation of Richard Hockley by the House while investigating the causes of the 1742 election riot in Philadelphia. The Assembly appeared to be anxious to assign blame for the fray to such pro-proprietary individuals as William Allen* and Clement Plumsted. During the questioning, according to Hockley, he "disappointed them much," despite the fact that Isaac Norris, James Morris,* and Blunston "got up three several times" to influence Speaker John Kinsey* to ask him "several Impertinant questions."

               During that term Blunston assisted in drafting four pieces of legislation: bills for the easier recovery of small debts, for the relief of foreign-born landowners who died unnaturalized, for erecting and maintaining pounds, and for amending the flour act. Only the bill for providing the easier and swifter recovery of small debts became law.

               Blunston also served on the committee that prepared the address to the governor detailing the "formed and premediated Design of disturbing the publick Peace" of Pennsylvania, "terrifying the Inhabitants, and interrupting the Freedom of Election of Representatives in the ... County of Philadelphia." Not surprisingly, the report concluded that the recorder of the city, William Allen, and some of the magistrates had failed to suppress the riot, remaining instead "unactive Spectators of the abuses committed, Some of them behaving rather like Men that approved the Conduct of the Rioters, than otherwise." The committee urged unsuccessfully that the governor should recommend to the judges of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that a special court of oyer and terminer be summoned to determine responsibility for the incident.

               Perhaps suggestive of the more conciliatory nature of the relationship between the House and the governor, Blunston and Norris served on the committee that offered its gratitude to Thomas for his efforts at mediating the differences between the Six Nations and Maryland over White settlements on Indian land, and between the Six Nations and Virginia over a bloody encounter between White settlers and Indian warriors.

               Although the opposition failed to mount a sustained effort in the 1743 elections, the situation in Lancaster County had been complicated by feuding involving Blunston and John Wright on one side and Thomas Lindley on the other side. According to a letter sent to John Taylor, possibly from Robert Galbraith, in September 1743, Blunston and Wright, "whose advice & Intrest" many Lancastrians had followed, had decided to oppose "with all their might" the election of Lindley, who those two leaders had "warmly recommended ... at former Elections." He was to be turned out, the letter continued, "for no other reason but that his Intrest in the House of Assembly in a particular Instance ... appeared greater than theirs," for he had "Obtained the vote for Trustee of the Loan Office in opposition to them." However, since the loan office bill had been referred to the forthcoming Assembly, Blunston and Wright believed they still had time to counter him by preventing his election. The writer expressed his hope that the voters in the county would "agree upon a set of men of good, plain Sence & Integrity untinged with party debates." Richard Peters also discussed the loan office dispute in a letter to Thomas Penn, in which he noted that Isaac Norris and Blunston had been in open opposition to Speaker John Kinsey in the 1742 House, but that Kinsey had assured him they were both "the Contempt of the House & had not interest to get a vote in favour of them or any of their Friends to be Trustees of the Loan Office." In fact, Blunston's popularity must have waned, at least temporarily, for he was defeated at the polls; although Lindley was reelected, Wright was also returned. Two days after the election, Peters commented to Thomas Penn that Governor Thomas had a reasonable chance to get his arrears of salary, "especially as Sam[ue]l Blunston has lost his Election, who had the greatest share of Resentm[en]t."

               Unfortunately for Peters, Thomas Lindley died shortly after the election and Blunston was returned to the House by the Lancaster County voters in a by-election tinged with controversy. The House reprimanded James Galbraith, the Lancaster County sheriff, for holding the election without the aid of inspectors, a failing that had justifiably upset the voters, although the House observed that his serving as the only judge of the election had been out of ignorance of the law rather than by design. In December 1743 Peters again wrote to Penn, insisting that Kinsey had mismanaged the House by failing to act on the question of the further arrears before turning to the loan office measure. If he had first acted on those arrears, argued Peters, all those members who expected to be either trustees, signers of the bills, or excise officers, "w[hi]ch woud have taken in 2/3rds of the Assembly, woud have voted for giving the Governor Satisfaccion." Instead of following that "plain piece of Policy, ... they proceeded to fill up the Trustees & as many of the members were disappointed, they grew Sower & Isaac Norris & Sam[ue]l Blunston, who were before inclinable to run with the stream," seeing that shift in attitude, "alter'd their Sentim[en]ts or rather threw off the Mask & ... got a Majority ag[ain]st ... giving any Arrears." Blunston was clearly using the trustee issue simply to further his vendetta against the governor and proprietor, for the trustee for Lancaster County named in the bill was his friend and neighbor John Wright.

               In the 1743 Assembly Blunston received five assignments, the largest total (with Anthony Shaw) for the county that term, although he did not rank among the leaders of the House. Once again, he served on the committee of accounts, albeit only as a late replacement for Shaw, who had died, and he also served on the committees to audit and settle the accounts both of incidental Assembly charges and of the trustees of Province Island. On an ironical note, Blunston helped to draft a response in May 1744 to a message from the governor on the need for military preparedness against a possible attack from the French. Blunston and his colleagues argued that, since there was little likelihood of any formal rupture between England and France, such measures were unneccessary at that time. Less than two weeks later, the governor received the declarations of war by the kings of Great Britain and France against each other.

               Apparently, Norris and Blunston either changed their views on providing financial support for the governor, having gained approval from him for two important measures (the excise bill and the General Loan Office bill), or they were outvoted. In any event, a committee of the whole agreed in May 1744 to pay Thomas £2,000, one-half for his present support and the other half for the arrears of his support.

               Blunston was elected in 1744 to his fourth consecutive term in the Assembly; however, although appointed to the standing committee of accounts, he did not take his seat in the House until 23 April 1745. By that time he was in declining health. A number of times during the 1730s he had complained to Thomas Penn about his physical ailments, but apparently he took a turn for the worse in 1744. Blunston may have been suffering from rectal bleeding, for two physicians he consulted warned him in September 1744 that he had been wrong in stopping the "Flux of Blood," to which his "sanguine Constitution" was subject, particularly by the use of "so strong an Astringent as the Juice of green Yarrow." They praised him, however, for then having some blood let and for "living low, which considering the Symptoms," had thus far "prevented an Apoplexy or Palsy" of his "right side." Recognizing that Blunston lived well and, like other men, was likely "when in agreeable Company to leap over the Bounds of strict Temperance, both in Eating and Drinking," the two doctors prescribed a sound regimen of laxatives, moderate amounts of food on a regular basis, albeit avoiding fat and grease, and light exercise on horseback. Although good advice, the cure appears not to have succeeded, for Blunston died slightly over one year later, on 30 September 1745.

               Blunston, "a Gentleman of extensive Knowledge and Benevolence," according to his obituary in the Pennsylvania Gazette, wrotehis will on 22 September 1745; it was probated on 24 October. A widower, Blunston bequeathed an annuity of £50 to Susanna Wright, whom he had desired to marry, and to whom he also gave his plantation, his 160-volume library (£100), his 286 ounces of wrought silver (£143), an enormous number of household goods (£110), two slaves (£30), his chaise and horse (£38), and "Sundry maps & pictures in all the Rooms" of his house (10s). He also forgave John Wright for £98 he owed him and bequeathed £500 to ten friends and relatives, including John Wright's sons (and Susanna Wright's brothers), James Wright* and John Wright, Junior* (1711-1759), and he left another £30 to the poor of Lancaster County. James Wright also received a one-half share in a cornmill and the right to Blunston's landing as long as he controlled Wright's Ferry, while his brother John Wright, Junior, received confirmation to a tract of land that Blunston had sold him, probably the 353 acres on the west side of the Susquehanna River. Blunston also confirmed the sale to Samuel Taylor of the 350 acres of land he had purchased from John Hendricks. He divided the residue of his estate among several friends and relatives, including two nieces, Sarah Worrall, wife of Peter Worrall* (d. 1786), and Hannah Pearson, wife of Thomas Pearson. A slaveowner, Blunston also established timetables for manumitting all his slaves. He named as executors James Wright and Samuel Norris, "Charging Them to have a Special Regard" to Susanna Wright, whom he called "my friend."

               A caveat against probate of the will was entered by Thomas Pearson on the grounds that it was witnessed by legatees rather than by impartial individuals. Pearson, soon joined by Peter Worrall, had the matter investigated and dropped the caveat when the two witnesses surrendered their right to any legacies.

               A series of inventories of Blunston's enormous estate were taken between 31 Oct. 1745 and 20 May 1746, inclusive, and totaled £4,494, including 65 bonds and 13 notes (£3,166 plus £321 interest), hay (£25), 525 bushels of wheat, rye, barley, malt, fine salt, indian corn, and oats (£44 15s), 10 beehives (£3), and at least 107 head of livestock (£165) and 15 slaves (£141).

               As with his own father's estate, James Wright, Blunston's executor, quarreled with the proprietors over the right to obtain patents for their lands on the west side of the Susquehanna, Blunston and John Wright having been refused patents during their lives, ostensibly because of the Maryland dispute.

               William Allen, writing in 1753, inadvertently provided a fitting epitaph for Blunston. Allen commented that Blunston had been the only prothonotary in Pennsylvania ever removed from the post, "and it was for his setting himself against and insulting the Government to a high degree," but that Andrew Hamilton had argued that Blunston "could not be legally removed, and he told Governour Thomas that Sam would contest it, but he being a proud rich fellow, either was ill advised or did not think it worth while to have any contention about it."

               To see the citations or to purchase Lawmaking and Legislators, contact the University of Pennsylvania Press at:
(215) 898-6261.

Page last updated December 23, 2004