■■:■ ■ ■> ■-■• > ' ■ ■"'■■ ■<' ■ ■ -
I v
$$
s$&
Si
LIBRARY
OF THE
University of California.
RECEIVED BY EXCHANGE
Class
NEW JERSEY AS A ROYAL
PROVINCE
1738 to 1776
BY
EDGAR JACOB FISHER, A. M.
SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
IN THE
Faculty of Political Science
Columbia University
NEW YORK
191 1
4
Co
MY FATHER
232980
PREFACE
With the publication of this monograph, there is
completed a detailed study of the colonial history of New
Jersey. Dr. Tanner's exhaustive and admirable treat-
ment of the subject comprises the period from the early
settlements to 1738, when the executive union with New
York was terminated. From that time until the Revo-
lution, the compass of this study, New Jersey enjoyed a
separate royal establishment in all departments. The
purpose of this work is twofold. An attempt has been
made, first, to outline the political history of the prov-
ince, and, second, to show the part taken by New Jersey
in the Third and Fourth Intercolonial Wars and in the
preliminaries of the Revolution. The subject has been
pursued to the threshold of the convention which for-
mally declared the overthrow of the royal provincial
government and adopted the first constitution of the
state.
In the preparation of this volume, the available manu-
script and printed sources have been used. The pub-
lished volumes of the New Jersey Archives include docu-
ments relating to the colonial history, the journal of the
governor and council in administrative session, of the
council in legislative session, and newspaper extracts
pertaining to the province. The Nevill and Allinson
editions of the colonial laws, The Papers of Lewis Mor-
ris, and selections from the correspondence of William
Alexander, Earl of Stirling, are some of the other im-
7] 7
8 PREFACE [8
portant printed original sources. There is a wealth of
manuscript material for the later colonial history of New
Jersey. The following are in the State House at Tren-
ton : the Journal of the General Assembly in the State
Library, the Minutes of the Supreme Court in the office
of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, and Liber AAA
and Liber A B of Provincial Commissions in the office
of the Secretary of State. The Minutes of the Council
of Proprietors of East Jersey and the Minutes of the
Council of Proprietors of West Jersey are still kept at
Perth Amboy and Burlington, respectively. These rec-
ords are of such value to the student of New Jersey his-
tory that they should be acquired by the state for pre-
servation in the State Library. In the library of the
New Jersey Historical Society at Newark, the manu-
script sources include the papers of Lewis Morris, Rob-
ert Hunter Morris, James Alexander, Ferdinand John
Paris and Joseph Sherwood. In the same library there
are also copies of the original papers of Governor
Belcher referring to New Jersey. The originals are in
the possession of the Massachusetts Historical Society.
In the library of the Pennsylvania Historical Society at
Philadelphia there are two volumes of New Jersey manu-
scripts, and miscellaneous letters from the Penn Collec-
tion, that are of value and interest for this subject.
To those who have aided him in gaining access to the
sources, the author is deeply indebted. The kindness
and courtesy of the librarians and their assistants of the
State Library at Trenton, the New Jersey Historical
Society Library at Newark, the Pennsylvania Historical
Society Library at Philadelphia and the Jersey City Pub-
lic Library, is most gratefully acknowledged. He is
likewise under obligations to Mr. Adriance Lyon, Regis-
ter of the East Jersey proprietors, and Mr. H. S. Haines,
9] " PREFACE g
Surveyor General of West Jersey, for the use of the pro-
prietary records. Dr. Tanner's suggestions regarding
the primary sources were of distinct service, and his
work upon the earlier period of the history of New Jer-
sey has been of great assistance in interpreting the later
period. To Professor Herbert L. Osgood, of Columbia
University, the author's most grateful thanks are due.
The work was pursued under his guidance and helpful
criticism, and he gave generously of his time to reading
and preparing the manuscript for^the press.
Edgar J. Fisher.
New York City, February 14, 1911.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER I
The Governor— Position and Personnel
PAGE
Introductory Statement 21
New Jersey under the proprietary government 21
Royal government in New Jersey — the Union period 22
The movement for a separate governor 22
Position of the Governor 24
The Royal Governors from 1738 to 1776 25
Lewis Morris, 1738 to 1746 25
Estimate and sketch of his career 25
His commission and instructions 29
Jonathan Belcher, 1746 to 1757 . 30
Estimate and sketch of his career 31
His commission and instructions ^7
President Reading's administration, 1757 to 1758 37
The three brief administrations 38
Francis Bernard, 1758 to 1760 38
Thomas Boone, 1760 to 1761 39
Josiah Hardy, 1761 to 1763 39
Their commissions and instructions 40
William Franklin, 1763 to 1776 41
Estimate and sketch of his career 41
Attitude during the Revolution 42
Minor Executive Offices 43
Lieutenant Governor 43
Provincial Secretary 44
Other Officers 46
CHAPTER II
The Council—Position and Personnel
Position of the Council 48
Dual capacity — administration and legislation 48
11] 11
12 CONTENTS [I2
PAGE
The governor and legislative sessions of the council 48
Territorial division recognized in the council 50
Personnel of the Council 51
General character of the councillors 51
Morris's council 52
His appointments 53
Predominance of proprietary influence .... 60
Belcher's council 60
His appointments 60
Ashfield's contest for a seat in council 62
Struggle between Belcher and the proprietors for appointments. 66
Council changes under Bernard, Boone, and Hardy 67
Franklin's appointments 69
CHAPTER III
The Assembly — Position and Personnel
Position of the Assembly 73
Rights and powers of the assembly 7^
Alternate sessions at Perth Amboy and Burlington 73
Plan of representation yy
Important rules 80
Personnel of the Assembly 81
General character of the assemblymen . . . . ' 81
The assemblies 82
Members of the Eleventh Assembly, 1738 to 1740 82
Members of the Twelfth Assembly, 1740 to 1743 84
The three annual assemblies, 1743 to 1746 84
Members of the Sixteenth Assembly, 1746 to 1749 87
Members of the Seventeenth Assembly, 1749 to 1751 88
Members of the Eighteenth Assembly, 1751 to 1754 89
Members of the Nineteenth Assembly, 1754 to 1761 89
Members of the Twentieth Assembly, 1761 to 1769 89
Members of the Twenty-First Assembly, 1769 to 1772 .... 91
Members of the Twenty-Second Assembly, 1772 to 1776 ... 93
Method of election 94
The Colonial Agent 95
Theoretical and actual position of the agent 95
Method by which the assembly controlled the agent 95
Personnel: Partridge, Sherwood, Wilmot, Franklin, De Berdt . 98
I3] CONTENTS 13
PAGE
CHAPTER IV
Legislative History— The Morris Administration
Character of the Constitutional Conflicts 101
Conflicts common to all the colonies 101
Conditions peculiar to New Jersey 102
The character of the land system 102
Quakerism 103
The two capitals 103
Chief Subjects of Legislation under Morris, Belcher and Franklin. 104
Legislation under Governor Morris 105
The Eleventh Assembly, 1738 105
Contest over the support bill 107
Results of the first assembly under a separate governor .... 108
The Twelfth Assembly, 1740 109
Lack of harmony shown in the addresses, 1740 no
Legislation for the West Indian Expedition no
Peaceful session of October, 1741 in
Morris's rejection of the ^40,000 act, 1742 113
The Thirteenth Assembly, 1743 115
Governor and council reject assembly's favorite measures . . . 115
The indiscreet publication of the fee bill 115
Refusal of the assembly to amend the militia act, 1744 ... . 116
The Fourteenth Assembly, 1744 117
Continued refusal to amend the militia act 117
Quarrel between assembly and council over public affairs ... 118
Hunderdon county loan-office commissioner dispute 121
The Fifteenth Assembly, 1745 123
Revival of old quarrels 124
Disagreement over support, paper money and militia bills . 124
Dispute about the place of meeting 126
The Sixteenth Assembly, 1746 129
Hunterdon county loan-office election again 129
Militia act passed 130
Support act contest 130
Legislation under President Hamilton 131
The Sixteenth Assembly, 1746 131
Legislation regarding the Canadian Expedition 131
The anti-proprietary outbreaks, 1747 131
I4 CONTENTS [I4
CHAPTER V
PAGB
Legislative History— The Belcher and Franklin
Administrations
Legislation under Governor Belcher 132
The Sixteenth Assembly, 1747 132
The congratulatory addresses 132
The support bill passed does not satisfy the governor and
council 134
Activity of the rioters calls forth legislation 136
Trouble with counterfeiters 137
The assembly's favorite bills passed .' 138
Beginning of the contest over the quotas act, 1748 139
Assembly's attitude toward rioting and counterfeiting .... 140
The Seventeenth Assembly, 1749 . . 142
Quotas act and support act disputes 143
Refusal of assembly to pay the Morris salary arrears 145
Fifth failure of the quotas act, 1750 147
Case of the five Burlington County judges 148
Assembly attempts to force removal of Sheriff Riddle .... 149
Continued strife over the quotas act, 1751 150
The Eighteenth Assembly, 1751 151
Quotas and support bills finally passed 152
Subsequent difficulties regarding the quotas 153
The Riddle-Bonney controversy again 154
Renewal of the land troubles, 1752 155
The royal order for a revised edition of the laws 155
Case of Sheriff Anderson, 1753 157
French and Indian affairs, 1754 157
The Nineteenth Assembly, 1754 158
Assembly refuses to revise the militia act 159
The war necessitates frequent sessions 159
The paper money controversy, 1757 162
The Legislative Sessions under President Reading 162
Legislation under Governor Bernard 164
The Nineteenth Assembly, 1758 164
Bernard and the Easton Indian Conference 164
Harmony between the branches of government 165
Legislation under Governor Boone 165
The Nineteenth Assembly, 1760 165
The Twentieth Assembly, 1761, passes a two-year support act. . 165
Legislation under Governor Hardy 166
The Twentieth Assembly, 1761, concerned with military affairs. 166
I5] CONTENTS 15
PAGB
Legislation under Governor Franklin 167
The Twentieth Assembly, 1768 167
After the war, much profitable general legislation 167
The extra-legal session at Perth Amboy, 1765 168
Legislation for supplying royal troops 168
Bills affecting representation in the assembly, 1768 168
The Twenty-First Assembly, 1769 169
The demonstrations against lawyers, and legislation 169
^"100,000 act and assembly's refusal to supply troops ..... 169
The Twenty-Second Assembly, 1772 ..... 169
The new representatives 169
Controversy about East Jersey treasury robbery 170
Increasing estrangement between governor and legislature . . 170
CHAPTER VI
The Proprietary System and the Land Troubles
The Proprietary System 171
The unique character of this system in New Jersey after 1702 . . 171
The East Jersey proprietors 172
Who composed the proprietary council 172
Council meetings and proprietary officers 172
The personnel of the East Jersey council 173
The West Jersey proprietors 174
Democratic character of landownership . . . . • 174
Council meetings and officers 175
The personnel of the West Jersey proprietors 175
The Land Conflicts in New Jersey 176
The conflicting grants 176
Early history of the Elizabethtown and Monmouth tracts ... 176
The claims advanced because of Indian purchase 184
Disturbances during the Morris administration 186
Many ejectment suits from 1741 to 1743 186
The Newark riots of 1745 to 1746, and results 187
Outlook during President Hamilton's administration 191
Partial adjustment during Belcher's administration 193
Difficult for council and assembly to agree 194
Legislation upon the subject, 1748 195
Perth Amboy riots, 1747 197
Petitions to the crown for aid 198
The action taken by the home government 200
Essex, Middlesex and Hunderton county disorders 202
Causes for the subsidence of the troubles 204
The Elizabethtown Bill in Chancery 206
1 6 CONTENTS [T6
PAGE
CHAPTER VII
Boundary Disputes
The Northern Boundary Dispute with New York 210
The point at issue 210
Early attempts at settlement 211
Progress during the Morris administration 211
Erection of Morris county revives the controversy, 1740 ... 211
Governor Clinton's attitude . . 213
East Jersey proprietors petition for an act to run the line, 1743. 214
Progress during the Belcher administration 214
Legislature passes an act for running the line, 1748 214
New York successfully opposes the act 215
The pamphlet discussion 217
Erection of Sussex county renews border troubles, 1753. • • 221
Movement to secure a temporary line fails . 222
Settlement effected during Franklin's administration 227
Both provinces act in favor of a royal commission, 1763 . - . 228
The commissioners and their report, 1769 229
Dissatisfaction, and movement for an appeal 232
The final adjustment . . 233
Observations upon the result 235
Disputed Claims to the Ownership of Staten Island 235
The Boundary between East and West Jersey 236
Early attempts to fix this line 236
East Jersey proprietors run the line ex parte in 1743 ... 237
Effect of the northern boundary decision upon this line . . . 237
West Jersey's attitude not unjustifiable ... 238
CHAPTER VIII
The Judicial System
The System of Courts 240
Alterations in the Judicial System 241
By royal instructions 241
By executive ordinances 244
By legislation 248
The Riots against the Lawyers, 1769 256
Causes of the riots .... .... 256
The assembly investigation . . • • 256
The result and legislation 258
Personnel of the Supreme Court • • 262
The justices appointed to the bench 263
The Jones-Morris controversy 263
The Provincial Attorneys General 271
17]
CONTENTS
17
CHAPTER IX
The Financial System
General Character of Colonial Finances in New Jersey 273
Expenditures . ... 273
The support of government 273
How salaries were paid . . ... 274
Character of a support bill 274
Support of government under Morris 275
Support of government under Belcher ... 279
Support of government under Franklin ... 281
Officers petition for higher salaries 282
Taxation in New Jersey ... . . 284
Method of apportioning taxes . . ... . . 285
287
289
289
289
290
291
292
293
294
296
298
298
299
302
304
304
305
306
307
308
308
3ii
312
313
315
317
Import and export duties
Excise tax ...
Simplicity of the system of taxation
The Bills of Credit .
The instruction of 1740 and the attitude of the home government.
Failure under Morris to pass the ^40,000 act . .
Emissions for the Third Intercolonial War
Disallowance of the ^"40,000 act passed in 1747 . . .
Assembly report on the condition of paper money in New Jersey,
1753 ...
Emissions during the Fourth Intercolonial War
Repeated failures to obtain general emissions under Franklin
Requirement that the bills should not be legal tender
Attitude of the assembly
Considerations involved in the paper money question
The Counterfeiting Evil
Grows with the increased use of paper money
Legislation against counterfeiting
The Morris County counterfeiters in 1748 • .
Activity of Samuel Ford and his associates
The East Jersey Treasury Robbery, 1768 ....
Circumstances of the robbery
Connection of Ford with the robbery . - •
The long legislative deadlock
The assembly's demand upon the treasurer
Treasurer Skinner's resignation and the suit against him
Assembly Control in Financial Affairs
CHAPTER I
The Governor — Position and Personnel
With the growth of the English colonies in America
in influence and wealth, the royal officials became more
active in their endeavors to bring about a greater de-
pendence of the colonies upon the crown. To obtain
this end, the system of royal provinces was developed,
that is, provinces in which there was a body of officials,
appointed by and receiving instructions from the crown.
The particular circumstances attending the transition, of
course, differed in the different colonies, but the object
of the royal officials in each case was the same.
In the case of New Jersey, which became a royal
province in 1702, the disordered condition of the pro-
prietary affairs made the change not altogether unwel-
come. Title to the soil of New Jersey had been granted
by the Duke of York to Berkeley and Carteret in 1664.
By subsequent transfers this territory became sub-
divided, Berkeley receiving West Jersey and Carteret East
Jersey, the former division after different sales coming
into the hands of a large number of proprietors, and the
latter division by a somewhat similar process coming
into the possession of twenty-four proprietors. East
Jersey affairs were managed by the twenty-four acting
as a board of proprietors, while territorial matters in
West Jersey came to be managed by an annually elected
council of proprietors.1
1 For the details of these various transfers see Tanner, Province of
New Jersey, ch. i.
2l] 21
22 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [22
The deeds of lease and release given by the Duke of
York to Berkeley and Carteret granted territorial but
not political rights. Inasmuch as maintaining political
authority was a necessary accompaniment to the success
of the enterprise, the proprietors assumed to exercise
the rights of government, issuing in 1665 the Conces-
sions and Agreements under which New Jersey was to
be governed. With the increase in the number and
character of the proprietors came a natural divergence
of interests, resulting in the formation of hostile factions.
The doubts regarding the legality of the proprietors'
claims to exercise political authority added to the unrest
in the provinces. A contest for the governorship of
East Jersey between Andrew Hamilton and Jeremiah
Basse brought matters to a climax by practically nulli-
fying political authority. In 1702, surrender was made
to the crown and New Jersey became a royal province.
The authorites in England did not see fit at this time
to appoint a separate royal governor for New Jersey, but
gave the commission of governor to Lord Cornbury,
who was in May, 1702, appointed governor of New
York. The governorship was thus held jointly with
New York, but in other respects New Jersey had its
own separate and distinct organs of government. It
was soon realized that the joint governorship was not
without its disadvantages, so that there developed a
decided movement for the appointment of a separate
governor for New Jersey.1
Although surface indications of this movement had
appeared before 1736, it was not until that year, when
Governor Cosby died, that earnest and concerted efforts
were made for the desired end. John Anderson, who as
'Tanner, op. cit., ch. xiii.
23 ] THE GOVERNOR 23
president of the council, became acting governor of New
Jersey at Cosby's death, sent a petition to the king
signed by himself, the council, and some assembly mem-
bers.1 The petition cited New Jersey's disappointment
that Queen Anne had not appointed a separate governor
when the royal government was instituted, and men-
tioned the chief arguments that were used to support
New Jersey's contention. The governor resided in New
York and preferred the interests of that colony to those
of New Jersey. He was absent from the latter province
for sometimes an entire year, with consequent neglect of
public affairs. It was detrimental to have one governor
for the two provinces, and New Jersey could support a
separate governor. For those reasons, in general, was
the king humbly petitioned to appoint a distinct gover-
nor. At the same time the Grand Jury of Middlesex
County sent a petition in hearty accord with the petition
sent by the governor, council and assembly."
Two months later, in May, 1736, the Lords of the
Committee of Council submitted to the Lords Commis-
sioners for Trade and Plantations for their examination
and report, a petition to the king from Richard Partridge,
the colonial agent of New Jersey, adding his influence in
support of the New Jersey idea.3 Sir William Keith, a
former governor of Pennsylvania, in a memorial to the
lords of trade, insisted that it was impracticable to faith-
fully discharge the duties of governor of both provinces
and regarded himself as a fit person to explain the peti-
tions that had been laid before the crown.4 In August,
1736, Partridge again urged the matter upon the author-
1 New Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. 441.
* Ibid., p. 144. *Ibid., p. 448.
4 Keith had previously applied for the separate governorship of New
Jersey.
24 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [24
ities in a long petition, giving " Reasons Humbly offer'd
why a Separate Governor should be appointed for New
Jersey, and ordered constantly to reside there.1
But notwithstanding this continued petitioning, when
in June, 1737, Lord Delaware was appointed governor
of New York, he was given the commission of New
Jersey also. Delaware subsequently resigned, however,
and upon the appointment of Admiral George Clinton as
governor of New York, the home^a^ithorities decided to
grant New Jersey's prayer for a sepaTat^"gm^nor7~ap-
pointing LewislVl orris tojthatotjice. Duly grateful for
this concession, the council and representatives of the
province sent an address to the king, acknowledging the
granting of their petition, expressing the hope that
trade and commerce would now flourish, justice be
speedily administered, and with the blessing of happiness
an increased population result. Entire confidence was
expressed in the person whom the king had appointed.2
Upon his appointment as chief executive of a royal
province, a governor was given a commission and instruc-
tions, the former of which was published upon his arrival
in the colony, while the latter were regarded as secret.
The commission defined in general the powers of the
governor and remained essentially unchanged as issued
to the different governors of the province. Morris's
commission in 1738 was practically the same as Corn-
bury's of iyo2.3r "To execute all things in due manner
that shall belong unto your said command " is the gen-
eral executive power granted to the governor.
The governor's powers in his relations to the council
1 New Jersey Archives, vol. v, p. 451. ''■Ibid., vol. vi, p. 58.
8 Ibid., p. 1. Morris's commission was doubtless copied from Gov.
Montgomerie's, because the latter's name appears in it about a dozen
times.
25 ] THE GOVERNOR 25
and assembly were stated, and then in turn his judicial,
ecclesiastical and military duties considered.1 As with
the commission, the instructions which were given to
successive governors also remained in most particulars
the same. What changes did occur were usually in the
form of additional instructions issued to meet particular
circumstances arising in the colony, rather than changes
in the long list of instructions given to each governor at
his appointment. The instructions supplemented the
commission and furnished the governor with more de-
tailed rules for the conduct of his office.2
Although Morris had been recently engaged in an un-
fortunate quarrel with John Hamilton, the president of
the council, his past services to the province rendered
his choice a most welcome one to the people of New
Jersey. For a just estimate of his career it is necessary
to review the earlier period of his public activity. A man
of bold and decided principles, he was a prominent figure
in the affairs of New York and New Jersey for many
years. Although a shrewd politician, Morris was no less
a statesman. His fearless stand against arbitrary officials
upon more than one occasion during the early part of
his public life commands admiration.3
In 1692, he was appointed a judge of the court of com-
mon right in New Jersey. Six years later, while Morris
was a member of Governor Hamilton's Council, Jeremiah
Basse arrived in the province, and claimed the governor-
ship, although elected by an insufficient number of pro-
prietaries. For resisting the arbitrary conduct of Basse,
Morris was expelled from the council. With the over-
banner, p. 148 et seq.
'For an analysis of Cornbury's instructions, see Tanner, p. 150 et seq.
3 See Morris Papers , "Introductory Memoir," and "The Morris
Family of Morrisonia," Am. Hist. Magazine, vol. i, p. 33.
26 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [26
throw of Basse, and the return of Hamilton, however, he
was returned to the council. His probity and uncom-
promising conduct won him the hatred of Lord Corn-
bury, the first royal governor of New Jersey. Morris
opposed the tyranny of Cornbury, only to find himself
suspended from the council by that unworthy official in
1704. Queen Anne reinstated him, but a second suspen-
sion at the hands of Cornbury almost immediately fol-
lowed. Excluded from the upper house, Morris was
elected to the popular branch of the legislature, where
his influence was largely instrumental in securing the
removal of the corrupt and unscrupulous governor. He
was again restored to his seat in the council under the
next executive. Except for a brief period, when Lieu-
tenant Governor Ingoldsby attempted to drive him from
the council, Morris continued in the upper house of New
Jersey for many years.
With the appointment of Hunter, as governor of New
York and New Jersey, the scene of Morris's activity was
transferred to the former province. Hunter and his suc-
cessor Burnet were able and respected executives, whose
administrations Morris supported with dignity and abil-
ity. In 171 5, he was appointed chief justice of New
York under Governor Hunter. He continued to support
the administrations, until the arrival of the arbitrary
Cosby, as governor. Cosby and Rip Van Dam, the
president of the New York council, became involved in
a quarrel over salary, for the determination of which, the
governor insisted on proceeding before the equity side
of the Court of Exchequer. Chief Justice Morris refused
to be a partner to Cosby's scheme, and opposed the
action by delivering an opinion that the court was not
regularly created and hence was illegal. Morris's sus-
pension resulted from this bold defiance of the executive.
2y] THE GOVERNOR 2J
Thereupon the colony was divided between two bit-
terly hostile factions. Deprived of his judicial position,
Morris, now a popular idol, carried his case on appeal
to England, while his son was sent to the assembly, where
he led the opposition against Cosby. Before the crown
officials, the ex-chief justice vindicated himself, and was
still urging the necessity of Cosby's removal, when, in
1736, that worthy died. Morris then returned to Amer-
ica, where, in New York, he was received with great
acclaim. Upon his return to New Jersey, he laid claim
to the presidency of the council, by virtue of the royal
instructions to the late governor, in which Morris was
named as eldest councillor.1 The council sustained
Hamilton's contention, inasmuch as Morris was not re-
siding in the colony when Cosby died, nor at the demise
of Anderson, the president of the council who became
acting governor at Cosby's death. The government pro-
perly devolved upon Hamilton, whom only an express
order of the king could divest of the presidency.9
Morris's main argument was that he had received cer-
tain instructions addressed to him as president of the
council. This discrepancy was readily accounted for
from the fact that the home authorities had had notice
of Cosby's death, but not of the swearing in of Anderson
and Hamilton. The official documents were on that ac-
count addressed to Morris, whose name still headed the
list, because of a lack of information on the part of the
home authorities.3 Morris made some lengthy " Obser-
vations on the Reasons given by Hamilton's advisers,"
but hardly substantiated his position against the clear
reading of the royal instruction.4 President Hamilton
x New Jersey Archives, vol. xiv, p. 538. * Ibid., vol. v, p. 474.
8 Ibid., p. 481. * Ibid., p. 491.
28 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [28
issued a proclamation against Morris, which at least led
the testy councillor to desist from making good his threat
to resort to force in support of his claims.1 The report
of the lords of trade, January, 1737, was against Morris.2
This decision was based chiefly upon his violation of a
royal instruction, which forbade a councillor absenting
himself from the province for one year without the per-
mission of the governor. His conduct was declared
improper and such as to warrant the forfeiture of his
seat in the council.
Morris had doubtless made many influential friends
during his long visit to England, and consequently, not-
withstanding the unfavorable report of the lords of trade
in the above dispute, received the appointment as gov-
ernor of New Jersey. It was a position which he had
some years before declared himself in favor of having.3
The people expressed real and evident satisfaction at
this appointment, for during the recent contests with
Cosby, Morris had become very popular.
But the administration was still young, when the people
learned by experience that the new governor assumed a
different attitude upon public questions from that which
he had previously taken. With the governorship in his
own hands, no one was more insistent upon and careful
of prerogative than he was. "Tandem Vincitur" the
Morris family motto is said to have read, and in Lewis
it had an able exponent. With a strong will and a rest-
less disposition, power having come into his hands, he
was intolerant of the views of others when in opposition
to his own, and insisted upon the execution of his own
plans. The governor became involved in violent and
1 N. J. Archives, vol. v, p. 469.
iIbid., p. 479. 3 Ibid., p. 314.
29 ] THE GOVERNOR 2g
unseemly quarrels with the assembly, sending to the
legislature long messages, well calculated to induce fruit-
less wordy warfare. With advancing age his egotism led
him to believe that his worth was not appreciated, and his
administration, instead of being a popular one, was a
disappointment to the people. Although his adminis-
tration was a struggle with unwilling assemblies, it was
a beneficial period for the province. This man, who had
waged so many contests against unpopular executives,
himself became one of the most unpopular. But it was
neither corruption nor questionable political deals that
caused his popularity to wane. The constant quarrels
with the lower branch of the legislature were in large
part aggravated by the eccentric and harsh temperament
of the governor.
That Morris was actuated by only the best motives
cannot be doubted. In the exercise of his powers he
adhered scrupulously to what he regarded as his duty to
the king and compromised with none. A man of un-
doubted ability, had he infused some tact into the exer-
cise of his authority, his administration would have been
far more successful. In religion, he was early in his
career a strict couformist, but later his conformity waned.
He disliked the Quakers, and was continually making
assertions to the authorities in England against them,
urging that none should be allowed to hold office. He
died at Kingsbury, bis estate near Trenton, on May 21,
1746. The Morris administration was so unpopular that
in the succeeding administration, an attempt on the part
of the Morris family to obtain the governor's back pay
was successfully frustrated by the assembly.
The commission and instructions under which Morris
governed New Jersey followed closely those of the former
30 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [30
executives.1 In the commission there were only the
necessary verbal changes, while the instructions show a
few minor changes, in part caused by the institution of a
separate governor for the province. A former instruc-
tion providing that all goods imported or exported from
New Jersey should pay as high duties as those from
New York was withdrawn, as contrary to the royal in-
structions to other governors. The instruction relating
to the affirmation of Quakers was omitted, inasmuch as
that was provided for by an act of the province. Mor-
ris's instructions consisted of ninety-three articles.
After the death of Governor Morris, John Hamilton,
president of the council, took the oath, June 4, 1746, to
act as governor until the appointment of a successor to
Morris.2 A year later he died, and no governor having
as yet arrived in the province, John Reading as eldest
councillor assumed office, assuring the crown that it would
be administered as faithfully as possible.3 The author-
ities in England had decided on the new governor as
early as July, 1746, when the lords of trade were directed
to prepare the commission and instructions for Jonathan
Belcher.4 For some reason Belcher had neglected the
payment of certain fees in connection with their issuance,
and the proceedings were delayed for almost half a year.5
Upon payment of the fees, the documents were signed
and approved early in 1747, and New Jersey's new royal
governor set sail for his new field of activity.
lN. J. Archives, vol. vi, p. 2. l Ibid., vol. x, p. 452.
3 Ibid., vol. vi, p. 462. *Ibid., vol. vii, p. 1.
6 Ibid., vol. vi, p. 422. Mr. Paris, the agent of the East Jersey pro-
prietors in England, thought that the fees had been paid with money
collected by Partridge from Quakers, he having represented to them
Belcher's services to the Quakers in Boston, as governor of Mass., and
that the Quakers might reasonably expect his favor in N. J. In the
3 1 ] THE GO VERNOR 3 T
From the brief sketch of Governor Morris's life, it was
seen that the period of his popularity was during that
part of his public career previous to the appointment as
governor of New Jersey. In the case of Governor
Belcher the opposite was true. His conduct as governor
of Massachusetts and New Hampshire became so obnox-
ious to the people, that no steps, proper or improper,
were omitted to secure his removal from his position.
With Belcher, as was also the case with Morris, a proper
estimate of the man is possible, only after a considera-
tion of his work in New England.1
Born in Cambridge, January 8, 1682, the son of
Andrew Belcher, a wealthy Massachusetts merchant,
Jonathan was educated at Harvard, where he was grad-
uated in 1699. Having traveled abroad for several years
after the completion of his college course, he returned
to New England to become his father's business partner.
In 1 718, he became a member of the Massachusetts
council, at which board he served for seven years. His
election to that body was vetoed by Governor Burnet in
1729. Although Belcher had formerly had the reputa-
tion of being a prerogative man, he managed to ingrati-
ate himself with the popular party at about this time.
When the contest between the representatives and Bur-
net over the question of a permanent salary for the gov-
ernor was most acute, Belcher was sent to England by
the lower house to aid the regular provincial agent in
converting the royal authorities to the colonial view-
point.
Belcher Papers under date of Nov. 16, 1747, there is a letter which
Belcher wrote to his son in Boston, urging him to treat with kindness
and respect "such as you fall in with from my Government (the
Quakers especially)."
'For Belcher's career, see "Preface" to Belcher Papers, published
by the Mass. Historical Society, series vi, vols, vi and vii.
32 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [32
It is not evident that Belcher's influence counted for
much in the affair on account of which he was sent
abroad, but the trip resulted to his own personal good
fortune. The special agent of the Massachusetts assem-
bly had not been long in England, when Governor Bur-
net died. As soon as the news of that gentleman's
demise had crossed the ocean, ex-councillor Belcher
turned his chief attention to securing the appointment
as Burnet's successor in America. With evident ability
in that direction, he successfully pulled the official wires,
and received the coveted appointment. It is said that
former Governor Shute might again have received the
appointment, but he refused the honor, and surrendered
his interests to Belcher.1 Shute was Belcher's debtor to
the amount of £500, as the result of a fourteen-year-old
transaction.
The flop, which the newly appointed governor of Mas-
sachusetts had made in 1729 from the prerogative to the
popular party, was characteristic of his subsequent con-
duct in New England politics. As with Morris later in
New Jersey history, so with Belcher in Massachusetts
and New Hampshire, his popularity was of short duration
after he became the royal executive. Having returned
to the colony with an instruction upon the question of a
fixed salary, more distasteful to the New Englanders
than Burnet's had been, Belcher determined to enforce
it with as much exactness as his predecessor had done.
His position was incongruous, to say the least. He was
attempting to persuade the assembly of the colony of the
propriety and necessity of a plan, which the preceding
year he had been appointed and sent to England to
oppose. Upon the question of the emission of paper
1 Hutchinson, History of Mass. Bay Colony, p. 367.
33 J THE GOVERNOR 33
money, Belcher also opposed the popular party. In
Massachusetts, the governor was especially arbitrary in
the matter of appointments, his conduct upon occasions
being neither consistent nor warrantable.
Nor was the governor's conduct unpopular in only the
more powerful of the two colonies under his jurisdiction.
His activities were resented in New Hampshire, where
his indiscretions loomed perhaps larger than in the
neighboring colony. His attitude toward New Hamp-
shire in the boundary dispute with Massachusetts was a
subject of complaint. It was the treatment of the lieu-
tenant governors of the smaller colony that aroused the
greatest opposition against Belcher. John Wentworth,
who was lieutenant governor when Belcher was commis-
sioned, soon felt the enmity of his superior. After the
lieutenant governor's death, the most active opposition
to Belcher in New Hampshire came from a party of
Wentworth's adherents. David Dunbar, the next lieu-
tenant governor, was so denuded of authority by Belcher
that he became a mere nonentity in the government.
The governor actually convened the council in Dunbar's
house, without so much as noticing the latter.1
The complaints against Governor Belcher, because of
the disputes in both provinces, were naturally carried
across the ocean. Every opportunity was taken to ren-
der his position precarious with the home officials, in
order that he would be removed. To effect this pur-
pose, his opponents did not content themselves with
stating only the facts, but sent forged and anonymous
letters also to England. He was removed in May, 1741,
and Shirley was appointed to succeed him.
After retiring for a while to his estate at Milton,
'Fry, New Hampshire as a Royal Province, p. 93.
34 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [34
Belcher went to England and succeeded in so far vindi-
cating himself before the royal authorities that he was
appointed to succeed Morris in New Jersey. This ap-
pointment was doubtless due in part to the influence of
his brother-in-law, Richard Partridge, the agent of New
Jersey at court. Upon his arrival in America, as gov-
ernor of New Jersey, he made Burlington his home, but
in 1752 removed to Elizabethtown on account of his
health.
The usual congratulatory addresses were sent to the
new governor, and indications pointed to a harmonious
administration.1 Throughout his term of office in New
Jersey, he adopted a consistently mild and conciliatory
policy, which made his administration deservedly popu-
lar. His conduct was in great contrast to that of his
predecessor in New Jersey, and to his own attitude in
his former executive position. He would resist popular
measures only when they brought him into conflict
with positive instructions from the crown. Belcher be-
lieved in his popularity also, for he writes in 1750, " I
believe I am not Vain while I tell you were the Governor
elective I believe I shou'd have 19 votes in 20 through-
out the Province."2
It was Belcher's misfortune, however, to hold office
during the period when the land riots of the people
against the proprietors became most violent. His evident
desire to remain neutral in the quarrel and to act justly,
led to representations being made against him in Eng-
land by some of the proprietors, who charged him with
countenancing the rioters.3 Robert Hunter Morris, mis-
1 N. J. Archives, vol. iii, p. 13.
1 Belcher Papers, Nov. 7, 1750.
3 Ibid. The letters written during August, 1757.
35] THE GOVERNOR 35
interpreting Belcher's neutrality in the land disputes
for partiality, exerted his powerful influence while in
London to secure his removal, but was unsuccessful.
The governor attributed Morris's conduct in part to
jealousy that " his late Father's administration was so
imprudent and so abhorrent to the whole people and
mine should be so much the reverse." x An able defense
of Belcher's conduct was made by the Presbytery of New
Brunswick at their meeting in December, 1751, and a
letter was addressed to the Earl of Holderness declaring
as groundless reports against him, and asserting as the
" current sentiments of the people " that Governor
Belcher had done all in his power to suppress the lawless
tumults.9 The governor compared his difficult sitiuation
to steering " between sylla and charibdis that is to please
the King's Ministers at home and a touchy People here
or as we say at Sea to Luff for one and to bear away for
another."3 The fear of removal was naturally distasteful
to Belcher, and he wrote frequently to the Secretary of
State defending his conduct, and urging that he should
not be censured without first having the privilege of
answering for himself the charges against him.4 In the
conduct of public affairs, Belcher was passive rather than
active. He may justly be censured for not having had a
definite constructive policy to cope with the difficult con-
ditions in the province. His attitude was not assertive
and he clearly lacked those qualities which make for
leadership. The governor's interests were, in the main,
those of the colonists, and he frequently urged the en-
couragement of trade, agriculture and manufacturing.
1 Belcher Papers , Aug. 16, 1751.
"Hageman, Princeton and Its Institutions.
* Belcher Papers , June 8, 1751. KN. J. Archives, vol. vii, p. 571.
36 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [36
A great degree of inconsistency cannot be charged
against Governor Belcher in New Jersey affairs.
His was a most interesting personality. It is revealed
in the voluminous correspondence of this tireless letter-
writer. Belcher's actions frequently fell far short of his
professions. This was especially true of his career in
New England, where he was not above duplicity. His
extreme obeisance to his official superiors is hard to
reconcile with the often unkind arbitrariness to those
over whom he was officially superior. The governor
was a very emotional man. The fervent religious spirit
of Belcher's letters may sound like cant and osten-
tatious piety, but in judging him the character of the
age in which he lived should be considered. None of
the New Jersey governors of this period did more to
encourage and promote the religious and educational
life of the province than did he. The founding of the
College of New Jersey, now Princeton University, was
due in no small degree to the earnest and patient efforts
of Jonathan Belcher.
Although Belcher was satisfied with the life in New
Jersey, once writing, " If God and the King please I
shou'd be glad to dye Gov of New Jersey," he longed to
return at least for a visit to his relatives, in New Eng-
land.1 In 1747 he had applied to the crown officials for
a general leave of absence which would enable him to go
to New England for two or three months when neces-
sary. This general leave was not granted, but he was
ordered to apply for a special license whenever it was
necessary for him to go to New England.3 A leave of
1 Belcher Papers, June 8, 1751. We find in one of his letters the as-
sertion that his tongue would cleave to the roof of his mouth when he
forgot New England.
*N. J. Archives, vol. ii, pp. 449, 453.
37] THE GOVERNOR 37
absence was obtained early in 1750, but owing to the
state of affairs in the province it remained unused.1
In his later years Belcher was in declining health.
Benjamin Franklin offered to aid him by electrical treat-
ments, and after having consulted noted physicians in
the colonies, the offer was accepted by the prospective
patient, convinced that the experiment could be made
"in moderation, without any fear of Injury."2 The
honored governor died in 1757, his death causing genu-
ine grief on the part of the people. We are told that
the funeral service in the Presbyterian church at Eliza-
bethtown, at which President Burr of the College of
New Jersey preached the sermon, was very impressive.
The sermon was later published with the title " A Ser-
vant of God dismissed from Labor to Rest.,,
The commission which Governor Belcher brought with
him to America was in the usual form, and the modifica-
tions in the instructions were few.3 An additional in-
struction tq Morris directing him to send aid to Nova
Scotia was inserted in the present set, but owing to the
war with France an instruction was now omitted relating
to the treaty of neutrality between England and France in
1686. The titles of three acts of the 15th, 17th and 19th
years of George II relating to the Acts of Trade and
Navigation were in Belcher's instructions.
Upon the death of Governor Belcher an interesting
situation arose in connection with the administration of
the government. In 1755 Thomas Pownall had been
appointed lieutenant governor of New Jersey, upon the
expectation that he would soon become governor by
1 Belcher Papers , Jan. 8, 1750.
1 Belcher Papers , Oct. and Nov., 1751.
* N. J. Archives, vol. vii, p. 2 et seq.
38 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [38
Belcher's death.1 The New Jersey governor not dying
as soon as had been anticipated, Pownall was appointed
to succeed Shirley of Massachusetts. In September, 1757,
he was duly notified by Secretary Read of New Jersey of
the governor's death.2
As Pownall was absent from New Jersey, the adminis-
tration fell to Reading, the oldest councillor, who refused
to assume the chief authority, as he was aged and infirm
and "not fit to bear the Weight or Burthen of Govern-
ment." 3 At the earnest behest of the council and secre-
tary, Reading did qualify by taking the oaths in order to
prevent confusion in the colony, but urged that he be
superseded or relieved by the appointment of some other
person. Pownall came to New Jersey, but inasmuch as
there was no unusual business requiring his attention,
returned to Massachusetts, after having met the council
and continued Reading in charge. He generously prom-
ised to make the trip from Boston at any time that neces-
sity required "more vigorous exertion" than Reading's
state of health would allow.4 To the lords of trade
Pownall urged the immediate appointment of some per-
son as governor of New Jersey, " with no connections
with this country," especially because if Reading should
die the administration would devolve upon Robert H.
Morris, one of the chief proprietors, an event which he
quite reasonably regarded would be most improper, at a
time when the proprietors and people were at odds.
There now followed in rapid succession three royal
governors, with administrations so brief as scarce to leave
any distinct impression on the colony. In June, 1758,
1 N. J. Archives, vol. viii, pt. ii, p. 102.
5 Ibid., p. 257. s Ibid., p. 260.
4 Ibid., vol. xvii, p. 133.
39] THE GOVERNOR 39
Francis'Bernard took the oaths as governor of New Jer-
sey.1 A cultivated gentleman, having been educated at
Oxford, Bernard was enthusiastically received in the
province. But in November, 1759, he was appointed
governor of Massachusetts Bay leaving New Jersey the
next year, to the great regret of the assembly which
esteemed his going "as a public loss."2 The departure
was in marked contrast to his leave-taking at Boston,
in August, 1769.
In less than a month after the notification to Bernard
of his new appointment, the representation of the lords
of trade proposing Thomas Boone, a citizen of South
Carolina, as governor of New Jersey was approved.3
The honor thus conferred upon him was acknowledged
by a letter from Charleston, South Carolina, to the
lords of trade and another letter to those honorable
gentlemen notified them of his arrival in New Jersey,
and the publication of his commission at Perth Amboy
and Burlington.4 Before he had been in New Jersey a
year, Boone was, in April, 1761, appointed governor of
South Carolina.
Josiah Hardy, who had not had any previous connec-
tion with the colonies, was the next person tried in New
Jersey by the crown authorities. He arrived late in
October, 1761, and after publishing his commission, met
the legislature.5 Conduct on the part of the governor,
which the authorities regarded as illegal and unwar-
ranted, cut short the administration of Hardy. He had
granted commissions to the justices of the Supreme
Court of the province to hold office during good be-
1 N. J. Archives, vol. xvii, p. 173.
* Ibid., vol. ix, p. 188. * Ibid., p. 189.
4 Ibid., pp. 205, 234. 5 Ibid., p. 316.
40 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [4o
havior. The lords of trade spoke very sternly against
" so premeditated and unprecedented an Act of disobe-
dience " on the governor's part,1 and the attorney general
reported that the appointments during good behavior
were contrary to the royal instructions, illegal and invalid.3
Hardy was notified of his removal, and replying in a
brief and dignified note, acknowledged the letter of re-
moval from Egremont, but mentioned his ignorance as
to the representations against him, and his never having
been given an opportunity to justify his conduct.3
The removal of Hardy was another disappointment to
the people of New Jersey; not only because they were
inclined to the governor personally, but because the
frequent changes in administration were felt to be inju-
rious to the colony. The purse-strings were affected
also, because it was customary to grant an extra £500
to each governor at the beginning of a new administra-
tion, as an aid to the payment of his transportation
expenses. The assembly was beginning to count up
these extra requisitions of the past few years, and as a
matter of fact, the next governor did not receive one.
The commissions granted to Bernard, Boone, and
Hardy were in the usual form, indeed there would have
been scant time to draft new ones, had there been any
inclination, considering the slowness with which the
machinery of government worked at that time in colonial
affairs. In Bernard's instructions, one suspending the
execution of laws emitting bills of credit until the royal
pleasure was known was omitted, and for it substituted
an instruction allowing the governor to assent to such
acts in times of war or cases of emergency, under condi-
1 N. J. Archives, vol. ix, Ibid., p. 360.
3 Ibid. , p. 380. 8 Ibid. , p. 379-
4I] THE GOVERNOR 4I
tions prescribed by the act of parliament of 1750.1 Arti-
cles which seemed obsolete were omitted, and others
similar to those given to other royal governors inserted.
The instructions to Boone were granted with only neces-
sary verbal alterations. An important addition was
made to the 27th article of Boone's instructions, when
Governor Hardy's were issued.2 It directed the gover-
nor to discourage attempts to set up manufactures or
trades prejudicial to England. Some instructions had
become useless because their objects were now provided
for by provincial laws. Such were omitted. One of
these was to secure the life, limb and property of the
subject ; another directed proofs to be sent with prisoners
to England; and a third provided that inhuman severities
towards servants and slaves should be restrained.
When William Franklin was appointed governor of
New Jersey, there were in some quarters pronounced
expressions made against him, one gentleman going so
far as not to doubt but that New Jersey would make a
remonstrance against the appointment.3 The ability
which Franklin showed in governing New Jersey during
a most trying period leaves one to conclude that the
gross aspersions against him were due not to a lack of
confidence in his abilities but on account of a feeling
hostile to him because of his illegitimate birth. Born in
1 73 1, the son of Benjamin Franklin, William had the
opportunity of improving himself in the companionship
of his learned parent, an advantage also which he did not
neglect.4 When his father went to England as Penn-
sylvania's colonial agent, the younger Franklin accom-
1 N. J. Archives, vol. ix, p. 38. * Ibid., p. 272.
8 Duer, Life of Lord Stirling, pp. 68-71.
4 See the excellent biographical sketch of William Franklin by W
A. Whitehead, N. J. Hist. Soc. Proc, series i, vol. iii, p. 137.
42 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [42
panied him. While in Europe he traveled extensively
with his father and must have come in contact with
many of the leading personages of the time. In 1762
he was given an honorary degree of Master of Arts at
Oxford. Through the influence of Lord Bute, William
Franklin was appointed in August, 1762, to succeed
Hardy as governor of New Jersey, and^ was the last
royal governor of that province. Arrived in the colony
in February of the next year, he was greeted with a
demonstration "equal to his utmost wishes/'1
Governor Franklin's endeavors for the prosperity and
welfare of the province were earnest and unremitting.
Arriving in America at the conclusion of a long and
expensive war, he urged upon Jerseymen the cultivation
and promotion of the arts of peace. He himself became
an active agriculturist, caring for a farm of considerable
extent at Burlington, where he lived until 1774. At that
date he moved to Perth Amboy, in order to call the
council more freely during that critical period.2 Numer-
ous measures of economic and social value to the colony
secured his active support and encouragement.
Had Franklin been governor of New Jersey a decade
earlier, there is no reason to doubt that his administra-
tion would have been far more successful than it was.
It was upon that momentous question, dearest to the
hearts of the patriots, that Franklin was a stranger to
his people. He stood firmly in favor of the acts of the
English ministry. His noted father aptly described him
as "a thorough government man."3 It was the oppo-
sition of the governor to the people on this vital subject
1 N. J. Archives, ix, p. 383. 2 Ibid., vol. x, p. 459.
J Letter of Oct. 6, 1773, to Wm. Franklin. Smyth, Life and Writ-
ings of Benjamin Franklin, vol. vi, p. 144.
43] THE GOVERNOR 43
which brought him into conflict with them on other
matters, in which under ordinary circumstances they
would have supported him. But determined upon his
course in favor of the royal officials in their contest with
the colonies, Franklin saw it through to the bitter end,
enduring separation from his wife and estrangement
from his father. It is a tribute to his ability, that hold-
ing such pronounced royalist views, Franklin maintained
himself as long as he did as governor of the province.
The detailed account of Franklin's conduct during the
Revolution will be reserved for a later chapter.
Attention may here be called to the minor executive
officers in the colony. Reference has been made to the
appointment of Thomas Pownall in 1755 as lieutenant
governor. His was the second and last royal commis-
sion to such an office in the province. The only other
lieutenant governor had been Richard Ingoldsby, com-
missioned as such at the institution of royal government
in New Jersey. The office seemed to have proven itself
a useless expense and was abolished until the appoint-
ment of Pownall. The apparent motive in the appoint-
ment of Pownall was to have a competent person " upon
the Spot" to succeed Belcher at his death,1 but this great
anxiety to insure the smooth succession of governors in
New Jersey does not appear to have troubled the lords
of trade after Ingoldsby's time. Perhaps Pownall wanted
a colonial office and it was awarded to him through the
influence of his brother, then secretary of the lords of
trade.
Belcher, though congratulating Pownall upon his ap-
pointment, advised Partridge, the London agent, to be
watchful " in a silent manner " that the new officer should
x N. J. Archives, vol. viii, pt. ii, p. 102.
44 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [44
not attempt anything prejudicial to him.1 His suspicions
that Pownall would not scruple anything for his own
advancement, he declares to be not without reason.'
What his apprehensions were does not appear. In view
of the fact that a lieutenant governor had not been com-
missioned for New Jersey for over half a century, and
that representations had been made against the governor,
it does not seem unnatural that Belcher should have been
apprehensive.
Pownall's commission had given him authority to act
as governor in case of the latter's death or absence.3 In
May, 1756, Belcher was directed to authorize the lieuten-
ant governor to act in his stead, whenever his age and
infirmity made it " painfull and hazardous if not imprac-
ticable" for him to attend any meetings of the govern-
ors which the Earl of Loudoun, commander of the royal
troops in America, might appoint.4 Pownall's subse-
quent connection with New Jersey affairs has been men-
tioned, and after him no other lieutenant governor was
appointed. Thereafter the administration of affairs dur-
ing the intervals between governorships was intrusted,
according to the royal instructions, to the oldest coun-
cilor, who as president of the council thus came to have
a definite and distinct position in fact, as well as in name.5
The provincial secretary and attorney general held
office by royal patent. It was common practice for the
royal appointee to farm the office of secretary out to a
deputy, who in turn might entrust the actual conduct of
affairs to clerks. This method was not conducive to the
lN. J. Archives, vol. viii, pt. ii, pp. 135, 130- a Ibid., p. 190.
8 Ibid., p. 106. 4 Ibid., p. 215.
6 Before the issuance of Pownall's commission such had been the
practise after Ingoldsby's time.
45] THE GOVERNOR 45
attainment of the best results. In 1769 Governor Frank-
lin wrote that the secretary came to Burlington only
during the sessions of the court, but that he desired the
next appointee to reside in the capital city.1 The gov-
ernor referred to Joseph Reed, deputy at that time, who
shortly thereafter did resign, and was succeeded by a
person concerning whom there was less cause for adverse
criticism.
The secretary's commission was held by an English
gentleman named Burnet in 1739, Archibald Home act-
ing as deputy in the province.3 William Peters of
Pennsylvania sought the commission as secretary in
1741, but the best efforts of John Ferdinand Paris in his
behalf were of no avail.3 After the death of Burnet,
Home continued to hold the deputyship until his own
demise. In order that the public business should not
be inconvienced, James Home was appointed deputy-
secretary on the decease of his brother Archibald.4 The
date of his commission was March 13, 1744. Then
Christopher Coates, became secretary of the province.
In 1745 Charles Read received a commission to hold
the deputyship during the royal pleasure.5 It is recited
that James Home intends to remove to another colony,
doubtless South Carolina. The new deputy secretary
took the oaths to the government and for the due execu-
tion of the offices of secretary and clerk of council on
November 10, 1744. For the next two or three decades
Read held other prominent official positions. His signa-
1 N. J. Hist. Soc. Proc.t vol. i, p. 109.
* N. J. A., vol. xii, p. 154.
* N. J. MSS., pp. 101, 107, in the Pennsylvania Hist. Soc. Library.
* Liber A A A of Provincial Commissions, p. 254.
'Ibid., p. 258.
46 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [46
ture was affixed to documents until 1767. Inasmuch as
he was re-commissioned secretary in 1762,1 Read's in-
cumbency in the office doubtless was not continuous
from 1745 to 1762. Under date of March 17, 1761, an
order of council directed the lords of trade to prepare
a warrant continuing Christopher Coates in the office of
secretary.2
Maurice Morgan, "of Parliament Street, Westminis-
ter," was granted the commission of secretary of New
Jersey on June 18, 1 767.3 As his agent in the province
he deputed Joseph Reed later in the same month. In
January of the following year Morgan was confirmed in
his position by a commission which appointed him to
the "Offices or Places of Secretary, Clerk of the Council,
Clerk of the Supreme Court, Clerk of the Pleas, Surro-
gate and Keeper and Register of Records."4 Morgan
apparently retained his commission to the end of the
provincial era. In October, 1769, Deputy Secretary
Reed retired in favor of Charles Pettit, his brother-in-
law, who had been associated with Reed in the duties of
his numerous offices.5 The new deputy took the oaths
before Chief Justice Smyth on November 3, 1769, the
day upon which he was licensed as an attorney-at-law.6
Continued in office by the council and assembly of the
State of New Jersey in 1776, he resigned two years later
in favor of his brother-in-law, Bowes Read.7
Provincial New Jersey boasted of two receivers-gen-
eral or treasurers appointed by the governor for unlimited
1 Liber A A A of Provincial Commissions, p. 366.
*N. J. A., vol. ix, p. 357; vol. x, p. 366.
3 Liber A B of Provincial Commissions \ p. 4. K Ibid., p. 1.
6 Ibid., p. 37; Nt J. A., vol. x, p. 133. 6 Ibid., p. 40.
''Ibid., p. 186.
47] THE GOVERNOR 47
terms. There was a treasurer for each division of the
province with a salary of £40 per annum. As will be
seen, the assembly of New Jersey practically gained the
power of dictating the appointments to this office. The
East Jersey treasurer in 1738 was Andrew Johnston.
Upon his death, in 1762, Stephen Skinner received the
appointment at the hands of Governor Hardy.1 After the
robbery of the treasury chest in his house, Skinner's res-
ignation was forced by the assembly in 1773, and John
Smyth appointed. Stirred by the treasury theft, the as-
sembly passed an act obliging the treasurers to enter
into bonds for the faithful execution of the office. Smyth
was the first treasurer appointed during the operation of
this law. In West Jersey John Allen, who had been
appointed by Governor Burnet, retained the office until
1750. For the twenty-five years following, Samuel
Smith, the historian, acted in a like capacity. Upon his
resignation in 1775, Franklin appointed Joseph Smith to
the office, and on May 20th of that year the assembly
pronounced his bond satisfactory.
Many of the other officers received commissions from
the governor. These included the provincial and county
judges and justices of the peace, sheriffs and militia offi-
cers. Customs officers for New Jersey were usually
commissioned by the surveyor general of customs for
the colonies. The proprietary surveyors general will be
mentioned in a later chapter.
1 N. J. A., vol. ix, p. 366.
CHAPTEP II
The Council — Position and Personnel
The council acted in a dual capacity, as an advisory
body to the governor, and as the upper house of the
legislature.1 In the former capacity it had many import-
ant functions, among them the necessity of giving advice
in and consent to the establishment of courts, the erec-
tion of forts, expenditures of the public money and other
important matters. The council had a general supervi-
sion over the administration. In legislation it was the
theory that the council and assembly stood on an equality,
but in practice this was not the case. With success, the
assembly stubbornly maintained the principle that the
council could neither originate nor amend money bills.
This position was deprecated by governors and home
authorities, but the assembly would not abate one jot.
This naturally gave rise to serious legislative conflicts,
which were, however, not unique in the history of any
one English colony. The council also had judicial duties
in cases of appeal to the governor and council from the
provincial courts.
The governors before Morris had presided at the leg-
islative, as well as the administrative, sessions of the
council. The serious objection to this practice was that
it gave the executive undue influence in legislation. It
was one of the complaints which Morris had made
against Governor Cosby,2 and when the former became
banner, op. tit., ch. xvii, and ch. xviii.
' N. J. A., vol. vii, p. 77. s Ibid., vol. xv, p. 19.
48 [48
49] THE COUNCIL 49
governor he consistently desisted from presiding over
the legislative deliberations of the upper house, an action
which deservedly merited the approval that it received
from the legislature. The assembly was conscious of
the advantage of having the council sit " as a separate
and distinct part of the legislature; for all former gover-
nors have presided in that House, in a legislative capacity,
which not only very much influenced their debates, but
often produced very bad effects, and greatly thwarted
and obstructed the despatch of public business."1 That
Morris believed in their right to act in a legislative
capacity apart from the governor, the council had no
reason to doubt, and reminding him " of the ill conse-
quences which have ever attended and again may attend
a Governor's presiding, and voting amongst us in a
Legislative Capacity," expressed their gratitude for the
action he had taken.9 This action of Morris's was most
commendable, decreased his power not in the least, while
it did encourage legislative harmony.
Gov. Belcher, however, deemed it to be "for the good
of the Province, that he should be present when any Bill
was Debating in Council," 3 and coming to the council
on New Year's Day, 1746, informed his councillors that
he wished merely to listen to the debates in order better
to judge of the necessity of any measure, would continue
to attend for that purpose, but " did not intend to vote
or otherwise to Intermeddle with or Direct any of the
Proceedings of the Council in their Legislative Capac-
ity." The next day Morris moved that a committee
might be appointed to consider the governor's claim,
because compliance would affect the rights of the upper
house. What the committee report was is not known,
1 Assembly Journal, Oct. 28, 1738.
1 AT. J. A.y vol. xv, p. 19. * Ibid., vol. xv, p. 567.
50 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [50
but there is no indication that the governor persisted in
his purpose, doubtless concluding that the king's service
would not be best conserved by stirring up needless
opposition in the council. There is, however, a letter
from James Alexander to Joseph Murray, an eminent
lawyer and member of the New York council, asking
him for information as to the motives that " induced Mr.
Clark to Desist from Setting with the Council in their
Legislative Capacity," and submitting certain queries
upon the subject to which answers are requested.1 It
was the intention also to send a copy of these queries to
each of the royal governments asking for the desired
information.2
A relic of the former recognized division of the terri-
tory into East and West Jersey remained in the make-up
of the council also. There were six councillors for each
division, an arrangement frequently provocative of an-
noyance and a source of difficulty in making appoint-
ments. In accordance with a royal instruction to the
governors, a list of twelve persons qualified to act as
councillors, six from each division of the province, was
to be at the disposal of the authorities in England. Ac-
cording to the instructions to both Morris and Belcher r
the royal Surveyor General of Customs was to " sit and
vote in the Council as a Councillor Extraordinary."3 It
was usually difficult to obtain a quorum, which was three
members.4 At such times, much to the detriment of the
public service, as well as the annoyance of the faithful
1 N. J. A., vol. vii, p. 77. i/did., p. 70.
3 Ibid., vol. vi, p. 15.
4 Morris's commission said that three should be a quorum, but in the
instructions he was directed not to act with a quorum of less than five,
"unless upon Extraordinary Emergencies, when a greater Number
cannot be conveniently had."
5i] THE COUNCIL 51
members, adjournment would be made from day to day,
until the requisite number appeared. In some cases
there were proper excuses for absence but frequently it
was neglect. At the beginning of Morris's administra-
tion the annoyance was such that the council asked the
governor to lay before them the royal instructions in the
matter, and ordered the absent members to attend.1 In
November, 1739, after certain members had been sum-
moned thrice, they were warned that all excuses were
futile, and that persisting to be neglectful, their cases
would be laid before the king.* A recommendation of
Governor Morris that stated council meetings should be
held quarterly on the last Tuesday of March, June, Sep-
tember and December at the governor's residence, was
agreed to by the council, December 4, 1739.3 The object
was to obviate the difficulty of members attending meet-
ings upon short notice, the agreement being regarded
as a summons to meet on the days indicated. Extra
sessions were, of course, to be held in the discretion of
the governor. This simple arrangement overcame in
great part the difficulties which it had been sought to
remedy. The attendance of councillors, however, was
even later, in 1744, a matter of caustic comment on the
part of the assembly.4
The personnel of the council was in general high, its
membership including many of the most able and in-
fluential men in the province. In no small degree was
the governor responsible for the character of his coun-
cil, for his recommendations of persons qualified to act
as councillors were almost without exception accepted.5
'AT. J. A., vol. xv, p. 25. * Ibid., p. 94.
3 Ibid., p. 104. * Ibid., p. 369.
4 The majority of Belcher's recommendations, however, were re-
jected.
52 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [52
The governor also had the power to suspend councillors,
but in cases of suspension was to transmit a detailed
account to the king. Although from these circum-
stances it might appear that the royal executive exer-
cised considerable influence over the council, as was in-
deed the case, they were by no means servile to him. In
upholding the royal prerogative against popular en-
croachments, their interests were common, but when
those interests diverged, governor and council frequently
came into conflict.
Exclusive of John Peagrum, Surveyor General of Cus-
toms and Councillor Extraordinary, the following were
appointed to the council by Morris's instructions: John
Hamilton, John Wills, John Reading, Cornelius Van
Horn, William Provost, John Schuyler, Thomas Farmer,
John Rodman, Richard Smith, Robert Lettice Hooper,
Robert Hunter Morris, and Jeremiah Lyell, the first five
of whom had been councillors under the old adminis-
tration, the others being newly appointed. Of these,
Hooper, who was chief justice of New Jersey from 1725
to 1738 with the exception of about a year and a half,
had died a month before the lords of trade had submitted
the list to the king. Wills, because of old age, and Van
Horn, because of business affairs, were dismissed at their
own request.1 Provost was suspended in 1740 because
of persistent refusals to attend, and Schuyler being part
owner " of the famous Jersey Coppermine " was dis-
charged because council attendance prejudiced his pri-
vate affairs.2 Among the discharged members, Morris
thought the public service suffered only in the loss of
Schuyler, which may account for his readiness to dismiss
them.
1 N. J. A., vol. xv, p. 121. ■ Ibid., vol. vi, p. 105.
53] THE COUNCIL 53
Thomas Farmer had been chief justice from March,
1728, to November, 1729, but had probably been re-
moved because of insanity. Cosby had recommended
him for the council in 1734, and his name appears in
Morris's instructions, but representing Middlesex County
in the assembly at that time, he retained that position,
and did not move to the other house. Thus reduced to
but six members resident in the province, Morris, con-
sistent with his instructions, appointed Peter Baynton,
who of all the trustees appointed by the assembly to
furnish certain supplies for the troops acted according to
the governor's ideas of proper conduct.1 Smith and
Rodman were both West Jersey Quakers, the former
having been characterized by Morris at an earlier time
as "a quiet inoffensive person," the latter as "a man of
good temper of a good estate in Jersie and Pensilvania
and generally well esteemed both by Quakers and
others." a Regarding Lyell little is known, except that
he was a Perth Amboy merchant.3 Reading, a West
Jersey proprietor, was an influential member of the
council, having been councillor since 1720 under Burnet.
He it was who objected to assuming the administration
at Belcher's death. Princeton College received freely of
his wealth and energies, and indeed his death deprived
the province of one of its most honored servants.4 Of
three other councillors, John Hamilton, R. H. Morris,
lN. J. A., vol. vi, p. 106.
* Ibid., vol. v, p. 317. *Ibid., p. 155.
•There is a letter in the Belcher Papers, under date of Dec. 16, 1747,
showing that Reading asked permission to resign as early as that
date, but he was not actually relieved from duties until 1758. The
letter is such a characteristic Belcher epistle that an extract is here
given. After regretting the necessity of Reading's resignation, the
governor continues, " I wish your Fears," evidently regarding his own
and Mrs. Reading's health, " may be turned into Joye and thanksgiv-
54 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [54
and James Alexander who served from the beginning of
Morris's administration, a more extended account should
be given.
The son of Andrew Hamilton, the last provincial gov-
ernor under the proprietors, John Hamilton was ap-
pointed to the council under Hunter.1 This was his first
appointment to public office, but as early as 1694 his
name became known in connection with the first estab-
lishment of post offices in America. He was appointed
second judge of the Supreme Court in 1735, but later
resigned the position because the salary would " scarce
maintain a foot-man."2 The result of the contest for
the council presidency did not leave Morris kindly dis-
posed to Hamilton, and we find the governor mentioning
to the lords of trade in May 1739, that Hamilton though
a councillor for West Jersey, lives in East Jersey, and to
his knowledge has never had an estate in the former
division, evidently not unwilling that the Lords should
regard such a course as improper.3 In fact Morris with
questionable dignity soon became involved in a more
pronounced contest with Hamilton. After the warrants
for salaries had been signed in 1739, Hamilton applied
for the portion of his salary as council president, up to
that time unpaid. Morris not only refused to grant
that, but notified the councillor, that he should pay
Morris the money received by him as president of the
upper house since Morris's arrival in 1736.4 After an in-
ing, on Mrs. Reading's ace* — you know Its easy for our Bless'd Saviour
to Say to you as to the Noble man in the Gospel in a Like occasion —
thy Wife Liveth— and in your own Case as to the poor Paralitick—
Arise and take up thy Bed and Walk. But these things Sir we Are to
humbly hope for in Faith and Prayer."
1 N. J. A., vol. iv, p. 182. 2 Morris Papers, p. 48.
5 Ibid., p. 54. *N. J. A., vol. vi, p. 69.
55] THB COUNCIL S5
terval of four years the governor, in March 1743, brought
suit against Hamilton for £3,000 damages, and the latter
asked the lords of trade for a letter certifying the incor-
rectness of the governor's attitude.1 To his satisfaction,
the lords of trade informed Hamilton that from March
1736 until the issue of Morris's commission they*had
regarded him as "the legal President and Commander
in Chief of the Provinces of East and West Jersey." 2
The governor's position in that matter was clearly un-
warranted. It was perhaps the irony of fate that John
Hamilton should outlive Morris and become acting gov-
ernor again at the latter's death.
Robert Hunter Morris, one of the new members of his
father's council, having great natural ability and favored
with unusual advantages, developed into one of the ablest
men of this period of New Jersey's history. Upon the
death of Hooper, young Morris was appointed by his
father, with the approval of the council, as chief justice
of the province, a position which he held for twenty-six
years. During this time he was absent for five years in
England, going on a mission for the council, but also
doubtless interested in the appointment as lieutenant
governor of New York. He returned, however, in 1754
with the commission of governor of Pennsylvania, a
position which proved uncongenial and was resigned
after two years. One of the most active of the East
Jersey proprietors, he was constantly solicitous for their
interests. Opposed to Belcher's conduct in the land
riots, he became an aggressive opponent of that gover-
nor, influencing the crown's appointments to that gen-
tleman's council, and making him fear lest he should
lose the governorship. He died suddenly while attend-
1 N. J. A., vol. vi, p. 151. ■ Ibid., p. 153.
56 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [56
ing a dance at Shrewsbury, in January, 1764. The his-
torian Smith wrote, " Unhappy Jersey has lost her best
ornament." x
At a time when the rights of the New Jersey proprie-
tors were so violently opposed, they were fortunate to
have two such able intercessors in the government as
Robert Hunter Morris and James Alexander. Not only
is Alexander's name omitted from the list in Governor
Morris's instructions, but the lords of trade in reporting
to the king remarked that " We have been informed that
he is a Person not proper to serve in that Station."
Their informant had been Governor Cosby, to whom
Alexander became particularly obnoxious in connection
with the famous Zenger trial, in which trial he had vol-
unteered his services in defence of John Peter Zenger.
Although he came to America in 1716 in order to escape
the possible consequences of his having aided the Eng-
lish Pretender, he appeared to have Whig principles in
the colonies, where his advancement was rapid. He was
surveyor general of both New York and New Jersey, as
well as a councillor in both provinces. An order rein-
stating Alexander in the council does not appear, but
Morris improperly regarded him as a member in May,
1739,2 and at that time included his name in a list of
councillors submitted to the lords of trade.
The truth is there was some questionable maneuvering
on the part of the proprietary interests regarding Alex-
ander's appointment to the council. Paris, the pro-
prietary agent, stated that clerical blunders caused the
omission of Alexander's name from the Morris instruc-
tions, but this cannot be reconciled with the statement
1 For an excellent sketch of Mr. Morris, see Field, Provincial Courts,
p. 144.
* Morris Papers, p. 54.
57] THE COUNCIL 57
regarding Alexander when Morris's instructions were
sent to the king for approval. Charles Read, at Belcher's
suggestion, was named a councillor in the original in-
structions of that official. Paris represented, or mis-
represented, the facts in such a way to the lords of trade
that they recalled Belcher's commission and instructions,
destroyed the first sheet, engrossed it with Alexander's
name, and omitted Read's.
Residing in New York, he rarely attended council
meetings and Morris excused his absence to the home
authorities on the ground that he was building a house.1
Alexander was an able supporter of the governor and
his loss on the council would have been felt. In the
legal profession he stood high, having been the author
of the Elizabethtown Bill in Chancery, while he was a
scientist of ability, and one of the founders of the "Amer-
ican Philosophical Society." In connection with the
New York and New Jersey boundary dispute, and the
efforts of the proprietors to assert their claims against
the people, the name of James Alexander must ever be
recorded in New Jersey history. He died in 1756 while
on a trip to Albany, his place on the New Jersey coun-
cil being filled by the appointment of his illustrious son,
William Alexander, Earl of Stirling, one of the generals
of the Revolution.
As the council stood in October, 1749, there were only
four members from each division, making it difficult to
obtain a quorum. Morris urged the appointment of
Archibald Home and John Allen, for the western division,
and Edward Antill and Richard Ashfield for the eastern
division. Allen, who was the West Jersey treasurer, and
Ashfield, who had been recommended by Morris to give
1 N. J. A., vol. vi, p. 107.
58 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [58
the proprietors additional influence, were not appointed.1
Home, whose special qualification seemed to be that as
he was clerk of the council and obliged to attend, a
quorum would be more readily obtained, was appointed
and served until his death in 1745.2 Antill, who was
Governor Morris's son-in-law, and an East Jersey pro-
proprietor, was also appointed. Morris hoped and be-
lieved he " would prove a useful and deserving member,"
as indeed he had up to this time in the assembly.3 He
served until suspended by Boone in 1761 for non-attend-
ance, which suspension was confirmed by the royal
officials.4
By 1745 the deaths of Lyell, Baynton and Home had
depleted the council, rendering the conduct of busi-
ness so difficult that the assembly complained.5 Conse-
quently the governor urged upon the lords of trade the
desirability of having a full council, in order to leave as
little room as possible to " the Assembly for murmur or
clamor/'6 To complete the twelve, in January, 1745,
Andrew Johnston, Peter Kemble, James Hude, John
Coxe, and Thomas Leonard were recommended, all of
whom subsequently were appointed.7 Andrew Johnston
was a Perth Amboy merchant, a prominent East Jersey
proprietor, and was speaker of the assembly from 1740
until his entrance upon duties as a councillor. His repu-
tation was of the highest, the New York " Mercury " print-
ing at his death the statement that "he was really equal to
what Pope means when he says ; ' An honest man is the
1 N. J. A., vol. vi, p. 109. 2 Ibid., p. 127.
3 Ibid., p. no. *Ibid., vol. ix, p. 209.
hIbid., vol. vi, p. 232. 6 Morris Papers, p. 220.
7 /V« J. A., vol. vi, p. 233. Of these five men, four were pallbearers
at Morris's funeral.
59] THE COUNCIL 59
noblest work of God ! ' " T Peter Kemble was an East
Jersey merchant. Hude was a prominent citizen of New
Brunswick, who performed with credit the duties of num-
erous public offices, and was according to the New York
"Mercury," distinguished "for his great probity, justice,
affability, moral and political virtues."8 The John Coxe
whom Governor Morris recommended was the grandson
of the Dr. Daniel Coxe, prominent in the earlier history
of the province. His appointment added to the council
another influential proprietor, as he was a prominent
member of the West Jersey council of proprietors. Dur-
ing the land disputes in Governor Belcher's administra-
tion he was so active in support of the proprietors, that
threats were made against his person and property.3
With Robert Hunter Morris and James Alexander, he
became one of Belcher's bitter opponents, unbridling his
tongue to such an extent that the governor suspended
him from the council. The affidavits which were sent to
England readily convinced the authorities of the pro-
priety of the suspension, and Belcher was upheld by
Coxe's removal in 1751.4 As early as Governor Hun-
ter's administration, Thomas Leonard had been recom-
mended in 1 718 for the council. s He was a prosperous
land holder living near Princeton, who served the com-
munity in public office, and as trustee of Princeton Col-
lege for many years. Because of infirmity he resigned
his seat in the upper house in 1759.6 There were no
other changes in the council under Morris.
1 New York Mercury, July 5, 1762.
1 Ibid., Nov. 1, 1762. The quotation may be recognized as an ab-
stract from an obituary notice.
* N. J. A., vol. vi, pp. 467, 470; vol. vii, p. 450.
4 Ibid., vol. vii, pp. 540-550, 589.
5 Ibid., vol. iv, p. 377. 8 Ibid., vol. ix, p. 127.
60 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [60
It was without doubt Morris's desire to surround him-
self in the council with some of the ablest men in the
colony. The difficulty of inducing men of the proper
calibre to act as councillors was aggravated, Morris
complained, because of the insufficient salary. The gov-
ernor, however, was a politician, in the ordinary sense
of the word, and sought to have his council first of all
friendly to government. The council, as constituted
during the latter part of his rule, gave the proprietary
interests a predominating influence, and made it an ob-
ject of suspicion on the part of the people who were
opposing the proprietors. That was perhaps a natural
result, and it cannot be said that the governor used his
power improperly. He acted the part of a shrewd poli-
tician, safeguarding his interests. To a man like Belcher,
who sought to conciliate the opposing elements in the
province, the council which Morris bequeathed him was
a handicap, a source of annoyance, if not indeed a
menace.
The royal instructions to Belcher properly named as
his councillors Hamilton, Reading, Alexander, Rodman,
Smith, Morris, Antill, Hude, Coxe, Johnston, Kemble
and Leonard, all of whom except the three first named
had been appointed upon Governor Morris's recom-
mendation.1 The Surveyor General of Customs, Thomas
Lechmere, was appointed Councillor Extraordinary.
The first change was occasioned by the death of Ham-
ilton. There now began a contest between Belcher and
the proprietary interests for the control of council ap-
pointments, a contest in which the advantage was gained
by the proprietors.
In June, 1748, Belcher recommended that Charles
1 N. J. A., vol. vii, p. 6.
6i] THE COUNCIL Ol
Read, a deputy secretary of the province and collector
of customs at Burlington should be appointed.1 He
resided in West Jersey, and about the same time the
governor recommended him to the West Jersey pro-
prietors as an agent qualified to look after their inter-
ests.3 On the other hand, his appointment was so vig-
orously opposed by Paris, the East Jersey proprietary
agent and Robert Hunter Morris in London, that their
man, Richard Salter, was appointed.3 The " imagina-
c'ons " of the lords of trade, that Belcher had submitted
for confirmation certain acts of the legislature in which
he was interested, were encouraged by Paris, and he con-
summated this "bold Stroke," as he terms it. Belcher
complained of this appointment on the ground that a
West Jerseyman should have received it in order to
maintain the equality of the provincial divisions, the ap-
pointment of an East Jerseyman at this time not being
in conformity to his instructions.4 The appointee was a
man of considerable ability, and served also for almost
ten years as associate judge of the Supreme Court.5 He
served in the council until his death in 1763.
The struggle for control of the council continued with
the subsequent recommendations. In the place of Coxe,
whose suspension has been mentioned, the governor
recommended William Morris, a Hunterdon County
judge, at the same time warning agent Partridge that
"the young Gentln6 on yr Side the Water Perhaps May
Oppose it at ye Board of Trade and Say he is a Quaker
1 N. J. A., p. 139. *Ibid., p. 150.
% Ibid., pp. 169, 175. * Ibid., p. 247.
6 Read himself urged Salter for the chief justiceship, so that there evi-
dently was no hard feeling between the two men.
6 Robert Hunter Morris.
62 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [62
&c." l The recommendation was successfully opposed,
and David Ogden, an associate with Alexander and
R. H. Morris in extensive land deals, was appointed.2
Ogden was a distinguished lawyer, and as one of the
counsel for the proprietors in suits against the Eliza-
bethtown associates became unpopular with the people.
A man of conspicuous ability and integrity, he was in
1772 appointed a judge of the Supreme Court, which
position he filled until his opposition to open resistance
against the mother country led him to seek safety within
the British lines in New York City, where he became an
active loyalist. "He was looked upon as an oracle of
the law, and his opinions had almost the weight of
judicial decisions/'3
Upon the death of Richard Smith in November, 1750,
Belcher recommended his son Samuel for the position.
He was a West Jersey Quaker, and both he and his
father had always supported the people against the pro-
prietors. Consequently opposition to Samuel Smith's
appointment was a foregone conclusion, and the pro-
prietors succeeded in having Lewis Ashfield appointed
to fill the vacancy. Governor Belcher was reproved for
recommending Samuel Smith, and for having previously
recommended William Morris, because, in the opinion of
the lords of trade, they were " Persons disaffected to
His Majesty's Government."4 Lewis Ashfield, nephew
of Robert H. Morris, was recommended by the lords of
trade to supply the vacancy, and was appointed April
30, 1 75 1.5 The reproof administered by the home offi-
cials quite naturally displeased the governor, and affi-
XN. J. A., vol. vii, pp. 575, 577.
■ Ibid., pp. 578, 588. 3 Field, op. cit., p. 182 et seq.
4 N.J. A., vol. vii, p. 585. b Ibid., pp. 585, 590.
63] THE COUNCIL 63
davits testifying to the uprightness of Morris's character
were sent for Partridge to lay before the lords of trade.1
With the discrediting of Belcher's nominations, a lack of
harmony in the government naturally resulted, and Part-
ridge was urged to secure Morris's appointment to the
next vacancy.2 Belcher wrote repeatedly to the royal
officials that government was weakened when private
persons and subordinate officials directed the council
appointments, and urged that his administration be not
misrepresented to them by Morris " or any other
Splenetick Gent1."3
It was only after a long contest, however, that Gov-
ernor Belcher allowed Ashfield to take his seat in the
council. The governor's opportunity came, when, in
October 21, 1751, a bill of indictment was brought
against Ashfield for having profanely sworn against the
king's laws, and having at the same time made an assault
upon John Hite, a Middlesex County constable.4 The
alleged assault was committed on August 4, 1751, and
on September 24 Ashfield presented his mandamus to
the council to the governor, who notified him, however,
that not until he was acquitted of the charge of which
he stood indicted, would he be admitted to his seat.5
The council asked Belcher to lay before them proofs to
show his authority in refusing the would-be councillor
admission, but the governor refused to comply with
their request.6 Ashfield memorialized the council with
his side of the case, submitting certain affidavits in his
favor, after the consideration of which, the council pro-
1 N. J. A., vol. vii, p. 602; Belcher Papers, June 3, 1751.
* N. J. A., vol. vii, p. 600. " Ibid., pp. 594, 607, 611.
4 Ibid., p. 612. 5 Ibid., p. 617.
6 Ibid., p. 617.
64 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [64
nounced for him.1 Boldly declaring the council's action
an encroachment upon his authority and an indignity to
the king, Belcher charged the council not to meddle in
a concern in which he alone was accountable to the
crown.2
Meanwhile the case was tried in March, 1752, in the
Supreme Court at Perth Amboy. Ashfield was acquitted
by what the attorney general called a " Nice Distinction
in Law." The identical words charged in the indictment
were not supported by any witnesses for the king, ex-
cept three, whom Judge Nevill, one of the Supreme
Court Judges, writing to Belcher after the trial said
were " all in the Heat of Blood, and warmly engagd in
the Quarrel."3 The court mentioned that to the jury,
and after only a brief deliberation, the accused was ac-
quitted. Notwithstanding the acquittal, the governor
maintained that the testimony brought out at the trial
proved Ashfield to be an undesirable citizen and unfit
for the council.4 To support his contention he trans-
mitted some papers regarding the trial to the lords of
trade, among them the " Notes of Mr. Warrell, the
King's Attorney-General, upon the Trial of Mr. Lewis
Morris Ashfield," which spoke strongly of " his Irregular
and Outrageous Behaviour," " His gross Vulgar un-
seemly Language."5
gg;After his acquittal, the council again sought to hasten
Ashfield's entrance into their midst, but the governor
gave them scant satisfaction.6 Despite the fact that Gov-
ernor Belcher had urged Lord Halifax to let Robert
1 N. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 324. * Ibid., vol. vii, p. 634.
1 Ibid., vol. viii, p. 40. * Ibid., vol. viii, p. in.
5 Ibid., p. 102. Ashfield was the grandson of Gov. Lewis Morris
8 Ibid., p. 101.
65j THE COUNCIL 65
Hunter Morris " cast no mist before your eyes " in palli-
ation for his nephew's misconduct, the royal authorities
disapproved of Belcher's attitude towards Ashfield. The
acquitted gentleman's indiscretion was granted, but not
deemed sufficient to cause him the loss of his seat in the
council.1 His immediate admission was ordered, which
event occurred on May 23, 1753.2
During this controversy, Governor Belcher had pro-
posed an additional reason against the admission of Ash-
field to the council, namely, that it was contrary to his
instructions, because it gave East Jersey a majority of
councillors. A petition from some West Jersey inhabi-
tants complained against this, and the governor con-
tinued to notify the lords of trade.3 Partridge also at
Belcher's request notified the authorities of this disparity,
claiming that nine lived in East Jersey, two in West
Jersey, and one contrary to all precedent in New York,
which resulted in an injurious inequality.4 James Alex-
ander's figures indicated, on the other hand, that West
Jersey could lay claim to seven councillors, and cited the
cases of Lewis Morris, Thomas Byerly, and William Pro-*
vost as precedents for councillors living in New York.5
Robert Hunter Morris notified the lords of trade to that
effect.6 In the case of the unequal representation the
proprietors went too far in proving their contention,
while in the citation of precedents of allowing a New
Jersey councillor to reside in New York they were
doubtless correct. Alexander maintained that " as the
Law of England Esteems one Resident where he has a
Freehold," and seven councillors owned property in
1 N. J. A,, vol. viii, p. 124. * Ibid., vol. xvi, p. 402.
* Ibid., vol. viii, pt. ii, p. 13. * Ibid., pt. ii, p. 18.
* Ibid., vol. vii, p. 644. • Ibid., vol. viii, pt. ii, p. 13.
66 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [66
West Jersey, that division was not at any disadvantage.
On the same principle, of course, East Jersey might be
said to have had a decided advantage. As a matter of
fact the whole affair was somewhat of a quibble, for the
division was at this time little more than a name, and in
the case of the council membership was kept up as a
handy argument in case of need. Technically according
to his instructions Governor Belcher, however, was right.
There were two other council appointments during
this administration, the earlier one the appointment of
William Alexander, Earl of Stirling, to succeed his father
James Alexander. This was the first council recommen-
dation of Belcher's that was approved.1 Opposition to
this excellent appointment, however, there was none,
because the young Alexander succeeded to the large
proprietary holdings of his father.2 Going to England in
1756, with General Shirley, whose aide-de-camp and pri-
vate secretary he had been during the Fourth Intercolo-
nial War, Alexander successfully strove for the earldom
of Stirling, to which his father, though entitled, had
never laid claim.3 It was in April, 1756, that Belcher
recommended Alexander for the council, but it was not
until 1 761 that he returned from England and took his
seat.4 A residence at Baskingridge, New Jersey, at first
used only in summers, later came to be his permanent
abode. From the time that the Earl of Stirling entered
the council, it was not the affairs of the proprietors but
the resistance to parliamentary taxation that was of
prime importance. His attitude of bold and active oppo-
sition to the obnoxious measures of Parliament and his
1 N. J. A., vol. viii, p. 214.
1 Duer, Life af Earl of Stirling, p. 10.
% Ibid., pp. 10-26. *N. J. A., vol. viii, pt. ii, p. 214.
67] THE COUNCIL 67
able services to the patriot cause during the Revolution
are matters of common knowledge, to which reference
will necessarily, however, subsequently be made. The
Earl of Stirling was suspended from the council in 1775
by Governor Franklin because he accepted a commission
as colonel in the continental army.1
A vacancy caused by the death of John Rodman, was
filled in 1757 by the appointment of Samuel Woodruff, a
prominent Elizabethtown Presbyterian and close friend
of Governor Belcher's.3
Belcher wrote to Partridge in November, 1751, "that
while so many of the Council were such large Pro-
prietors of Lands & are so partial in managing the
Affairs of the Legislature I expect nothg but Confusion
in the Government."3 The governor felt that the inter-
ests of both parties should be more equally represented
in the council. The proprietors believed that during
this period, so critical for their interests, they should
absolutely control the council to offset the popular ten-
dency of the lower house. Governor Morris was if any-
thing partial to the proprietors, and they failed, or
refused, to appreciate the attempts of his successor to
maintain an impartial attitude in the land disputes. The
fact that all of Governor Belcher's recommendations to
council except two were refused, is evidence sufficient of
the superiority of proprietary influence at the court. It
is doubtless true, certainly so in the cases of Ogden and
Salter, that the proprietary nominees were men of ability
superior to those recommended by Belcher.
It was quite natural that during the brief rules of Ber-
nard, Boone, and Hardy there should be no alignment
1 N. J. A., vol. x, p. 665. 8 Ibid., vol. viii, pt. ii, p. 236.
* Belcher Papers, Nov. 11, 1751.
68 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [68
of parties in connection with council appointments. The
administrations were too brief and domestic affairs within
the province came to be of less importance in the excite-
ment of the Fourth Intercolonial War and with the
approach of the Revolution. The resignations of Read-
ing and Leonard because " of their Age and Infirmities "
were accepted, and Charles Read and John Smith were
appointed, upon the recommendation of Governor Ber-
nard.1 Read was the Burlington collector of customs
and provincial secretary who had been recommended for
the council by Belcher. He was in 1764 appointed as
chief justice to succeed Morris, but held the position
only a short time, perhaps because he did not satisfy.
Smith, learning of the appointment, had written: " Frank-
lin after Boone — after Morris, Read ! Patience, kind
heavens!"2 John Smith, a liberal Quaker, before his
removal to Burlington was a prosperous Philadelphia
trader. He removed to Burlington and after the
death of his beloved wife retired from business, and
lived a quiet but useful life until his death in 1771. After
Boone and Hardy had both recommended the suspension
of Antill, he was superseded in the council in 1776 by
John Stevens.3 Stevens was an East Jersey proprietor,
but lived in New York City from 1761 to 1771. For
ten years previous to his removal to New York he had
been a prominent member of the New Jersey assembly,
and after resuming his residence in New Jersey was
closely identified with the American cause in the Revo-
lution, being president of the Convention which ratified
the Constitution of 1787.4 Johnston died during Gov-
1 N. J. A., vol. ix, p. 151. 'Field, op. cit., p. 158.
5 N. J. A., vol. xvii, p. 239; vol. ix, pp. 317, 335.
4 Ibid., vol. ix, p. 335, note.
69] THE COUNCIL Cig
ernor Hardy's administration, but the vacancy was not
filled until after Franklin had taken charge.
Early in Franklin's administration there were three
vacancies to be filled, those caused by the death of
Johnston, Salter and Hude. Governor Hardy had told
the lords of trade that in West Jersey he could not find
persons " fit for the Council," and Governor Franklin
made the same complaint.1 He said that West Jersey
had only two councillors, but to fill these three vacancies
he could find only two in that division suitable for the
place, namely Samuel Smith and John Ladd, and would
doubtless have to recommend an East Jerseyman for the
third place.2 Smith and Ladd were subsequently ap-
pointed, by an order in council dated August 31, 1763.3
The former was the same gentleman, who, when pre-
viously recommended by Belcher, had been condemned
as " a Wellwisher to the Rioters and his family Active in
that Faction."4 Samuel Smith, the brother of John,
appointed to the council in 1758, was the pioneer his-
torian of New Jersey. He was a benevolent Quaker
whose influence for good was potent in the province.
Ladd, son of the gentleman of the same name, was a
prominent surveyor, who had represented Gloucester
County in the assembly. Franklin recommended him as
"a Gentn of Fortune and unblemished Character."5 The
place of Salter was filled by an East Jersey proprietor,
James Parker, of Perth Amboy, whose appointment was
approved by the lords of trade in July, 1764.6 Although
his military proclivities led him to serve as captain in the
Canadian campaign of 1746, during the American Revo-
lN.J. A., vol. ix, p. 364. l Ibid., p. 386.
• Ibid., p. 304. * Ibid., p. 586.
5 Ibid. , p. 387. 6 Ibid., p. 442.
jo THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [70
lution he endeavored to remain neutral. His neutrality
was the cause of his spending some of his time in the
common jail.
Upon the death of Robert Hunter Morris, the authori-
ties in England appointed Frederick Smyth to the council,
July 3, 1764.1 A few months later he was appointed
chief justice of the province, which position he held until
the overthrow of royal authority. His attitude during
the Stamp Act excitement won him deserved popularity,
but later the disapproval of active opposition to the
crown, which he strongly voiced in charges to two
Grand Juries, brought upon him popular odium.2 Dur-
ing and after the Revolution he remained quietly at
Philadelphia until his death in 1815. He was an able
judge. Richard Stockton, one of Smyth's associates on
the Supreme Court bench, became a member of the
council in 1768 upon the decease of Woodruff.3 Stock-
ton was born at Princeton and was graduated in the first
class from the College of New Jersey. He soon attained
eminence as a lawyer. He was one of New Jersey's
ablest public servants during the troublous period from
1770 until 1778, when his health was broken down be-
cause of the vile and shameless treatment to which he
had been subjected while a prisoner in the hands of the
British.
During the rest of Franklin's administration there
were four other changes in the council. The first of
these was the appointment of Stephen Skinner to suc-
ceed Ashfield, deceased. The governor had recom-
1 N. J. A., vol. ix, p. 442.
* For his charge to the Essex Grand Jury in 1774, and their spirited
reply, see Force, American Archives , Fourth Series, vol. i, p. 967.
*N. J. A., vol. x, pp. 44, 59.
7I] THE COUNCIL yT
mended William Bayard for the vacancy, but the lords
of trade had appointed Skinner, because Bayard was not
resident in the colony and the appointee had been long
on their list.1 Skinner presented his mandamus and was
admitted to council, September 28, 1770.2 He had been
the East Jersey treasurer, but his appointment came at a
most unfortunate time. The treasury had been robbed,
and the assembly, charging Skinner with negligence, had
been engaged in a hot wrangle with the governor upon
the matter, at last forcing Skinner's resignation as treas-
urer. Following directly after the enforced resignation,
this appointment to the council irritated the lower house.
The former treasurer turned loyalist during the war, and
first going to New York removed from there to England.
In November, 1771, Daniel Coxe and John Lawrence
were admitted to the council, succeeding Ladd and John
Smith.3 This Daniel Coxe was the fifth of the same
name in that family so prominent in New Jersey history,
and was, of course, associated with the proprietors. He
was an ardent and active Tory during the war, and at its
close went to England.4 The last recommendation made
to fill a vacancy in the New Jersey council was that of
Francis Hopkinson, to take the seat of Charles Read,
who moved to the West Indies. He was appointed
April 21, 1774.5 A native of Pennsylvania, his connec-
tion with New Jersey history was slight. He was a gen-
tleman of remarkable versatility, being at one time or
another prose-writer, poet, statesman, and church organ-
ist. As a New Jersey delegate to the Continental Con-
gress in 1776, he signed the Declaration of Independ-
1 N. J. A., vol. x, p. 139. * Ibid., vol. xviii, p. 185.
• Ibid., p. 259. * Ibid., vol. x, p. 225.
%Ibid., pp. 426, 455-
j2 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [y2
ence. On October 3, 1775, Governor Franklin notified
the Earl of Dartmouth that Samuel Smith had resigned
his seat because of old age, but that he had been unable
to induce anyone, whom he thought qualified, to fill the
vacancy.1 And he was spared further pains in the mat-
ter, for the people of New Jersey soon called upon the
faithful Franklin to relinquish his authority.
1 N.J. A., vol. x, p. 665.
CHAPTER III
The Assembly — Position and Personnel
East and West Jersey had had an elective assembly
almost from the earliest part of the proprietary period.
Consequently, when the royal charter was granted, in
1702, it was not only natural, but was also necessary,
that there should be an assembly elected by the people.
The assembly and council theoretically had coordinate
powers in legislation, but in practice the lower house
came to be the more influential.1 The usual and neces-
sary rights and powers of legislative bodies were given
to the assembly, but all acts were to be reviewed by the
crown and might be disallowed. Restrictions were
made in the case of certain acts, however, providing that
the governor should not assent to them unless added
thereto was a clause suspending their operation until
the royal will was known.
A peculiar feature in New Jersey was that the sessions
of the General Assembly were held alternately at Perth
Amboy and Burlington. This was a relic of the early
divisions of East and West Jersey, but it was a distinc-
tion idly retained and a source of annoyance and expense
to the province. The governor, with the advice of
council, might appoint a different place in case of extra-
ordinary necessity. Whenever this was done, however,
the assembly showed a very petulant and disagreeable
1 See Tanner, op. tit., ch. xx.
73] 73
74 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [74
spirit. The governor's house-rent was allowed by the
assembly only if the executive lived at Perth Amboy or
Burlington, and the inconvenience of having two capi-
tal cities was a subject of frequent complaint by the
governors.
The first assembly to meet Morris resolved that it was
advantageous for the province to have but one place of
residence, and urged the governor to live near the center
of the province.1 Morris refrained from answering the
resolution, hoping the legislature would fix upon one
place for the capital and erect suitable buildings there.2
The governor reminded the lords of trade of the disad-
vantages of the plan then existing, to all of which they
agreed but refused to advise the king to order a change
unless the council and assembly concurred in a humble
petition for that purpose.3 The meaningless excuse that
the affairs of the province would not admit of a sudden
alteration, was pleaded by the assembly as their reason
for not agreeing to the governor's proposal.4
Morris, despairing of the assembly's ever erecting
suitable buildings for a capital in some centrally located
town, leased the Kingsbury estate of Governor Thomas
of Pennsylvania. It was less than a mile from Trenton.
Toward the end of his administration the old and en-
feebled governor was obliged to summon the legislature
to Trenton. This was the case in December, 1744, and
from August, 1745, to the end of his administration.
Upon one occasion the assembly was called to Kings-
bury to be dissolved in person by the governor. Sharp
messages passed between the governor and assembly
because of the latter's inquisitiveness regarding the
1 Assembly Journal, Dec. 4, 1738. *Ibid., Apr. 16, 1740.
s Morris Papers, p. 137. * Assembly Journal, Oct. 3, 1741.
75] THE ASSEMBLY 75
authority by which they were called from the regular
meeting-place. That Morris's action might not be
deemed a precedent, the assembly hoped " their removal
to other Places will not be drawn into practice, oftener
than the extraordinary Occasions of his Majesty's service
require it." x
Governor Belcher also realized the inconveniences of
alternate meeting-places for the legislature, but did not
obtrude his view upon an unwilling assembly. When it
was necessary for him to alter the regular alternation of
meetings, it was done with care and conciliation. If too
much opposition was expressed, he would usually pro-
rogue the assembly until such time as he believed it pos-
sible for him to meet the legislature at the regular place.3
Believing that it would be beneficial to his health, Gov-
ernor Belcher moved to Elizabethtown in 1751, to which
place the legislature was later frequently called. In
May, 1753, the assembly resolved that after the death or
removal of Belcher it should be provided in the support
bills that sums would be appropriated only on condition
that the governor resided at Amboy or Burlington.3
Opportunity was never given to test this resolution, for
all subsequent governors lived at one or the other city.
It actually pained Belcher that the assembly acted with
such bad grace about meeting at Elizabethtown.
When, after Belcher's death, the aged Reading unwill-
ingly assumed the administration, his indisposition
threatened the necessity of an adjournment to Trenton.4
The house, however, firmly refused to be adjourned to
that city. They intended now to reassert their consti-
1 Assembly Journal, Mar. 11, 1746.
%Ibid., Dec. 22, 1752; Aug. 3, 1755. *fbid., May 3, 1753.
* Ibid., Oct. 10, 1757.
76 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [76
tutional right of sitting at Perth Amboy and Burlington,
though they had recently dispensed with this out of
"tender Compassion to the advanced Age and great In-
firmity " of their late governor.1 Thoroughly aroused
to duty, they intended to assert their right " lest a con-
tinued Suspension of an unalienable Privilege, should
hereafter prompt future Governors to repeat the Pre-
cedent of calling their Assemblies to unconstitutional
Places, to the great Prejudice of the Publick Good."
What high-sounding language over a trifle ! One does
not wonder that men capable of such sentiments under
such circumstances and so sensitive regarding their un-
alienable privileges and constitutional rights, refused
upon principle to pay the stamp tax and a much smaller
tax on tea.
Bernard, Boone and Hardy did not stay long enough
to test the assembly upon this subject, but Franklin did,
to his sorrow rather than to his satisfaction. At every
opportunity Franklin endeavored to impress the assem-
bly with the desirability of having one capital. Failing
in that, he believed that the intention to build a gov-
ernor's residence implied in the support bill should be
acted upon.2 When the royal assent was finally obtained
to the bill for the emission of f 100,000 in bills of credit,
the assembly was urged by the home authorities to make
proper provision for the erection of suitable buildings
for the use of the governor, council and assembly. That
was in 1775, and the assembly excused themselves and
made noble promises for the next session. Governor
Franklin actually believed that something would occur
to move the stolid lower house from its lethargy of de-
cades in this matter. But plans miscarried ! The royal
1 Assembly Journal, Oct. 18, 1757. *Ibid.y June 3, 1765.
77] fHE ASSEMBLY yy
fabric tumbled down, arid the assembly never met again
under the authority of the royal charter.
The first assembly which met Governor Morris had
twenty-four members, two representatives from each of
the ten counties and two members each for the cities of
Perth Amboy and Burlington. Such had been the con-
stitution of the assembly from 1727. Its members were
chosen by freeholders, who had 100 acres of land in their
own right, or real or personal property to the value of
£50 sterling. The representatives elected were obliged
to have 1000 acres of land or £500 sterling. The gov-
ernor was forbidden to assent to any law which changed
the number or duration of the assembly, the qualifica-
tions of electors or elected, or altered in any way regu-
lations previously established regarding the character or
position of the lower house of the legislature.
With the growth in population and the development
of the colony, the erection of new counties for the con-
venience of administration became necessary. This first
became apparent in Hunterdon County, where the resi-
dents of the upper part of the county were inconveni-
enced by their living at a considerable distance from
Trenton, where the courts were held. In March, 1739,
an act was passed "erecting the upper Parts of the
County of Hunterdon " into Morris County, named after
the governor.1 The new county was not to be given
representation as such in the assembly until the royal
pleasure was known, but the freeholders were to con-
tinue to vote for representatives with Hunterdon County.2
The actual division of the province was so real that, had
two added representatives been given to West Jersey,
1 Allinson, Statutes of New Jersey, p. 109.
* Morris Papers, p. 55.
78 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [78
Morris declared that East Jersey must necessarily also
have two more.
In 1748 the southern parts of Salem County were
erected into a separate county because of the inconveni-
ence to the inhabitants of living at a distance from Salem
Town, the county seat.1 It was called Cumberland, in
honor of the then popular hero, the Duke of Cumber-
land. This new division had all the liberties and priv-
ileges of any other county, except the right to choose
members to represent them in the General Assembly.
By 1753 the inhabitants of the newly erected Morris
County had found it inconvenient to attend the courts at
Morristown, in consequence of which the new county of
Sussex was established by act of June, 1753.2 The free-
holders were to join with Hunterdon and Morris Coun-
ties for choosing representatives. Morris and Sussex
were to unite in raising taxes until it was otherwise
ordered.
It was but natural that these newly erected counties
should desire separate representation in the provincial
legislature. As if by a preconcerted plan, all three
counties petitioned the assembly in the October session
of 1760 for representation.3 The petitions, similar in
tone, urged that the privileges of the other counties be
granted them, and cited the hardships of being repre-
sented by persons who were not fully cognizant of the
circumstances and needs of their constituents. The peti-
tions were at this session ordered to lie on the table.
Morris County petitioned again in 1768, and at this
session an act was passed, May 10, "for choosing Rep-
resentatives in the Counties of Morris, Cumberland and
^llinson, op. tit., p. 153. tIdid., p. 194.
8 Assembly Journal , Oct. and Nov., 1760.
79] THE ASSEMBLY yg
Sussex ; and directing the Morris County Taxes to be
paid into the Eastern Treasury." ■ Each county was to
have two representatives, having the same qualifications
as those from the other counties, and of course elected
by freeholders with the same qualifications as in the
other counties. The provision regarding the Morris
County taxes was made necessary because that county
was not wholly in either division of the province. The
most settled parts had grown up in the Eastern division.
The act had a suspending clause, and was confirmed in
December, 1770. In his speech on August 20, 1772, at
the opening of the session, Governor Franklin felicitated
the assembly upon the addition to their numbers.2 This
was the last assembly elected, on account of which
neither did the province nor the three counties reap
great benefits from the added representation. The dis-
advantage of keeping alive the distinction between East
and West Jersey is apparent, because it was largely the
jealousy between the two sections that had retarded rep-
resentation in these three counties.
The same assembly that passed the act granting repre-
sentation to Morris, Cumberland and Sussex counties
also passed an act "for the septennial Election of Rep-
resentatives to serve in the General Assembly."3 An
unsuccessful attempt had been made by the assembly to
have a simlar bill enacted in 1740. The council advised
the governor to assent to the act, inasmuch as a sus-
pending clause had been added.4 The assembly urged
the agent in London to solicit the royal assent, but the
lords of trade saw no reason for haste, inasmuch as sep-
tennial elections had been held without the measure.5
1 Allinson, op. cit., p. 306.
*N. J. A., vol. xviii, p. 298. 3 Allinson, op. cit., p. 306.
*1V. J. A., vol. xvii, p. 508. bIbid.t vol. x, p. 142.
80 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [80
The act never received the royal approval. In 1770 the
Monmouth County representatives had received instruc-
tions from their constituents for leave to introduce in the
assembly a bill for annual elections.1 This was too radi-
cal for the assembly, and the permission was denied by
a substantial majority.
The governors frequently found it difficult to obtain a
quorum, and in some cases no business could be con-
ducted for days after a session had been called, because
of the necessity of waiting for a quorum. Three was the
usual number, who could meet and adjourn, but the at-
tendance of sixteen or eighteen was usually required for
the transaction of other business. In 1772 the rule was
adopted that twenty constituted a quorum for ordinary
business, and twenty-four when money was to be raised.
On October 30, 1746, when sixteen was necessary for a
quorum, only fifteen could be corraled. Thereupon ad-
journment was taken to the home of Mr. Heard, at
Woodbridge, where he was sick. Sixteen being then
present, the resolution was passed that fifteen should
be the quorum for the transaction of business. The
house then adjourned to Perth Amboy and passed a
necessary act for supplying the New Jersey troops in
the expedition against Canada. On October 18, 1747,
when the legislature stood adjourned to the seventeenth
of the next month, important business having arisen,
Belcher doubted the possibility of getting a quorum to-
gether before the fixed date, a month ahead.2
The assembly, of course, made other rules as necessity
required. From 1744 a committee on grievances was
appointed at the beginning of each session, with power
1 Assembly Journal, Mar. 22, 1770.
2 Belcher Papers , Oct. 18, 1747.
Si] the assembly 8i
to send for persons and records, and gather whatever
information might be necessary for deciding the com-
plaints and other matters referred to it.1 It was unani-
mously resolved, in October, 1769, that the sessions
should be public and all who wished might attend.2 An
earlier attempt to have the sessions public had been
voted down. The assembly never tired of conforming
to the custom of the British Parliament, and the resolu-
tion of 1769 was passed as being conformable to the
custom of the House of Commons. The number of
private bills, such as naturalization acts, and acts relating
to private meadows and marshes, had constantly in-
creased with the growth of the province. It became
absolutely necessary to restrict the petitions for private
matters in some way. A resolution was passed in 1772,
that petitions for private bills would only be received
within the first ten days of any session. This was of
course to avert the threatened danger of having the pub-
lic business impeded because of the multitude of private
bills. The legislature always took a Christmas recess.
On December 15, 1747, Belcher wrote "it has been their
Custom to adjourn for a frolick about this Season." 3
It will be profitable briefly to consider the personnel
of the representative branch of the legislature before en-
tering upon an account of the course of legislation dur-
ing this period. Without doubt the New Jersey assem-
blies of that day were more responsive to the will of the
people than are those of our own time, for the physical
conditions were such as to make a greater degree of
responsibility possible; the interests at stake were less
diversified and less extensive. The qualifications for
1 Assembly Journal, Oct. 5, 1744- * Ibid., Oct. 12, 1769.
* Belcher Papers, Dec. 15, 1747.
82 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [82
membership insured the election of men of means to the
assembly. They were for the most part men little expe-
rienced in public affairs, for whom the date of holding
the General Assembly was ordinarily arranged whenever
possible so as not to conflict with their private concerns.
Not a body of lawyers was the colonial assembly, al-
though some of the ablest of that profession were from
time to time members of the lower house.
The members of the eleventh assembly elected in 1738,
were Andrew Johnston, Lewis Johnston, James Hude,
Edward Antill, John Eaton, Cornelius Vandervere, Joseph
Bonnell, Josiah Ogdeh, George Van Este, Peter Dumont,
Lawrence Van Buskirk and David Demarest from East
Jersey; Richard Smith, Isaac Pearson, Mahlon Stacy,
William Cook, Joseph Cooper, John Mickle, William
Hancock, Joseph Reeves, Aaron Learning, Henry Young,
Benjamin Smith and John Embly for West Jersey. Those
who had not been members of the previous assembly
elected in 1730, were Lewis Johnston, Antill, Vandervere,
Bonnell, Ogden, Demarest, Cook, Mickle, Hancock,
Reeves, Benjamin Smith and Embly. A decided minority
of the members was directly interested in the affairs of
the proprietors. Regarding the most prominent mem-
bers a few facts may be given.
Joseph Bonnell, of Essex County, was chosen speaker.
His name frequently appears upon committees of Eliza-
bethtown claimants pressing their claims against the
proprietors. The same year he was appointed second
judge of the Supreme Court, but was again elected to
the assembly in 1743.1 The representatives from Perth
Amboy were the two brothers, Andrew and Lewis
Johnston, the former of whom has been mentioned as a
1 Hatfield, History of Elizabeth, p. 372.
83] THE ASSEMBLY 83
member of the council. Both Andrew and Lewis were
for many years influential members of the council of
East Jersey proprietors, having succeeded to the exten-
sive interests of their father, Dr. John Johnstone.1 Lewis
became a physician also, having received his education
at Leyden, Holland, and served the community ably for
many years until his death in 1773. Hude and Antill,
from Middlesex County, the latter a proprietor, later
became members of the council. Col. Josiah Ogden,
now serving his last term in the assembly, was the father
of the more famous David Ogden.
Four of the representatives from West Jersey, Pearson,
Cooper, Stacy and Mickle, were prominent members of
the council of the West Jersey proprietors.2 Doubtless
the most influentiel member from West Jersey was
Richard Smith, one of the wealthy Smith family from
Burlington, and father of Samuel Smith, the historian.
He served the city of Burlington in the assembly con-
tinuously from 1730 to 1748. James Alexander, an ex-
cellent critic, writing to Agent Paris, paid a splendid, if
unintended, tribute to the Burlington representative.
Alexander mentioned Belcher's tendency to enter into
the advice of Quakers in the assembly, especially relying
upon Richard Smith, " the Man of the best Sense and
Interest in that house; and if he keeps his advice, I
doubt not, he will make himself, and the Province both
happy and Easy."3 Cape May County had an able rep-
resentative in another Quaker, Aaron Learning, who
after having been bound out a shoemaker in Long
'Whitehead, Contributions to the Early History of Perth Amboy,
P- 72.
8 Minutes of the Council of West Jersey Proprietors.
1 N. J. A., vol. vii, p. 131.
84 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [84
Island, decided to go to New Jersey, where, in 1734, he
was admitted to practice law in the Cape May courts.1
He was a member of the assembly from 1727 to 1744.
Their sins of omission led Morris to dissolve the
eleventh assembly after but one session was held, the
twelfth assembly convening in 1740. Thomas Farmer
and Thomas Leonard again appear in the assembly, both
having served in earlier legislatures. Both of these gen-
tlemen have been referred to as members of the council.
Aaron Learning, Jr., was elected to the assembly from
Cape May County, which at this session entrusted its
assembly delegation to members of the Learning family.2
Indeed, from 1727 to 1772, there was always a Learning
from Cape May in the assembly, save for one year, 1744.
At this time a young Quaker of but twenty-five, he was
possessed of a good education and a spirit of industry.
He was a large landholder in West Jersey. Ability and
interest brought him into prominence for many years.
Together with his colleague in the assembly, Jacob
Spicer, he was most instrumental in compiling the
Grants and Concessions of East and West Jersey under
the lords proprietors. This arduous task occupied the
attention of the Cape May members for many years.
The record of Learning's votes in the assembly shows
that he habitually voted negatively, an attitude which
was likewise somewhat characteristic of his friend Spicer.
The thirteenth assembly was elected in 1743, Andrew
Johnston being chosen speaker. This was the first of
the annual assemblies of the end of the Morris admin-
istration. The East Jersey proprietary interests were
strengthened by the return of Samuel Leonard to the
1 N. J. A., vol. xix, p. 393, note.
1 Ibid., p. 393, note; Stevens, History of Cape May County, p. 100.
85] THE ASSEMBLY 85
assembly from Perth Amboy, and the election of Samuel
Nevill. Among the other newly elected members were
Robert Lawrence, Joseph Bonnell, George Vreeland,
Derick Van Este and William Mott. Leonard was a
prominent East Jersey proprietor, and ardent supporter
of Governor Morris. His father had been a member of
Cornbury's council. Lawrence, a member of the assem-
bly from 1743 to 1 76 1, during part of which time he was
speaker, sympathized with the people in contests with
the royal executive or the proprietors of the land.1
Although Vreeland was one of the representatives from
Essex in this assembly, he later removed to Bergen
County, representing that county in the nineteenth as-
sembly. Changes in the personnel of the West Jersey
representation were neither so numerous nor so im-
portant as in East Jersey.
The election of Samuel Nevill to represent Middlesex
brought to the lower house one of the most talented
men in the colony." The death of his sister, Mrs. Peter
Sonmans, who had inherited from her husband extensive
proprietary interests in New Jersey, brought Nevill to
America in 1736. Coming into possession of part of the
Sonmans estate, he settled at Perth Amboy. A gentle-
man of marked attainments and high character, his rise
to eminence in the province was rapid. In the land dis-
putes, he naturally took the proprietary viewpoint, but
favored the adoption of conciliatory measures against
the rioters.3 Although Nevill supported the unpopular
side in the land disputes, he championed the assembly in
1 N.J. A., vol. xix, p. 390.
'/bid., vol. vi, p. 323; vol. xi, p. 469; Whitehead, op. cit.
8 N. J. A., vol. vi, p. 323. See Nevill's speech in the assembly in
answer to the rioters' petition, 1746.
86 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [86
the protracted contests with Governor Morris. Among
the public offices which he filled with ability were those
of speaker of the assembly, mayor of Perth Amboy, and
second judge of the Supreme Court. Before coming to
America, Nevill had been editor of the London " Morn-
ing Post;" while in this country he distinguished him-
self as editor of "The New American Magazine," the
second periodical published in America.1 A compilation
of the laws of New Jersey in two volumes was published
by him.
The refusal of the assembly to amend the militia act
resulted in a dissolution and the election of the four-
teenth assembly in 1744. Robert Hude and William
Ouke were sent from Middlesex; Samuel Nevill was re-
turned by the city of Perth Amboy in the place of
Andrew Johnson and was elected speaker. Both Hude
and Ouke were staunch supporters of Morris in the
house. The only other new member from the East
Jersey counties was John Crane from Essex, who had
been elected to succeed Joseph Bonnell. From Cape
May came Henry Young, and from Hunterdon, Daniel
Doughty, both consistent Morris supporters. The other
Cape May representative was Jacob Spicer, previously
mentioned as engaged with Aaron Learning in the com-
pilation and publication of Learning and Spicer's " Grants
and Concessions of New Jersey." 2 Spicer, the son of a
former assemblyman, was an ambitious and wealthy mer-
chant. Elected to the assembly in 1746, he served his
county in the lower house until his death in 1765. Sharp
rivals in their home county, Learning and Spicer continu-
ally acted in concert when representing that county in
the legislature.
1 Copies of this old magazine are in the Penn. Hist. Soc. Library.
lN. J. A., vol. xix, p. 393; Stevens, op. tit., p. 106.
g7] THE ASSEMBLY 87
Experience proved that the former election had in
nowise altered the complexion of the assembly better to
suit the needs and desires of the governor. Conse-
quently another election was held in 1745. Changes in
the membership did not produce the altered conduct
which the governor so earnestly desired. Pontius Stelle,
John Heard and John Moores were among the new mem-
bers from East Jersey favorably disposed to Morris.
John Low was again sent from Essex after an absence
of two years. The name of Hendrick Fisher first ap-
pears in the list of representatives in this assembly.
Somerset County had chosen him for the assembly in
1740, but he was expelled from the house because his
election had followed too closely upon his naturalization.1
Taking his seat in 1745 he continued to represent his
county in the assembly until the end of the royal period.
He had come to America from the Palatinate early in
the eighteenth century, and became actively identified
with the Dutch Church near Bound Brook. By his con-
duct in the assembly, Fisher showed the ability to think
independently and act without considering the popu-
larity of his conduct. During his service in the assembly
he was appointed to membership upon several important
committees of the house. Fisher was president of the
May session of the first New Jersey Provincial Congress
in 1775, and was also a member of the Provincial Com-
mittee of Safety. Among the five newly elected mem-
bers from West Jersey was Aaron Learning, who had
not been returned to the thirteenth and fourteenth
assemblies.
The contest between Morris and the assembly was waged
as fiercely as ever in 1745, and the governor again sought to
1 Assembly Journal, April 10, 1740; Morris Papers, p. 85, note.
88 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [88
strengthen his position by an election. The sixteenth as-
sembly met in February, 1746, but the personnel was altered
in only two cases. Middlesex sent Philip Kearney instead
of Moores, while Hunterdon returned John Embly to suc-
ceed Daniel Doughty. Kearney was an eminent lawyer of
that time. This was the last election under Morris.
Dissatisfied with the attitude taken by the assembly in
regard to the land riots and counterfeiters, Governor Belcher
dissolved the sixteenth assembly. The newly-elected house,
however, which met in February, 1749, proved to be no
more tractable. Among the new members were John Weth-
erill from Middlesex, Derick Dey from Bergen and James
Hinchman from Gloucester. Of these Wetherill deserves
notice. He continued a member of the assembly during the
remainder of the colonial period, engaging actively in the
public affairs of the colony. In 1774 Wetherill was ap-
pointed upon the Standing Committee of Correspondence
and Inquiry of the colony and was also a member of the pro-
vincial congress during the next two years.
The sessions of the seventeenth assembly found the coun-
cil and assembly in violent contest over the act to settle the
quotas of taxes upon the different counties. Convinced
that an agreement was impossible, Governor Belcher
ordered the election of a new legislature in February,
1 75 1. John Johnston, the grandson of Dr. John John-
stone, of Perth Amboy, was one of the new East Jersey
delegates.1 He continued to serve in the legislature until
he was commissioned colonel of the provincial troops sent
to Canada in 1758. After his death at Ticonderoga in
July of that year, Andrew Smyth, a Perth Amboy surro-
gate, filled his seat in the house. John Stevens appeared as
the other representative from Perth Amboy at this session
XN. J. A., vol. xix, p. 389.
89] . THE ASSEMBLY 89
and continued an active and useful assemblyman until sum-
moned to the upper house in 1763.1 Essex County was
represented by John Low and Robert Ogden. The latter
was chosen speaker in 1763, but was forced to resign his
seat in the assembly, because of his refusal to sign the ad-
dresses prepared by the New York Stamp Act Congress.'
Many of the East Jersey towns burned him in effigy.
The West Jersey representatives sent to the assembly
for the first time were Charles Read, John Deacon, Barzillai
Newbold, William Mickle and Joseph Ellis. Read, to whom
reference has been made as a councillor and justice of the
Supreme Court, was elected speaker.3 He continued to
represent the city of Burlington in the assembly until called
to the council in 1758. Mickle and Ellis, like Read, were
interested in West Jersey proprietary affairs.
The former assembly having been dissolved, because of
its refusal to provide for sending commissioners to the Al-
bany Conference of 1754, the nineteenth assembly met in
October of that year. Robert Lawrence was chosen speaker.
Of the new members the most prominent were from West
Jersey. Samuel Smith, the historian, began his career as an
assemblyman at this time, continuing in the lower house
until his appointment to the council in 1767. Gloucester
sent John Ladd, who was then vice-president of the West
Jersey council of proprietors, and was later elevated to the
council. Samuel Clement and Ebenezer Miller, both con-
sistent Quakers, were also prominent West Jersey pro-
prietors and members of this house.
A new election for representatives was not held until early
in 1 76 1, when, apparently in response to a request from the
assemblymen, Governor Boone ordered the election of the
twentieth assembly. East Jersey was represented by an
XN. J. A.t vol. ix, p. 335. *Ibid., p. 525- *Ibid., vol. x, p. 426.
90 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [90
unusually large number of influential citizens in this assem>
bly, among them Stevens, Nevill, Wetherill, Richard Law-
rence, Robert and John Ogden and Fisher. Richard Law-
rence, a member of the prominent family of that name in
Monmouth County, succeeded to the seat of Robert Law-
rence. He was also a friend of the liberties and privileges
of the people.1 John Ogden had served from Essex during
part of the previous assembly, continuing in the house until
1772. Upon the resignation of Robert Ogden, Stephen
Crane was elected to the lower house, retaining his mem-
bership in that body for the remainder of the colonial period.
He was speaker in 1771 and 1772. One of the leaders of
the Elizabethtown claimants against the proprietors, he was
also an ardent patriot during the revolution. He was one
of " the two Elizabeth Town Ambassadors " appointed by
his fellow townsmen to carry a protest against the pro-
prietors to the king.2 Among the other positions of trust
which he filled were those of county judge, county high
sheriff, and delegate to the Philadelphia Continental Con-
gress. He was known as a man of unusual integrity and
courage.3
Numbered among the West Jersey representatives were
Samuel Smith, John Lawrence, Joseph Borden, David
Cooper, George Reading, Learning and Spicer. The va-
cancy caused by Samuel Smith's removal to the upper
house was filled by Thomas Rodman, who held office in the
council of West Jersey proprietors. Burlington city's other
representative was the same Lawrence who was appointed
to the council in 1771.4 The other new West Jersey mem-
bers were of no especial prominence.
1 N. J. A., vol. x, p. 459.
1 Matthias Hatfield was the other. N. J. A., vol. vii, p. 651.
'Hatfield, History of Elizabeth. 4N. J. A., vol. x, p. 302.
9 1 ] THE ASSEMBLY g i
To the twenty-first assembly which met in October, 1769,
Cortland Skinner and John L. Johnson were sent as the
representatives of the city of Perth Amboy. The former
gentleman had been elected to complete the unexpired term,
in the twentieth assembly, of Andrew Smyth, deceased.
Skinner's election as speaker, which position he held, ex-
cept during Crane's incumbency, until the overthrow of
royal rule, first occurred in November, 1765. An influential
member of the council of East Jersey proprietors, attor-
ney general of the province for many years until the Revo-
lution and an eminent lawyer, Skinner was a man of au-
thority in the colony. Johnson was a Perth Amboy mer-
chant, East Jersey proprietor, the son of Andrew, who had
been a member of the council, and treasurer of the eastern
division of the province.1 Monmouth was represented by
Robert Hartshorne and Edward Taylor, the former a de-
scendant of Richard Hartshorne, one of the original twenty-
four proprietors of East Jersey named in the Duke of York's
grant of 1682.2 Somerset County sent Fisher and Berrien.
Fisher mistakenly believed that this would be his last elec-
tion to the assembly.8 The other gentleman was the same
who was justice of the Supreme Court, and trustee of
Princeton College.4
From the city of Burlington came Abraham Hewlings,
then president of the council of West Jersey proprietors,
while old Gloucester sent John Hinchman, the then vice-
president of that proprietary board.5 The other member
from Gloucester County was Robert Friend Price, regarded
as a friend of the people in the assembly.6 Another Quaker
'Whitehead, op. cit., p. 68. * N. J. A., vol. xx, p. 150.
*Ibid., vol. xxvi, p. 209. 4 Ibid., p. 208.
5 Minutes of the Council of N. J. Prop., 1767-1768.
•Af. J. A., vol. xx, p. 154.
92 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [92
proprietor from West Jersey among the new members was
Isaac Sharp, a Salem County judge and founder of the
" Sharpsborough Iron Works." *
The representatives from Hunterdon County, John Hart
and Samuel Tucker, deserve particular mention. Without
having even the educational advantages afforded in that
day, by dint of his own ability, Hart rose to positions of
prominence in public affairs.2 A champion of the privileges
of the people he was a prominent member of two assem-
blies, having been elected for the first time in 1761. This
staunch Presbyterian rendered eminent services to the patriot
cause during the Revolution. Committees of correspondence
and safety, congresses, provincial and continental, included
John Hart in their membership. He was one of the signers
of the Declaration of Independence. Elected to the assem-
bly under the state constitution in 1776, he was the first
speaker of that body, retaining that position until his re-
tirement from public life.
A successful merchant of Trenton and a justice of the
peace, Samuel Tucker was elected to> the assembly in 1769
and 1772.3 It was he, who, attempting to reform legal prac-
tise in the colony, had the light of publicity turned upon his
own misdeeds, the acceptance of excessive fees. However
untimely and inconvenient, this exposure did not appear to
materially lessen his influence. An active patriot, and a
man of no mediocrity, Tucker was a valuable member of
the New Jersey provincial congresses, acting as president
in October, 1775, and June, 1776. Stigma attaching to his
conduct as treasurer of New Jersey, when the state chest
of valuables was captured by the British in December, 1776,
forced him to retire from public life.
1 N. J. A., vol. xv, p. 07; vol. xxvii, p. 72.
*Ibid., vol. x, p. 369. zIdid., vol. x, p. 270.
93] THE ASSEMBLY 93
Refusing barrack supplies for the royal troops, the as-
sembly was dissolved in December, 1771. The twenty-sec-
ond and last assembly to be elected under royal authority
met August 19, 1772. There appeared at this session the
first representatives to be elected from Morris, Cumberland
and Sussex Counties. One of the Morris County represen-
tatives was William Winds, who was commissioned in 1776
to arrest Governor Franklin, in accordance with an order
of the Continental Congress. During the Revolution he
proved himself to be a zealous and efficient officer.1 Jacob
Ford, of Morristown, was the other representative from
Morris County. He was one of the pioneer iron merchants
of New Jersey and a county judge from the organization of
Morris County in 1740 almost until his decease.2 Other
new members from the eastern division were John Coombs,
John Moores and Henry Garriste.
Cumberland County elected John Shepherd and The-
ophilus Elmer; Sussex County, Thomas Van Home and
Nathaniel Pettit. One of the most distinguished members
of this legislature was the Quaker James Kinsey, of Bur-
lington, son of John Kinsey a former speaker of the New
Jersey assembly.8 In leading the opposition to Governor
Franklin upon the question of treasurer Skinner's respon-
sibility in the treasury robbery, later to be mentioned, the
abilities of the younger Kinsey were displayed to great ad-
vantage. Elected as a delegate to the Continental Congress
of September, 1774, he later resigned the appointment.
From 1789 to 1803 he was chief justice of the Supreme
Court of New Jersey. Kinsey' s colleague from the city of
Burlington was Thomas P. Hewlings.
1 N. J. A. (Second Series), vol. i, p. 321.
1 Ibid., vol. xii, p. 665.
* Elmer, Reminiscences of New Jersey, p. 275 et seq.
94 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [94
Even this necessarily cursory sketch of the activities of
the most prominent assemblymen convinces the student
that men of capacity and ability were included among the
ranks of the colonial lower house. On the other hand, it
is indisputable that many of the would-be legislators were
ill-accomplished, uneducated farmers, who perhaps felt
better at ease guiding the plow through the furrow than
legislating for their country's good. Morris, with no in-
tention to compliment, alluded to the assemblymen as
" ploughmen representatives," * but he was not alone among
royal governors in experiencing a setback at their hands.
In each assembly, personal leaders appeared, men of prestige
and zeal, to whom particular credit was due for bringing
things to pass.
It has been observed that the re-election of members to
successive assemblies was of frequent, if not usual, occur-
rence. This does not necessarily indicate that the elec-
tions were placid formalities. The polls were open for suc-
cessive days, until a choice was made. The Somerset
County election of 1768 is described as having been "carried
on with the greatest coolness and good order; no reflecting
or abusive words were heard during the whole election." 2
By inference, it might be supposed that reflecting and abusive
words were not foreign to such occasions. There is a re-
port, the authenticity of which is not guaranteed however,
of an unusually exciting election in Hunterdon for repre-
sentatives in 1772.3 The race for public honor was between
Tucker and Hart, the former gaining the victory on the
third day after a generous body of Episcopalians had been
induced to cast their votes for Tucker in opposition to the
1 Morris Papers, p, 276.
*N. J. A.y vol. xxvi, p. 209.
•Sedgwick, Life of Livingston, p. 143.
95] THE ASSEMBLY 95
Presbyterian candidate. The election of members to the
eighteenth assembly, after the dissolution of the previous
house due to the disagreement upon the quotas act, caused
animated discussion. The New York and Philadelphia
weeklies contained earnest articles upon the approaching
election.1 In August, 1754, " the greatest Struggles in elect-
ing Representatives in some of the Counties, that ever were
known," were reported by the " New York Gazette." "
Middlesex and Hunterdon Counties required four days to
conclude the election; while in Somerset there were six
candidates and it was necessary for the " Gazette " to go to
press before the returns were received.
An agent representing the province at the court in Eng-
land was a well-established institution in New Jersey in
1738. Communication between the two continents was so
irregular and uncertain, that the necessity of maintaining an
active agent in London had become recognized. Whereas
the desire of the royal authorities was that such an officer
should represent the entire provincial government, that offi-
cial became a representative of the assembly alone. Com-
plaints against this assumption of power were no less
frequent than vehement, but the fact of the agent's respon-
sibility to the lower house continued and the representa-
tives referred in documents to " their agent at Great
Britain."8
The method by which the agent was made responsible
to the assembly was through that body's control of the
public purse. In the salary appropriation the recipient was
expressly designated and hence virtually appointed, for
the right of the council to alter or amend a money bill was
successfully opposed. One of the objections urged by the
lN. J. A., vol. xix, pp. 34, 48, 53. Wind., p. 382.
• Assembly Journal, Feb. 22, 1750.
96 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [96
council in 1749 against the government support act was,
that to allow the assembly the sole nomination of an agent
paid by public money, required an application to the king
by the council to be made at a private charge.1 Against
such an unreasonable arrangement the upper house com-
plained, but in vain. When reproached by the governor for
wasting time in disputes, he is informed by the assembly
that the councillors were at fault for they " tried to encroach
on the constitution by altering a money bill, so that the
House would be deprived of the appointment o«f their
Agent." 2
In 1769 the lords of trade indirectly owned that the
colonial agent was an officer of the assembly only. The
clause in the support act appointing the agent " for the
Province at the Court of Great Britain " was harshly criti-
cized as " a ridiculous Affectation in the Assembly to cloath
an Officer, who is merely an Attorney to transact their Af-
fairs, independent of the general Interests of the Colony,
with a character that belongs only to the Minister of a
Foreign Prince." 3 The lords accepted agents responsible
only to the assembly, but they did this unwillingly. June
21, 1 77 1, Governor Franklin was ordered by the lords of
trade to refuse his assent in future to any support bill which
carried with it the implication of the assembly's right solely
to appoint the colonial agent.4 The lords would now permit
no colonial agent to appear before them who was not ap-
pointed by a concurrent act of the whole legislature. The
governor doubted that the assembly would recede from
their claim, which he believed had " been long acquiesced
with in this Province as well as in most other of His
1 N, J. A., vol. xvi, p. 196.
* Assembly Journal, Feb. 22, 1750.
1 N. J. A., vol. ix, p. 445. KIbid., vol. x, p. 301.
97 J THE ASSEMBLY gy
Majesty's Colonies in North America," but he sought to
convert the lower house to the official viewpoint.1 Much
persuasion and many private interviews with the represen-
tatives rewarded Franklin's efforts, for in the support act
of 1 771, the assembly consented to the omission of those
words in the bill which seemed to establish their claim to
the complete control of the provincial agent.
The agreement was more formal than essential and ef-
fected no change in the agency. " That Doctor Benjamin
Franklin be and he is hereby appointed Agent for transact-
ing the affairs of this Colony in Great Britain " was a re-
solve of the council on December II, 1771.2 It merely
ratified the appointment of the man, with whom a com-
mittee of the assembly had been corresponding as colonial
agent for two years.8 Strict compliance with the regulation
of the lords of trade was made, when the governor con-
curred with the council and assembly resolves appointing
his father agent.4 When the next agent was appointed, in
November, 1775, however, there is no record that a similar
formal concurrence of the governor and council with the
assembly was given.
Benjamin Franklin was strongly opposed to the appoint-
ment of agents by concurrent action of the whole legis-
lature.5 Evidently believing that the ministerial scheme
required the passage of a separate legislative act, he thought
this device granted the royal officials effectual power to con-
trol the agents by a repeal of the appointing act. That the
new resolution of the Board of Trade would operate to
render the agents subservient to the Secretary of State was
the elder Franklin's contention. He declared the deter-
lN. J. A., vol. x, p. 315.
* /did., vol. xviii, p. 235. % Ibid., vol. x, p. 135.
'Ibid., vol. xviii, p. 271. * Ibid., vol. x, p. 330.
98 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [98
mination to decline serving as a provincial agent under
any such uncertain appointment. Fortunately for the colony
Benjamin Franklin did not adopt this extreme course, but
retained the New Jersey agency until 1775.
Not only was the agent in effect appointed by the assem-
bly, but he advised and kept in touch with the affairs of the
province by a committee of correspondence of that house.
This committee, ordinarily numbering four or five, of whom
the speaker was one, was authorized to correspond with the
agent, and transmit to him the assembly minutes.1 Thus
the representative at the court was constantly given official
notification of the conduct of affairs in the colony and es-
pecially from the assembly viewpoint. In 1738 the lower
house ordered that two books should be provided, one for
East Jersey and one for West Jersey, wherein all letters
sent to and received from the London agent in relation to
the affairs of the province should be entered.2 The cus-
todian of these important volumes was not announced,
although they might naturally be supposed to have been
intrusted to the committee of correspondence.
The first agent appointed for the province was Peter
La Heupe, who having held the post for about four years
was succeeded in 1727 by Richard Partridge, a Quaker of
not exceptional ability.3 He was Belcher's brother-in-law
and active agent during that governor's administration in
New Jersey. The East Jersey proprietors were not well
disposed toward Partridge, suspecting him of encouraging
the people in the land troubles, and his management of funds
entrusted to him evoked bitter criticism. Belcher was con-
dor the business of the assembly in connection with the appoint-
ment of an agent, see Assembly Journal, Nov. 17, 1742.
2 Assembly Journal, Mar. SI, 1738.
8 Tanner, op. tit., p. 375 et seq.
99] THE ASSEMBLY 99
stantly admonishing him to have no connections with the
anti-proprietary rioters, lest he lose influence with the min-
istry.1 And in 1752 powerful enemies in England tem-
porarily prevented his having access to the king's ministers
or public officers.2 October 22, 1751, the council declared
that some other person should be appointed, and by legis-
lative act,3 but Partridge retained the New Jersey agency
until the end of 1760.
On November 19, 1760, the assembly resolved that Joseph
Sherwood, a London attorney-at-law, should be appointed
provincial agent, and there was designated a committee to
correspond with him.4 He may have received the position
through the good offices of Samuel Smith, the treasurer.5
In 1766 the influence of Lord Stirling secured the appoint-
ment of Henry Wilmot, and Sherwood was ordered to
transmit his accounts to the assembly.6 These accounts
were not laid before that house until 1770, when the former
agent's request for an allowance of £43 was unanimously
rejected.7 No charge of misconduct had been made against
Sherwood, who himself expressed the desire " to know how
the Revolution came about." 8
Wilmot was an eminent solicitor and secretary to the
Lord Chancellor. He was apparently careful of the inter-
ests of the colony, but was continued in the office for but
three years, being superseded by the appointment of Ben-
jamin Franklin in 1769.0 The committee of correspondence
1 Belcher Papers , Dec. 6, 1751. rIbid., Aug. 28, 1752.
*N. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 342. * Assembly Journal, Nov. 19, 1760.
* Sherwood Letters , Mar. 14, 1761; N. J. Hist. Soc. Proceedings, vol.
v, p. 133.
6 Assembly Journal, June 18, 1766. ''Ibid., Oct. 26, 1770.
8 Sherwood Letters , Aug. 21, 1766, op. cit.
9 Assembly Journal, Nov. 8, 1769.
IOO THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [i00
did not deem it necessary to press upon the newly-appointed
agent the matter of diligence, because he had been found
inclined to the American service.1 The last provincial
agent, appointed in November, 1775, was Dennis De Berdt,
the father-in-law of Deputy Secretary Reed. Governor
Franklin believed his appointment resulted chiefly from his
diligence in obtaining for the New Jersey assembly the con-
tents of a letter sent by the governor to the Earl of Dart-
mouth.*
12V. J. Hist. Soc. Proceedings, vol. x, p. 168.
VA. J. A., vol. x, p. 681.
CHAPTER IV
Legislative History — The Morris Administration
Many of the constitutional conflicts, which a study of
the history of legislation in the province reveals, were not
peculiar to New Jersey alone. The constant struggles over
the support of government and the paper money issue were
common to the other English colonies in America, and the
case of one is typical of the others. Thrown upon their
own resources, and left to solve problems with an almost
free hand, the colonists had naturally profited by the negli-
gence of the crown officials, and the great distance from the
mother country. The royal executives became objects of
suspicion, representatives of an external authority, against
whose encroachments, fancied or otherwise, they must con-
stantly be on their guard. As to what constituted an en-
croachment, a violation of a cherished liberty of the people,
there was much room for a difference of opinion, because
the relation between the realm and the dominions had never
been exactly defined.1 The unsympathetic relations that
usually existed between the branches of government were
manifestly not conducive to harmony. The assembly evi-
dently had an insatiable love of power, and encroached upon
the other departments as much as possible. Such invasions
of the prerogative of the governor; council, or courts, was
protested against, but usually acquiesced in lest the necessi-
1 See Osgood, The American Colonies in the 17th Century, vol. iii,
chap. i.
101] 101
102 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [102
ties of the public service should be hampered. Notwith-
standing frequent and earnest protests on the part of the
royal officials, both in England and America, the assem-
blies practically forced the governor and council to comply
with what they pleased to direct. To gain this point, with-
holding the funds for the support of the civil establishment
was a big stick, of which the assembly made frequent use.
This was a cudgel of the assembly alone, for they main-
tained, and made good their claim, that the council could
neither amend nor alter money bills. As the council in most
of the colonies was composed of royal appointees, selected
upon the recommendation of the governor, and consequently
dependent upon him, the assembly and council were in fre-
quent conflict. The particular reasons for the contests be-
tween the two houses in New Jersey will presently be noted.
It was unusual, but not unknown, for the governor and
council to be at odds. From what has been said, some of
the fundamental defects of the system of government that
prevailed in the colonies are evident, and it is apparent that
they were magnified by the negligence of the home author-
ities, the remoteness of the dominions from the realm, and
the naturally acquired love of power in the assemblies.
There were particular conditions in the different colonies
that encouraged a more or less bitter spirit of rivalry and
conflict in the legislative sessions. Chief among these in
New Jersey may be mentioned the land system, Quakerism,
and the place for the meeting of the legislature. That the
first of these should have been an added cause of controversy
in this province was due to the fact that after 1702 titles to
land were vested in private landowners and not in the gov-
erning power of the province, and that the proprietary title
to large tracts of land was actively disputed. The majority
of the people viewed the proprietors as a wealthy, landed
aristocracy wielding an undue and selfish influence in the
I03] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 103
affairs of the province. Their gain was improperly re-
garded as the people's loss. As the strength of the pro-
prietors was in the council and that of the people in the as-
sembly, an almost constant strife between the two bodies
was not unnatural. It was this influence more than any
other that lent zest to the relations between the council and
assembly of New Jersey, and made it unusually difficult for
the two houses to " keep sweet between themselves," as
Belcher put it. Under the circumstances it is apparent that
the attitude of the governor toward the proprietors was im-
portant. This was also true of what may be called Quaker-
ism. Members of that sect constituted a large number of
the inhabitants of the province, the great majority in West
Jersey. It was in their opposition to war and military ser-
vice that their attitude was a matter of public importance.
Orthodox Friends believed in the unlawfulness of war, and
whenever it became necessary to raise troops or regulate the
militia, their presence in official positions was regarded by
many as a detriment to the public service. Frequent com-
plaints were made to the royal officials, especially by Gov-
ernor Morris, that the obstinacy of the Quakers prevented
the enactment of necessary laws for establishing the militia
upon a proper footing for the defense of the province. The
Quaker element was much stronger in the assembly than in
the council. The third condition mentioned as productive
of strife was the determination of the place for holding the
legislative sessions. This has been considered in the pre-
ceding chapter and the mere mention of it is necessary here.
Holding alternate sessions of the legislature at Burlington
and Perth Amboy was expensive and inconvenient, but the
assembly could not be persuaded to alter the system. In
•itself the place of meeting was not of serious consequence,
but it was frequently made an issue for opposing the gov-
ernor, when he attempted to deviate from the regular alter-
nation.
IQ4 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [104
The most violent constitutional conflicts during this
period of New Jersey's colonial history were during the
Morris administration. Both governor and council arrayed
themselves against the most popular measures that the lower
house proposed, such as the bills for the emission of paper
money, for obliging sheriffs to give security, and for pre-
venting actions under £15 from being tried in the Supreme
Court. On the other hand, the assembly steadfastly re-
fused to support the government or regulate the militia
until their measures were granted. The arbitrary attitude
of the governor embittered these conflicts and legislative
deadlocks were of frequent occurrence. The alignment of
parties during Morris's regime was clearly proprietary and
anti-proprietary, but this division was even more pro-
nounced during Belcher's term. Then the contest between
the proprietors and the associates became most acute, and
the council, dominated by proprietary interests, was obliged
to oppose the popular house without the active aid of the
governor. Consequently during this administration the two
houses were engaged in single-handed contests with one
another, and the executive was unsuccessfully attempting to
restore harmony. Governor Belcher was in an unusually
unfortunate plight. The assembly refused to support the
government because of the conflicts with the council; and
the upper house opposed the governor, because he refused
to take sides actively with them. Neutral ground was hard
to maintain and the governor suffered in the attempt.
Before William Franklin became governor of the province
the land troubles had so far subsided that party lines became
less marked. The chief concerns of his administration
were not such as to lead to disputes between the council
and assembly. Legislation regarding an important bound-
ary controversy with New York was passed without diffi-
culty, although it was chiefly a proprietary affair. Finan-
I05] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 105
cial and military measures were the most important while
Franklin was governor. The assembly wished to exchange
the former for the latter, namely, to supply barracks for
royal troops and aid the king's military operations in return
for the permission to emit a large amount of paper money.
Naturally as the opposition to the obnoxious acts of the
English Parliament increased, the loyalty of the people to
their royal governor, who continued a thorough government
man, decreased.
There had been a long period of legislative apathy previous
to the first session of the eleventh assembly, which was
the first assembly to meet Governor Morris. Since 1730
there had been but one session of the legislature, the second
session of the tenth assembly, which met under Governor
Cosby, in April, 1733. Over five years elapsed between
the last adjournment of that assembly and the first legis-
lative session, with Morris as governor, in October, 1738.
During this long interval, and especially after Cosby's death
in 1736, the efforts of influential Jerseymen were chiefly
occupied in the important but difficult task of securing a
separate governor for their province. Success having
crowned their efforts, the first meeting of the assembly
under the new conditions was an event of interest and im-
portance to the province.
The elections of 1738 had returned to the lower house
less than half of the membership of the former assembly.
Although the house met at Perth Amboy on October 27th,
and Joseph Bonnell, of Essex, was elected speaker, no
further business, was transacted. Adjournment was taken
to November 13th, two days after which the governor ad-
dressed the legislature.1
It was natural that the governor should first allude to
x Assembly Journal, Nov. 15, 1738.
106 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [106
the king's condescension in having granted the prayer of
the colony for a separate governor. This fact led Morris
to animadvert upon the propriety of a necessarily grateful
legislature making an ample and suitable provision for the
support of the government. The council was properly con-
gratulated upon meeting for the first time as a distinct
branch of the government, separate from governor and as-
sembly in their legislative capacity. In addition the legisla-
ture was exhorted to pass good and necessary laws, to main-
tain calmness in debate, and to make it dangerous for men
to be otherwise than just and honest — the last, it would seem,
a rather difficult task. A change from the old method of
having alternate sittings of the legislature was urged.
A great degree of calmness proved to be distinctive neither
of this nor of any other session of the legislature during
Morris's administration. It is true, that the assembly's ad-
dress, to which the governor listened on December 16th,
was harmoniously worded, and the effusive applause which
it showered upon him might well have misled a gentleman
of far less conceit.1 And Morris might have relied too im-
plicitly upon the assertions of the lower house, had he not
read a resolution, which revealed the representatives as not
generous toward him, at least when the public purse was
concerned.
By a vote of ten to thirteen, the assembly resolved not
to allow Morris a particular sum for the part he had taken
in securing a distinct governor. The question was worded
as if tacitly to imply that the governor had applied for a
financial reward for his services. The assembly, generously
inclined, promised duly to consider any account of such ex-
penditures which the governor might lay before them. Re-
senting this attitude, Morris declared he had never demanded
1 Assembly Journal, Dec. 16, 1738.
io7] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY i0y
any money for his services, but hoped that he dealt with
people inclined to gratitude.1 He reminded this assembly
of a " deal " between Cosby and a former house, according
to which his predecessor was to aid New Jersey in obtain-
ing a separate governor, in return for which aid, Cosby was
to continue to receive his salary from New Jersey, as long
as he should continue as governor of New York. The mes-
sage which the governor sent to the assembly was well cal-
culated to irritate that body.
This session was marked also by a dispute between the
two houses of the legislature regarding the support bill.
After this measure had been passed by the assembly, the
council asked for a conference upon the bill. Provided
only the form and not the substance of the act was to be
considered, was the assembly willing to confer.2 As the
council declared the right to request a conference upon any
subject, whenever public interest required such a proceed-
ing, the assembly asserted the equal right of each house to
refuse a conference at any time. Only if no alteration in
the substance of the support bill was desired, would the
house agree to a conference.8 To the reiterated terms of
the assembly, the council returned a detailed answer, charg-
ing the assembly with the attempt to evade the issue, and
maintaining that to give consent to a conference would im-
pair no privilege of which the representative body could
boast.4 The general principle at issue was in the council's
contention that each house had an equal privilege of pro-
posing or amending any bill.
In this particular case the council desired to alter the
measure by which part of the public money for the support
x Assembly Journal, Jan. 31, 1739.
* N. J. A., vol. xv, p. 50. • Ibid., pp. 54, 57.
'/bid., p. 68.
108 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [108
of government was to be applied.1 According to the gov-
ernor, the assembly was particularly in error in this case,
inasmuch as this support act was not to raise money, but
merely to direct the application of funds already in the treas-
ury. Even granting, for the sake of argument, said Morris,
that the assembly might refuse a conference upon a biK
raising money, " they had not the least collour for doing it "
in the present case.2 Rather than hazard the support of gov-
ernment, the council, as usual, passed the bill and contented
themselves with a declaration of principle.
Morris regarded the conduct of the assembly as exhibit-
ing an unusually dangerous tendency, and on March 15,
1739, dissolved the General Assembly.3 The governor de-
plored the fact that instead of being a profitable session,
this had been the longest and most expensive legislative
sitting in the history of the colony. His supporters were
thanked for what had been accomplished, but the other
members were declared guilty of unbecoming conduct.
Sceptical of the advantages of a second session of the
eleventh assembly, Morris dissolved it in the hope that the
newly-elected body would be more disposed to harmony,
that is, more in sympathy with the governor.4
The session was not entirely devoid of results, but the
great majority of the important bills considered were not
passed at this time. Of the nine acts passed at this session,
four were of particular importance.5 These were acts to
support the government, to settle the militia, to restrain
extravagant and excessive interest, and to erect Morris
County. Some of the bills that failed to pass both houses
or did not receive the governor's assent included measures
x Morris Papers, p. 41. ■ Ibid., p. 42.
• N. J. A., vol. xv, p. 79. * Morris Papers, p. 51.
6Allinson, op. cit., p. 99.
I09] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 109
for the more frequent meeting and electing of represen-
tatives, for the regulation and preservation of the public
roads, for shortening law suits and regulating the practise
of the law, for obliging sheriffs to give security and take
oaths, and for laying a duty on staves and shingles.1
The people of New Jersey had had their first legislative
session under a separate governor. That the new regime
had made for harmony did not appear. This, too, in spite
of the fact that the new chief executive had previously in
New Jersey met with the acclaim of a popular hero. The
change had been effected in the case of Morris rather than
the people. Looking to a larger field of history, the conduct
of the people in this case is analogous to the revulsion of
feeling which William Pitt experienced a generation later,
when he was raised to the peerage and became the Earl of
Chatham. Instead of Lewis Morris, champion of the peo-
ple's rights, the populace beheld him in a position which
they had come to regard with suspicion. With another type
of man, this feeling could have been overcome, but in the
case of Morris, whose extensive interests in the colony not
unnaturally aroused the suspicion of possible partial judg-
ments and whose temperament did not encourage concilia-
tion, the distrust increased and the opposition became more
marked.
The first session of the twelfth assembly met at Burling-
ton on April 10, 1740, and elected Andrew Johnson speaker.
Bonnell, the former speaker, had not been returned to this
assembly, a fate which had befallen seven other members.
Only one of the governor's consistent supporters in the East
Jersey delegation was returned. Upon the whole, Morris
had evidently not strengthened his position by the appeal
to the people.
1 Morris Papers, p. 39, note.
1 10 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [ i iq
It was April 16th before the governor addressed the as-
sembly.1 In a characteristic message, Morris advised the
representatives at great length to avoid the mistakes of the
former house, and seek to exercise only those powers that
were properly theirs. The advisability of laying import
duties was suggested. The assembly was especially urged
to co-operate in the expedition under Colonel Spotswood,
which was to join forces sent from England against the
Spanish colonies in the West Indies.
The reply of the assembly on April 25th was a cleverly-
worded answer to all the subjects touched upon by the gov-
ernor.2 In some cases words of the governor's address
were paraphrased to suit the purpose of the assembly. If
the governor's professed hopes for a successful meeting were
founded upon the assembly's address, events proved that
they were built upon sand.
The governor's recommendation that aid be furnished
to the West Indian expedition had passed unheeded by the
assembly. On June 26, 1740, Morris sent a second message
to the lower house upon this subject.8 Ostensibly to con-
sult their constituents upon this important business, the
house asked for a fortnight's adjournment, but fearing the
adjournment would be disastrous to his plans, the governor
refused it.4 Only after an act making current two thou-
sand pounds in bills of credit for victualling and transport-
ing troops was passed, was an adjournment permitted.
After a recess from the fifth to the twenty-first of July,
Morris urged material changes in the bill, that had been
passed, for supplying the troops. The assembly was ob-
durate, however, and not disposed to accede to the chief
1 Assembly Journal, April 16, 1740. %Ibid., April 25, 1740.
3N. J. A., vol. xv, p. 126.
4 Morris Papers, p. 98.
m] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1 1 1
executive's desires. The legislature was kept in session until
the end of the month, when the house was prorogued with-
out having altered the objectionable measure.
The second session of the twelfth assembly, which met
at Perth Amboy, on October 2, 1741, was not marred by con-
flicts. The address to the council and assembly at the open-
ing of the session, urged the further support of government,
and renewed the periodical recommendation for the erec-
tion of a house suitable for the governor, and convenient
meeting places for the legislative sittings.1 The plea for
one seat of government was made on the ground of economy.
An interesting proposal made by Morris at this time was
that the provincial laws should be revised by duly qualified
and authorized persons to the end that a correct edition
should be made of them. Proper measures of defence
against Spain were declared necessary.
This session was brief, business-like and noticeably free
from disagreeable wrangles between the branches of the
government, the credit for which was modestly assumed by
the governor.2 The assembly, however, showed the usual
independent spirit in regard to the militia act, which it re-
fused to alter. The Quakers were blamed for the failure of
the lower house to improve the militia law, in accordance
with the recommendation of the governor. An act provid-
ing that actions under fifteen pounds should not be brought
into the Supreme Court, was also passed at this session.
Morris was in fact opposed to this measure, but assented to
it, rather than endanger the harmony of the session. The
support bill was passed without difficulty. That this peace-
ful session would be followed by another attended with even
more success, was the expressed hope of the governor.
lN. J. A., vol. xv, p. 200.
* Morris Papers, p. 140.
1 12 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [ 1 12
When the twelfth assembly met for the third session at
Burlington, on October 16, 1742, His Excellency was
pleased to make a brief and favorable speech.1 The assem-
bly was cognizant of the fact, said the governor, that an-
other suitable provision should be made for the support of
government. To amend old laws, where experience had
showed defects, was declared to be as necessary as forming
new ones. The better maintenance of the roads and bridges
was recommended. In order that the public welfare might
be advanced, which was the true end of their meeting, the
preservation of a proper temper and agreement in the legis-
lature was confidently desired.
The friendly tone of Morris's address may have led the
assembly to seize this as a favorable opportunity for passing
measures to test the governor. Council and assembly with-
out difficulty agreed upon certain bills to which the governor
later showed himself violently opposed. The absence of
Robert Hunter Morris from the council at this time ac-
counts in part for the harmony between the branches of the
legislature.2 The younger Morris was not only the ablest
member of the council, but was also the most enthusiastic
supporter of the administration. During this session, both
because of the personnel of the council and the character of
the measures under consideration, the upper house was less
susceptible than formerly to the influence of the executive.3
Two acts were passed, one to declare how the estate or
right of a feme covert might be converted or extinguished,
and another concerning the acknowledging of deeds. Both
were opposed by the governor.4 Similar acts had previously
been disallowed by the crown authorities, as encroachments
upon the royal prerogative. Morris of course refused to as-
1 N. J. A., vol. xv, p. 246. * Morris Papers, p. 154.
3 Ibid., p. 155. *N. J. A., vol. xv, p. 270.
113] LEGISLA TIVE HI ST OR Y n$
sent to the bills, and suggested that his acquiescence might
have been desired merely to expose him to the deserved cen-
sure of the king.1
The assembly had added a bill for the regulation of fees
to the support bill in the hope that the governor, to obtain
the support of government, would assent to the whole. The
ostensible reason for altering the fees was in response to
complaints against the law practitioners, but the real inten-
tion, according to Morris, was to reduce the income of the
secretary and other officers of government.2 It was only
with difficulty that the governor succeeded in having the
fee provisions omitted from the support act. The bill for
the support of government was the only act passed at this
session of the legislature.
It was the conduct of the assembly, regarding their bill
to relieve the necessities of the people by emitting £40,000
in bills of credit, that most seriously irritated the sensibilities
of the governor. An additional measure, which was to be
passed to provide for printing and signing the £40,000 in
paper money, granted £500 to the governor.8 Hearsay had
informed the governor, he told the assembly, that this act
was intended to " be pass'd in a Secret manner, peculiar to
itself, as usuall, and not sent home, that the ministry might
not know I was to have 500 pounds for passing it." " You
mistook your man," protested the governor, declaring the
whole £40,000 would not have been a sufficient inducement.
His objection to the bill was that it failed to contain
a proper provision for the support of the government. Only
if provision was made for the erection of a governor's resi-
dence and houses for the meetings of the council and assem-
lN. J. A.y vol. xv, p. 272.
1 Morris Papers, p. 152.
% Ibid., p. 154; N. J. A.y vol. xv, p. 273.
II4 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [114
bly and for the safe-keeping of the public records of the
province, could an emission bill hope to find favor with
him. There was a suspending clause to the act, but never-
theless Morris rejected it, as containing nothing which
would recommend it to the king's ministers. A more tactful
governor would have spared himself the unpopularity which
this conduct courted, and have left the disallowances to the
royal officials. But the Morris motto was prerogative rather
than tact. The statesmanship and foresight of his conten-
tion, however, cannot be denied.
It was not only in the legislation which the assembly pro-
posed that they ran counter to the governor. One of the
representatives, Benjamin Smith from Hunterdon County,
had had judgment against him by referees, to whom, ac-
cording to a rule of the Supreme Court, the case had been
referred.1 Smith had complained to the assembly against
the decision, and a committee on grievances was appointed
to consider the case. This conduct was in the nature of an
appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, an assump'
tion of power totally unwarranted. On November 18, 1742,
the matter was referred for further consideration. Morris
properly informed the house that erroneous judgments of
the Supreme Court might be reversed by the governor and
council, but not by the assembly.
The lack of unanimity at this session convinced the gov-
ernor that the people should be allowed a new choice of their
representatives. He thought the present members were
well-meaning, but were imposed upon and misled. After
a long speech to the legislature, in which their misdeeds were
enumerated and detailed, the governor dissolved the Gen-
eral Assembly.2
1 N. J. A., vol. xv, p. 276; Morris Papers, p. 152.
* Ibid., p. 267.
1 1 5 ] LEGISLA TIVE HISTORY i 1 5
There were ten new members in the thirteenth assembly,
when it met for the first session at Perth Amboy on October
10, 1743, among them Samuel Nevill. Events showed that
their attitude upon the public questions did not differ from
that of the former house. Upon the first day of the session
the governor addressed the houses, promising assent to bene-
ficial laws and urging friendly intercourse between those
who were concerned in making laws, and the discourage-
ment of whatever might tend to create differences.1
The assembly complained that many beneficial acts had
been passed at recent sessions only to be rejected. Encour-
aged by the assurance of the governor to assent to bene-
ficial laws, when in his power to do so, they would again pre-
pare such measures as they regarded necessary. As proof
of his good intentions, the assembly intimated that the gov-
ernor should assent to the bills laid before him, before the
support act was passed. That was declared by the governor
to be of no consequence, for " the one ought not to be given
in exchange for, or to purchase the other," and he would not
be influenced by the possible fate of the act for support.2
Two of the assembly's favorite bills received the executive
approval, " an Act concerning acknowledging Deeds in the
Colony of New Jersey, and declaring how the Estate or
Right of a Feme Covert may be conveyed or extinguished,"
and " an Act for ascertaining the Fees to be taken by the
several Officers." An act for the support of government
for one year was also enacted. The council at this session
rejected the assembly's bill to emit £40,000 in bills of credit.
The session did not end, however, without a quarrel. Al-
though the bill for ascertaining the fees had a suspending
clause attached, the assembly passed a formal resolution that
lN. J. A., vol. xv, p. 279.
1 Assembly Journal, Oct. 22, 1743.
I j6 the province OF NEW JERSEY [h6
it " ought to have due weight with the judges and all others
concerned." This indiscretion led to the demand from the
governor, that the assembly should justify such unwarrant-
able conduct. The lower house calmly stated that an opin-
ion only had been vouchsafed, for which they did not re-
gard themselves accountable to anyone and asked that the
session be brought to a close. On December ioth, the gov-
ernor told the assembly that their action in this matter was
a contradiction of the suspending clause of the fee bill.1
They were thanked for the support act and then prorogued.
War having been declared against France by King
George II, the assembly was summoned to meet on June 22,
1744, for the express purpose of putting the provincial
militia upon a better footing. As early as October 22, 1743,
an administrative session of the council had advised a re-
vision of the militia act, in order to make it more service-
able.2 In his address of June 22d, the governor pointed out
the danger of lax military discipline to public safety, and
recommended a prompt and adequate consideration of the
militia act and the state of the colonial defence.8
The assembly, in committee of the whole house, resolved
by a vote of 16 to 6 that the militia law in force was suffi-
cient.4 In an address to the governor, notifying him of
their decision, they asked for a recess because of the harvest
season. This request was refused, and a militia act was
thereupon prepared by the council, passed and then sent to
the assembly.
This bill substituted a money payment instead of active
militia service for Quakers, but was rejected in the assem-
bly by the same 16 to 6 vote as above.6 Although professing
XN. J. A., vol. xv, p. 31S. *Ibid.t p. 282.
* Ibid., p. 322. * Assembly Journal, June 27, 1744.
6 Ibid., July 2, 1744.
! 1 7] LEGISLA TIVE HISTORY 1 1 7
willingness to provide for all necessary military expenses,
the assembly testified to the uncertainty and difficulty of at-
tending thereto beforehand ! x The governor's interpreta-
tion of this message does not appear to be amiss. He
credited the assembly with willingness to provide for the
defence of the province, after the country was invaded.
The assembly ordered the council's militia bill to lie upon
the table. As the representatives persisted in their attitude,
the governor brought the thirteenth assembly to an end by
dissolution on July 3, 1744.
The election for members of the fourteenth assembly did
not indicate an increase of prestige for the governor.
Farmar, Leonard, and Bonnell were replaced by Hude,
Ouke, and Crane, men of similar opinion. A like circum-
stance occurred in the changes in the West Jersey delega-
tion. The house, which met at Perth Amboy on August
18, 1744, elected Samuel Nevill, a man of ability, as speaker.
A brief message from the governor, on the opening day
of the session, recommended simply that the defects of the
militia act should be remedied.2 A week later, the assem-
bly having taken the state of the militia into consideration,
resolved that provision should be made from time to time
for military expenses occasioned by calling out the forces.*
Thereupon the assembly addressed the governor, promising
to make the safety of the people as effectual as possible.4
Although they hoped the need for forces would not arise,
they would not hesitate to provide the means for repelling
an enemy.
Having expressed the desire for an adjournment, the
1 Assembly Journal, July 3, 1744.
*N. J. A., vol. xv, p. 337.
* Assembly Journal, Aug. 25, 1744.
4N. J. A., vol. xv, p. 338.
1 18 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [n8
representatives were gratified that the governor should grant
the request and leave the choice of the place of meeting to
their decision.1 Burlington, having been favored as the
meeting-place for the next session, the assembly convened
there October 4th. The apparent harmony between Morris
and the assembly upon matters of routine was merely a sur-
face peace. The transaction of the public business having
begun, the former causes of dissension were revived. It was
in order better to control the legislature that the governor,
whose presence at Burlington had been prevented by illness,
adjourned it to meet at Trenton on November 14th.2 By
a later adjournment the house was summoned to meet at
Kingsbury, where the governor resided.
The opposition to the governor became more pronounced
than before. The bill to oblige sheriffs to give security, the
£40,000 act, and a measure for laying a duty upon Indian,
negro, and mulatto slaves, were subjects of bitter discus-
sion between the two branches of the legislature. The situa-
tion was made more difficult by an assembly report on the
state of public affairs, agreed upon in a committee of the
whole house on November 22d.8
This report, consisting of four resolutions, first declared
that it was inconsistent with the proper freedom and privi-
leges of the people that the same person should be both chief
justice of the Supreme Court and a member of the council.
This person, being none other than the governor's son and
the most powerful councillor, the resolve was calculated to
stir up at least two departments of the provincial govern-
ment. Furthermore, the fact that there were only six or
seven councillors was declared a hindrance to the public
1 Assembly Journal, Aug. 25, 1744.
* Ibid., Nov. 12, 1744.
3 N. J. A., vol. xv, p. 369.
i ig] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY i ig
business and the cause of great delay. With splendid econ-
omy and a tender forethought for their distant ruler, the
assembly urged a frugal application of the money in the
treasury, in order that the king might be assisted upon any
emergency in the contests with France and Spain. Lastly,
the colony was declared to be in such condition, as not to
be able to support the government as largely as heretofore.
Suiting the action to the word, the salaries of the officers of
government were halved !
Such sentiments quite naturally evoked a reply from the
council. Resolutions in answer to the assembly were passed
on November 30th.1 Resenting an attack upon the pre-
rogative of the crown and reflections upon the character of
the council, the upper house declared the appointment of
the chief justice a duty for the king to perform, and not for
the assembly to criticize. Likewise the king could appoint
whatever number of councillors he desired, and might make
such appointments whenever he saw fit. The governor's
power in the appointment of councillors was restricted, as
the council also mentioned, in that he could only fill vacan-
cies when the number of councillors was less than seven.
The assembly had previously stated that the action of the
council had been improperly influenced upon certain meas-
ures, an assertion which the upper house at this time de-
clared untrue, an affront, and liable to disquiet the minds
of the people of New Jersey.
The wordy debate was continued by the assembly in re-
buttal resolutions of December 5th.2 Wordiness rather
than argument characterized their answer. A disguise of
epithets could not deceive, intimated the assembly, and con-
scious of having acted in accordance with the trust reposed
in them, they would reply to no further groundless attacks
1 N. J. A., vol. xv, p. 374. ■ Ibid., p. 379.
120 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [I2Q
upon their conduct. The incompatibility of the same per-
son acting as chief justice and councillor was reasserted. In
theory this would certainly be true, but the argument of the
assembly was nullified by the fact that a chief justice was
forbidden to sit as a councillor when that body was consid-
ering a case which he had determined in court
The council did not reply directly to the assembly, but,
on December 8, 1744, delivered an address to the governor
in defence of their conduct in rejecting certain bills passed
by the lower house.1 The act to oblige sheriffs to give se-
curity was rejected because a provision allowed a sheriff's
continuance in office for only three years ; the bill to lay an
import duty upon slaves, because it would injure the
farmers; and the act making £40,000 current in bills of
credit, because its preamble was a subterfuge, and the theory
of raising funds by paper money loans was unreasonable
and unjust to the poor. Furthermore the council protested
against the refusal of the assembly to join in a conference
upon the militia act, and declared the pretended frugality
of the lower house to be misdirected zeal.
It is quite evident that the lower house was bidding for
popular favor; was playing politics. Despite the assertion
of the governor that he had not influenced the council in
the slightest degree this seems improbable, for he was a
clever manager, was in a tight place, and in desperate need
of support.2 The council at least was playing an incon-
sistent role. It is of course incontrovertible that opinions
are subject to change, but that there should be such a direct
and complete change of opinion in a short time on the part
of the councillors is not a compliment to the stability of that
body. This change was most marked in their altered notion
of the beneficence of paper money.
1 N. J. A., vol. xv, p. 381. 8 Morris Popers, p. 229.
121 ] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY I2i
The disputed election of a loan-office commissioner
widened the breach between the governor and assembly at
this session. The house received a petition from certain
Hunterdon County inhabitants complaining that the elec-
tion of Andrew Reed over Joseph Yard was a grievance
and an evil precedent.1 As the complaint was against
justices of the peace, Morris's appointees, the representa-
tives, with characteristic boldness, seized this favorable op-
portunity with avidity.
The facts, as represented by the justices, were that fifteen
votes had been cast for Reed, ten by justices, and six for
Yard, all by freeholders.2 The only question apparently
was as to the right of the justices to vote. If Yard felt
aggrieved, he was advised by the governor to appeal to a
court for redress.
An assembly committee appointed to investigate this
matter reported, on November 9th, that an act of the 7
George II provided for the election of loan-office commis-
sioners by a majority of the freeholders of the county, with
the concurrence of three justices.3 This report having been
accepted, only Leonard, Ouke and Hude disagreeing, the
house resolved that the Hunterdon election was " Arbitrary,
Illegal, and in itself Void," and asked for the removal of
the justices involved or the institution of legal proceedings
against them. A statement of fact regarding the case, and
the opinion of the assembly as expressed in the resolution,
were embodied in an address to the governor.4
The governor, failing to discover the act of 7 George II,
to which the committee had referred, addressed the house
upon the subject.6 His position was that, though the elec-
1 Assembly Journal, Nov. 7, 1744. 2 Ibid., Nov. 7, 1744.
* Ibid., Nov. 9, 1744. *Ibid., Nov. 10, 1744.
5 Assembly Journal, Dec. 8, 1744.
122 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [122
tion might be voidable, it was not void until declared so by
some competent authority. It was a question for the courts
to decide, and legal measures were open to any one who feit
aggrieved. His message was a long document in support
of his position.
This was simply another attempt on the part of the lower
house to exercise authority not legally delegated to it. Al-
though Morris had been unable to unearth the act of the 7
George II, to which the assembly referred, that act was not
a fiction of the house committee. The act of that year " for
making Forty Thousand Pounds in Bills of Credit " regu-
lated the election of loan-office commissioners.1 Neverthe-
less, the position of the governor was correct in this matter.
Although a dissolution put an end to the quarrel at this time,
the question was later revived.
On December 7th the assembly asked to be dismissed, if
the public business required no further attention at the time.
The next day, after having stated his position in the Hun-
terdon election case, Morris dissolved the General Assem-
bly, regretting that the session had been so unsatisfactory.2
Unsatisfactory the session had been, many important meas-
ures had been under consideration, but had failed to pass.
Such included the acts to oblige sheriffs to give security to
keep actions of £15 or under from the Supreme Court, to
emit £40,000 in bills of credit, to settle and regulate the
provincial militia, to regulate the New York and New Jer-
sey boundary line and to improve and encourage the manu-
facture of flour. As if to stamp the session as a comedy of
errors, the only public act passed provided for the encour-
agement of the destruction of crows, blackbirds, squirrels
and woodpeckers in three counties.3
^llinson, op. cit., p. 99. ■ Assembly Journal, Dec. 8, 1744.
'Allinson, op. cit., p. 138.
123] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY i2$
For the third successive year elections for assembly repre-
sentatives were held. A large number of new members ap-
peared at the first session of the fifteenth assembly, begun
at Perth Amboy on April 4, 1745. Although the personnel
of a part of the East Jersey delegation changed, Morris con-
tinued to draw his support from that section. The election
had rather weakened than strengthened his position.
The address of the governor to the legislature on April
5th was a heated harangue against the shortcomings of the
former assembly.1 He reviewed the conduct of the assem-
bly during the quarrel with the council at the last session,
insinuating that the house was governed by the impetuosity
of blind passions. They were ordered to take notice of his
determination not to assent to any of their bills until the
support of government had been properly provided. The
incompatibility of uniting the offices of chief justice and
councillor was declared no valid reason for denying the
support of government. Little heeding his advice in prac-
tice, Morris urged that condescension and cool debate, rather
than warm contentions, should regulate their conduct, when
differing in opinion from the other departments. The only
subject directly presented for their consideration was the
plan of an expedition under Shirley against the French.
That the assembly could reply to the impassioned address
of the governor with as much equanimity as they succeeded
in exhibiting, reflects credit upon their patience. It was not
delivered until May 2, 1745, its chief complaint being that
the governor had taken pains to undervalue and explode
some of the proceedings of the former house.2 They not
unnaturally wearied at having long tirades against the evil
practises of a former house hurled at them. The governor
was referred to the council for an explanation as to why the
1 N. J. A.t vol. xv, p. 393. * Ibid., p. 410.
124 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [124
government had been unsupported, and his refusal to pass
any bill until the government had been supported was re-
gretted.
After the assembly address had been delivered the legis-
lature was prorogued for five days, but upon reassembling
was obliged to wait until May 13th before the governor re-
plied to their address. In was another long account, longer
than ordinary, of the misbehavior of recent assemblies, and
an exposition of their unwarrantable conduct.1 The action
of the people's representatives in passing an act to emit
paper money, when it was known that that subject was under
the consideration of the parliament, received especially se-
vere criticism. Resolved that no recent outrages should fail
to be mentioned, the case of the Hunterdon County loan-
office election was unearthed. They were enlightened as to
their duty to the people. Simple, said Morris, was that
duty. Their constituents wished them to support the gov-
ernment and not to quarrel with the governor.
Before the prorogation of May 2d the support bill had
been passed, but it allowed the governor only £500 and was
certain to be rejected on that account. The question of aid-
ing the expedition had also been considered, but action was
deferred, pending the attitude of the home government
toward this affair, and because it was too late to render any
naval assistance.2 An act for settling the militia had also
been passed. The prorogation, however, had nullified this
business, and on May 18th, after the interchange of lengthy
state documents, the assembly inquired if there was anything
further to be transacted.3
Speaker Nevill waited upon the governor at Kingsbury,
and in reply to the message was told that it was His Ex-
lN. J. A., vol. xv, p. 418.
* Assembly Journal, Apr. 26, 1745. *Ibid., May 18, 1745.
125] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1^5
cellency's privilege to prorogue the legislature when he
wished to. The house was ordered to begin again on the
business recommended at the previous session. On May
28th the assembly declared their refusal to answer the gov-
ernor's long statement of May 13, 1745. The temptation
was overmastering, however, and with beautiful incon-«
sistency they attacked the chief executive regarding the
support of government and the militia act.1
Meanwhile Shirley had renewed his application for aid
from New Jersey.2 With commendable promptness, the as-
sembly prepared and passed a bill applying £2,000 for the
king's service. It passed the council and received the gov-
ernor's assent on June 1, 1745. ■
The assembly was favored with another long message
from Morris on June 1st* The same objects were treated
in much the same way as before. The governor had been
notified that the government would be supported in ex-
change, virtually, for his assent to the acts to emit £40,000,
to oblige sheriffs to give security for their offices, and to pre-
vent actions under £15 being tried in the Supreme Court.
Morris said the sole cause of disagreement was the paper
money bill, and he could give no assurance that the king
would assent to it, even if he did.
The speaker was then directed to order adjournments of
three weeks at a time, until he was otherwise notified.4 It
was the sixteenth of August when the house next met. Be-
cause of the governor's illness, the session had been ad-
journed to Trenton. On August 21st the assembly heard
the governor's speech. It contained recommendations for a
more suitable provision to effectually defend the country,
and for the support of government, while the governor re-
1 Assembly Journal, May 28, 1744. * Morris Papers, p. 241.
8 Assembly Journal, June 1. 1745. *N. J. A., vol. xv, p. 446.
126 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [126
gretted the impossibility of his meeting the legislature at
Perth Amboy, the proper meeting-place for this session.1
The assembly was urged also to repay to the treasury the
£2,000 appropriated for the Cape Breton expedition.
The lower house was disinclined to contribute further for
military affairs, but began a controversy concerning their
meeting at Trenton. The governor was asked for his in-
structions as to the meeting-place of the legislature.2 Re-
fusing to comply with this request, Morris curtly told the
house that the governor had the sole right to call, adjourn,
prorogue and dissolve assemblies, that his commission might
be inspected, but as for his instructions, they were secret.
The assembly determined to elicit the desired information
from the council, but before an answer could be returned to
their request the legislature was prorogued to September
24th.3
Illness again having prevented the governor from per-
sonally attending the session at Burlington, he wrote to
Speaker Nevill, that at the request of the representatives he
had postponed the session to this time, when, it was hoped,
" the business of their husbandry could not well obstruct
their thinking calmly and effectually " upon what was
recommended to them.4 Repetition of the request for gov-
ernmental support was made, and they were reminded of the
unsettled condition of the militia. The governor had oc-
casion to allude for the first time to the land riots. Before
the meeting of the assembly Samuel Baldwin had been
forcibly released from the Essex County jail, where he had
been imprisoned for resisting an order of the council of
East Jersey proprietors for surveying certain tracts of their
lands. The anti-proprietary demonstration, of which this
1 N. J. A., vol. xv, p. 447. * Assembly Journal, Aug. 23, 1742.
5 Ibid., Aug. 24, 1745. * Morris Papers, p. 270.
12y] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 127
was the first during this period, will be treated at length in a
subsequent chapter. To cope with the situation, and pre-
vent the riot from becoming a rebellion, the assembly was
urged to take proper measures.
On October 3d the house replied to the governors com-
munication.1 The successful enactment of bills, which they
had prepared at both Trenton and Amboy, had been frus-
trated by the council or invalidated by prorogation of the
governor. Confirmed in their former opinions by the sen-
timents of their constituents, the preparation of the desired
measures would be deferred until a more favorable oppor-
tunity. Recourse might be taken to the militia act of 1738,
still in force, but any ill-consequences due to the militia of
the province should be chargeable to those who nullified the
intentions of the lower house ! It was likewise the opinion
of the assembly that the existing laws, properly enforced,
would check the deplorable Essex County disturbances.
The inability of the governor to attend the session at Bur-
lington, led him to adjourn the legislature to Trenton, where
it met on October 4th. Suspicious as to the legality of the
procedure by which they were convened at Trenton, the as-
sembly asked the council if the adjournment had been taken
by advice of the council given to Morris.2 With conscious
importance, and an awful sense of their responsibilities, the
council declared that advices given to the governor were
private secrets of state, the divulgence of which they were
bound to prevent. The desired information could not be
given.
Such an answer was not calculated to turn away wrath.
Messrs. Spicer and Fisher were appointed to wait upon the
governor to obtain firsthand information regarding the im-
1 Assembly Journal, Oct. 3, 1745.
1 N. J. A., vol. xv, p. 451.
128 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [128
portant matter.1 Assembly messages must come to him
through the speaker, thought Morris, who refused to re-
ceive the two representatives. By this time, fully convinced
that the governor had neither received nor asked the advice
of the council upon the question of the last adjournment,
and because of the treatment accorded their committee, the
assembly resolved that the refusal to receive their members
was " a manifest denial of the Freedom of Access to the
Governor and of the Privileges of this House," and that they
would proceed no further on the public business until they
were informed to their satisfaction under what conditions
they were removed from Burlington to Trenton.2
After four more days of waiting it was resolved that the
detention of the house for so long, without being informed
as to the business which had brought them together, was
" a great grievance to this House in particular, and to the
Inhabitants of this Colony in general ".3
Thereupon followed a typical lengthy and intemperate
Morris message.4 Certain of the expressions of the assem-
bly, the governor was fully convinced, might " gratify the
malicious temper of low minds, unacquainted with common
rules of decency, and incapable of anything above the scum
of the people ". With apparent delight, Morris refers the
plowmen representatives, whom he characterizes as " the in-
quisitive part of mankind ", to Ecclesiasticus, chapter 38,
verses 25, 26 and 33, to learn the part which they might
expect to play in public affairs. Old matters of dispute
were mentioned, and the recent misunderstandings reviewed
at considerable length.
After such a show of temper on the part of the governor,
one does not wonder that a future assembly stubbornly re-
1 Assembly Journal, Oct. II, 1745. % Ibid., Oct. 14, 1745.
5 Assembly Journal, Oct. 18, 1745. KIbid., Oct. 18, 1705.
12q] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 129
fused to pay the Morris heirs, the arrears of his salary.
Following the governor's long message, the assembly had
been prorogued. It was later dissolved, however, and a new
election held for members of the sixteenth assembly. As
the election resulted in making but two changes in the
house, it scarcely compensated the governor.
The regular meeting place for the first session of the six-
teenth assembly was Perth Amboy, but on account of the
governor's health the legislature was prorogued, on Febru-
ary 2d, to meet at Trenton, on February 26th. Robert
Lawrence was chosen speaker.
Just as harsh as had been his last message to the former
assembly, correspondingly conciliatory was the governor's
first message to this new house.1 On March 4, 1746, Morris
told the assembly that their adjournment to Trenton had
been by advice of the council. The unsupported condition
of the officers of government, the need of defence against
the enemy, and the land troubles in Newark were recom-
mended to the consideration of the legislature, and despatches
relating to the French and Indians were to be laid before
the assembly. An earnest plea to promote the welfare of
the province was made, the message concluding with the
expressed hope that " the God of Peace direct your Consul-
tations for the General Good ".
The governor's ill-health and the advice of the council,
the assembly graciously declared to be sufficient reason for
meeting at Trenton.2 Willingness to join with the other
branches of government to settle the militia and repel in-
vasions and to support the government was expressed. All
departments seemed disposed to act in harmony.
The Hunterdon County representative complained on
1 Morris Papers, p. 299.
* Assembly Journal, Mar. II, 1746.
130 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [j^q
March 13th that the former grievance regarding the elec-
tion of Reed as a loan-office commissioner, had not been
rectified. The governor was asked to take measures to re-
dress the grievance.1 He replied as before, however, that
if the choice was illegal, it should be determined by the
courts. Nevertheless he promised to obtain the attorney gen-
eral's opinion, and ask the advice of the council. This
promise doubtless appeased the ardor of the house for the
time being.
An act for better settling and regulating the militia was
passed by both houses, and received the governor's assent
on May 8, 1746.2 The favorite measures of the assembly
were also passed by that body, namely, the J>ill to prevent
actions under £15 being brought into the Supreme Court,
to emit £40,000 in paper money, and to oblige sheriffs to
give security. A bargain could not be struck regarding the
support act, and the harmony of the session was abruptly
ended. On May 6th the assembly having promised to sup-
port the government if the governor would assent to the
bills they had passed, Morris agreed to assent if they would
support.3 The less exacting attitude of Morris is apparent
at this time, because he confessed at the time that on account
of illness, he had been able to read only the militia act.
His promise to assent to the assembly bills, in exchange for
support, was evidently made before he had examined the
acts.
The following day the governor received a message from
the lower house, with the terms upon which the govern-
ment would be supported. The governor's salary was
halved for two years, but Morris or his executors were to
1 Assembly Journal, Mar. 1796.
'Allinson, op. tit., p. 139.
8 Assembly Journal, May 6, 1746.
131] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY j$i
receive £1,000 from the first interest money arising out of
the £40,000 emission, if the royal assent should be given.
These conditions proved unattractive to the governor, and
on May 8th he assented only to the militia act. Morris's
last illness, which resulted in his death on May 21, 1746,
doubtless saved the life of this assembly.1
From May 9th the assembly had met and adjourned
from day to day until June 4th, when President Hamilton,
who had succeeded Morris, prorogued the legislature to
June nth. His address of the ensuing day especially recom-
mended the Canada expedition to the consideration of the
council and assembly.2 Both branches of the legislature
responded with alacrity to provide New Jersey's share of
men and money for the expedition into the enemy's coun-
try. Acts were passed in June, 1746, to encourage the en-
listing of 500 volunteers, and to make current £10,000 in
bills of credit to defray the expenses of the forces. Sub-
sequent acts were passed in November, 1746, and May,
1747, to further provide for the troops.
In regard to the land disturbances that continued to
plague the colony, President Hamilton was as unsuccessful
in securing the co-operation of the assembly as Governor
Morris had been. To guard against the ill-will of the king,
they were urged to check the lawless spirit in certain sections
of the province. But only the Canadian expedition re-
ceived favorable action during this administration of Presi-
dent Hamilton.
There were three sessions of the legislature during Ham-
ilton's administration, all at Perth Amboy. The second
sitting of the sixteenth assembly ended on June 20, 1746.
The next meeting continued from October 9th to November
1 Morris papers , p . 311.
J Assembly Journal, June 12, 1746.
I32 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [132
1 st, when the assembly was dismissed upon their own de-
sire. In May, 1747, the legislature was called together to
provide for the support of government, to continue the
supply of the troops in Canada, and to consider the dis-
ordered condition of the colony on account of the anti-pro-
prietary outbreaks.1 The only business consummated, how-
ever, was to grant a further supply for the New Jersey
forces.
1 Assembly Journal, May 6, 1747.
CHAPTER V
Legislative History — The Belcher and Franklin
Administrations
The next governor, Jonathan Belcher, met the legislature
for a brief session on August 20, 1747. The assembly was
told, in the opening address, of the new royal appointee's
pleasure at coming to " this fine flourishing Province 'V
That the representatives would, in accordance with their
privilege and duty, grant a proper support to the govern-
ment, the optimistic Belcher had no reason to doubt. The
confusion into which the province had been thrown because
of the audacious attempts of seditious persons to subvert the
government was deplored. To combat against this spirit
was the evident duty of governor, council and assembly,
and having restored peace to the colony, future genera-
tions would rise up and call them blessed. A beautiful ideal,
but under the circumstances, difficult, if not impossible, of
attainment, was pictured to the lawmakers of colonial New
Jersey. The governor promised to make this session short,
if it so pleased the legislature.
Both houses returned " handsome " addresses to His
Excellency's speech. The council was heartily pleased with
favorable sentiments which augured so much for the wel-
fare of the people, and promised to strengthen Belcher's
hands to the utmost of their ability.2 The enthusiasm of
the assembly's response must have gladdened Belcher's}
1 eart. No detail of the governor's address remained unan-
*N. J. A., vol. vii, p. 19. 2 Ibid., p. 23.
133) 133
■,
I34 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [1^4
swered.1 Joy at his safe arrival was expressed and abundant
promises were made. The exuberance which led them to
state that it was " morally impossible " for the New Jersey
paper money to sink in value, was doubtless a result of the
general enthusiasm which led them into mistaken particu-
lars. A short session was declared to be eminently ac-
ceptable at this time, but not simply for the convenience of
the assembly members. With proper solicitude, such a
course was declared to be desirable in order that their hon-
ored governor might " have some time of Ease from the
Fatigues which so long a Voyage at Sea, and a Journey
from Perth Amboy to this Place, must occasion." The
legislature was in session at Burlington.
The session lasted but five days, and the only business
transacted aside from the preparation of congratulatory
addresses, was the appointment of a conference committee
by each house to consider ways and means for suppressing
the riots and disorders in the colony.2 This committee did
not meet until the November session of the legislature.
The sixth sitting of the sixteenth assembly began at Bur-
lington on November 17, 1747, and continued to February
18, 1748. The favorable opportunity for enacting many
measures opposed by Morris had at length come to the as-
sembly. Since December, 1743, the only laws that had been
passed, except the act to encourage the destruction of crows
and the naturalization act of 1744, had been in connection
with military affairs. Now, after the long and bitter con-
flicts with Morris, legislation was resumed, and the assem-
bly brought in all their favorite measures.
The governor addressed the legislature on November 19,
1747, bringing to their attention four important subjects.8
XN. J. A.y vol. vii, p. 25. r Ibid., vol. xv, p. 530.
* Ibid., vol. vii, p. 67.
r35] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY ^5
An expedition against Canada, sponsored by Shirley, had
been postponed, but the colony was expected by the king
to continue providing for the troops already in the Canadian
service, with the promise of an ultimate reimbursement by
Parliament. The perpetrators of the violent outrages aris-
ing from the land controversies should be punished. Some
counterfeit Jersey bills having been sent to the governor
by a Rhode Island magistrate, Belcher was confirmed in the
opinion that there existed a wicked combination of villains
engaged in forging Jersey money. This matter certainly
deserved a careful inquiry. The last recommendation was
that the officers of government should be paid without un-
reasonable delay.
It was not until January 7, 1748, and after the support
bill and other measures had passed the assembly, that the
lower house answered the governor's speech of the preced-
ing November.1 The support bill had been dutifully passed,
but the assembly regretted that the colony was in no condi-
tion to act as generously as their inclination tempted them
to do in connection with supplying the forces. The riotous
disturbances in the colony were under consideration, and
it was the assembly's opinion that unusual vigilance on the
part of the attorney general and other officers would be the
most suitable expedient against counterfeiting.
Relations between the council and assembly were strained
when the support act was under consideration. The coun-
cil's demand for certain vouchers in connection with sev-
eral accounts in the act started the trouble.2 On January 1,
1748, the assembly began the New Year by enunciating the
favorite doctrine of their absolute control of the public
money. With extreme frankness it was declared to be solely
the assembly's privilege to judge of the proper expenditures
in the public service.
lN. J. A., vol. xv, p. 574. * Ibid., p. 565.
136 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [136
The council claimed as their undoubted right the power
to propose, alter, or amend any money bill.1 This right was
especially theirs in the present case, where the question was
declared to be simply the application of money given to
the king by former laws of the colony. Letters from the
lords of trade were cited as evidence of the propriety and
legality of their contention. Anxious to restore the peace
of the province, the council decided to wait for a more
favorable season before exerting this right. Meanwhile,
this condescension on their part was not to be interpreted as
a precedent !
The governor objected to the support bill, because it did
not settle upon him a yearly salary as suggested by the
king.2 After the assembly refused to alter the act, how-
ever, it received Belcher's assent.
An expedition under General Shirley having been planned
against Crown Point, the governor sent a message to the
assembly, on January 19, 1748, urging that aid should be
given to the plan.3 To defend the colonies and to secure
the fidelity of the Six Nations were plans which the house
felt disposed to encourage. But this scheme of Shirley's
seemed new and extraordinary, and they could furnish the
governments concerned nothing more substantial than best
wishes for the success of the enterprise.
The conference committee upon ways and means to sup-
press the riots met after much difficulty and drew up a state-
ment of facts bearing upon the disorders. But only patient
persistence on the part of the council brought about the de-
sired conference. The assembly had displayed suspicious
aptitude for excusing the non-appearance of their committee,
and although the first meeting of the two committees in joint
XN. J. A., vol. xv, p. 635.
''Assembly Journal, Feb. 17, 1748. * Ibid., Jan. 19, 1748.
I37] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 137
session was fixed for November 30th, it was December 10th
before it was held.1 A direct result of the conference was a
resolution passed by both houses declaring it dangerous and
an infringement upon the privileges of the legislature for
any number of persons to assemble in a riotous manner in
order to lay petitions before either the council or assem-
bly.2 Each house entered into a separate resolution against
riotous petitioning. This action had been taken because a
mob at Trenton had threatened to proceed to Burlington to
lay grievances before the assembly.8
At this session also two acts were passed designed to
check the growing disorders. One was " an Act for the
suppressing and preventing of Riots, Tumults and other
Disorders ".4 Two earlier attempts, in May and August,
1747, had failed to secure the enactment of this measure.
The disorders had increased so alarmingly that no diffi-
culty in passing the bill was experienced at this session. It
received the governor's assent February 18, 1748. On the
same day Belcher assented to " an Act to pardon the per-
sons guilty of the Insurrections, Riots, Tumults and other
Disorders, raised and committed in this Province/' 8 This
act was of questionable utility, for very few of the disturbers
availed themselves of the royal pardon.
The legislature also passed a bill to punish coiners and
counterfeiters of foreign coins and of the provincial bills
of credit.0 It was disallowed by the royal authorities No-
vember 23, 1749.7
This had been a long but profitable session of the legisla-
ture. Nineteen acts were passed, among them some that
lN. J. A., vol. xv, pp. 539, 545, 553- %Ibid., p. 559-
5 Ibid., p. 551. * Ibid., p. 634.
*Allinson, op. cit., p. 171.
*N. J. A., vol. xv, p. 572. 7 Ibid., vol. vii, p. 305.
138 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [138
had been most stubbornly opposed by Morris, and had led
him to use harsh language freely against the representatives.
Besides those already mentioned, the act to prevent actions
under £15 in the Supreme Court, the act to oblige sheriffs
to give security for the discharge of their office and the act
to erect Cumberland County, were passed.
Three bills were enacted with suspending clauses. Al-
though Belcher recommended that favorable action be taken
upon all of them by the English officials, only one was al-
lowed, that regulating the fees to be taken in the colony.
The bill to emit £40,000 in bills of credit was disallowed,
and also the one for running the New York and New
Jersey boundary line. Opposition to the latter bill on the
part of New York led to its disallowance. The troublesome
boundary dispute between these two neighboring colonies
will be considered in detail in a subsequent chapter.
On February 18, 1748, Governor Belcher prorogued the
legislature.1 The council and assembly were congratulated
because of the unanimity that had characterized their delib-
erations and the success that had attended their efforts. The
governor too hoped that the rioters would avail themselves
of the lenity of the act of pardon.
It had become usual, although not without exception, for
elections to be held for a new assembly upon the accession
of a governor. This had not been done when Belcher began
his administration, and after the long session which ended
in February, 1748, sentiment in favor of a dissolution be-
came evident. On the other hand, an election was opposed
at this time, because of the disturbed condition of the
province.2 The latter view, which was held by the pro-
prietary interests, prevailed and two more sittings of the
sixteenth assembly were held.
XN. J. A.y vol. vii, p, 104. * Ibid., p. 122.
I39] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 139
Governor Belcher sent a message to the legislature on
July 7, 1748, the day it had convened at Burlington. The
business which was at this time recommended was the ap-
pointment of commissioners to represent the colony at an
Indian Conference at Albany.1 For this one purpose only
had the legislature been called together. New Jersey had
not heretofore united with other colonies in Indian confer-
ences, and the assembly, wishing the proposed conference
well, refrained from sending delegates.2
The last session of the sixteenth assembly was begun at
Burlington on October 21st. The governor's health, now
impaired by old age, did not allow of his meeting the legis-
lature at Perth Amboy, and the council had advised in favor
of Burlington. Exaggerated regard for prerogative led
several representatives to express the pronounced opinion
that the sittings should be held at Perth Amboy. In defer-
ence to this sentiment, the General Assembly was adjourned,
October 25th, to meet at Amboy on the tenth of the follow-
ing month.8
The governor had addressed the legislature upon the
opening day of the session at Burlington.* After reference
had been made to the reason for holding the session there,
the two important subjects mentioned were the support of
government and the continued nefarious operations of the
counterfeiters.
It was not until after the adjournment to Perth Amboy
that the assembly returned an answer to the opening speech.0
Their humble address presented on November 16th re-
ferred to the governor's willing accession to the request for
lN. J. A., vol. vii, p. 149.
* Assembly Journal, July 8, 1748.
*Z6id„ Oct. 25, 1748. * Ibid. Oct. 21, 1748.
%N. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 2.
I4o THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [140
an adjournment as demonstrative of his justice and upright-
ness. The promise to consider the financial necessities of
the province was made, but ambiguity and uncertainty
characterized their attitude toward counterfeiting. The
wicked practice was regretted, it was hoped that the coun-
terfeiters would be punished, but the house avoided men-
tioning any role which it might be expected to play. As
the last session was long, the assembly hoped that this one
would be short.
Both branches of the legislature applied themselves to the
consideration of the public business, but not to what had
been recommended by the governor. That was in large
part due to the unqualified rejection by the assembly of
amendments which the council had made to an act to enable
the legislature to settle the quotas as levied upon the coun-
ties.1 The lack of consideration which the legislature had
accorded his recommendations drew from Belcher a second
message.2 Counterfeiting and the support of government
claimed only a portion of the communication. The renewal
of land disturbances in Essex County led the governor to
earnestly plead for the institution of such effectual measures
as would restore order.
The proprietary influence of the council was engendering
the opposition of the popular tendencies of the lower house.
The tide of popular feeling against the proprietors was so
intense at this time that it was inevitably reflected in the
representative branch of the General Assembly. It was of
course not a mere accidental coincidence that the coiners
of false money plied their trade most industriously when
the land troubles were most pronounced. Consequently the
attitude of the assembly toward both counterfeiting and
rioting was the same. The lower house professed mistrust
*N. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 24. ' Ibid., p. 25.
I4l] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 141
of many officials who executed the laws, who were to bring
offenders under the law to justice. Not only to be con-
sistent, but also as an added opportunity to evince opposi-
tion to distasteful office-holders, the office-holders and not
the laws were declared to be at fault.
Under the circumstances a conflict between the two houses
was inevitable. The council's address to the governor
stated that instead of any laxity on their part as regarded
the counterfeiters, a council committee had vigorously in-
vestigated the subject, and new laws would be proposed.1
Upon this subject, the assembly regarded the proper execu-
tion of the existing laws a sufficient obstruction to all of-
fenders.2 Quite naturally no legislation against counter-
feiting was enacted at this session.
The land riots, however, provoked the most serious divi-
sion in the legislature. To secure proper remedies upon this
head was not only a part of the council's public duty, but in
addition was a concern in which the majority was person-
ally interested. The governor was asked by the council not
to end the session until adequate remedies had been pro-
posed.8 Existing laws against the rioters should be more
properly executed, repeated the assembly.4 If a proper
test proved their inefficiency, additional laws would be con-
sidered at the next session.
Reflections against some of the officers of government
were discovered by the council in the reply of the assembly
to the governor's address.5 The council declared that the
disorders in several counties prevented the administration
of justice. Authority should be given to the governor to
issue commissions, whenever necessary, for holding trials
outside of the counties in which crimes were committed.
1 N. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 37. *Ibid., p. 41.
5 Ibid., p. 38. * Ibid., p. 43. 6 Ibid., p. 47.
142 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [142
The legislature should supply funds for maintaining troops
to strengthen the government.
The assembly would join in no legislation, but declared
the assumption of the council to direct the methods of rais-
ing money an infringement upon the rights of the lower
house.1 Accusing the representatives of neglecting their
duty, the council resolved to lay the condition of the colony
before the king.2 Several curt resolves were then sent to
the assembly in answer to their blunt refusal to join in any
measures with the council.
The same day, December 16th, Belcher assented to six
acts and prorogued the legislature to meet at Burlington
on February 16, 1749.3
An unusual and novel incident happened immediately
after the governor had prorogued the council. That body
offered to give the chief executive advice, but received the
unexpected reply that advice would be asked for when
wanted.4 A communication was sent to the governor on
December 22, 1748, however, containing the advice which
the council had been so brusquely prevented from offering.5
The avowed disagreement between the governor and his
council at this time had more an apparent than a real in-
fluence. Belcher had consistently maintained an impartial
attitude in the land difficulties and continued to believe that
the troublesome question could be decided without an appeal
to the home officials. It was this optimism which, if per-
haps misdirected, was none the less sincere, that led to the
dissolution of the sixteenth assembly. The new assembly,
though changed somewhat in personnel, exemplified the
same spirit as the preceding house.6 The first session of the
XN. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 64. 2Ibid., p. 65. * Ibid., p. 68.
4 Ibid., vol. vii, p. 183. 6 Ibid., p, 185.
•There were seven new members.
I43] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 143
seventeenth assembly began at Burlington, February 20,
1749.
Governor Belchers address repeated his sentiments upon
the distressed condition of the colony.1 To his message,
the assembly replied that the choice of representatives to
this assembly demonstrated the satisfaction of the people
with what had formerly been done.2 Confidence was ex-
pressed that the governor, having no private claims in the
colony, would not be induced to deviate from the impartiality
heretofore shown in his administration.
The assembly during the session advocated extending a
second offer of pardon to repenting evil-doers, but punish-
ments, not pardons, were what the council planned for the
rioters, and a conference with the assembly was refused.3
Belcher's faith in a satisfactory adjustment of the dispute
by the legislature was shattered; his patience was over-
come. On March 28th the legislature was prorogued, and
the governor later asked for special orders from the king,
because the assembly refused to raise money to protect the
jails.4
At this session the dispute over the quotas act was con-
tinued. The contention in respect to this measure involved
the question of the taxation of unprofitable lands. Accord-
ing to the bill, " the whole of all profitable tracts of Land,
held by Patent Deed or Survey whereon any improvement is
made " was made taxable.5 The council refused to pass the
bill unless the declaration was clearly made that nothing
in the act was intended to conflict with the royal instruction
that no unprofitable lands should be taxed. This was a vital
concern to the councillors, most of whom were large pro-
prietary landholders.
1 Assembly Journal, Feb. 21, 1749.
J /did., Feb. 25, 1749. s Ibid., Mar. 21, 23, 1749.
4N. J. A., vol. vii, p. 249. 6 Ibid., vol. xvi, p. 135.
i44 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [I44
Having been sent to the council, after it had passed the
assembly, the bill was amended to coincide with the opinion
of the councillors, and returned to the lower house. That
the objectionable portion of the measure did not conflict
with the governor's instructions was strongly maintained
by the assembly. Even so the governor might be left to
judge as to the worth of the bill, and no alteration which
so nearly affected the precious privileges of the people could
be tolerated. The lower house refused to so much as confer
with the council upon the subject.
It was specious arguing which urged that the governor
should be the proper judge when the houses disagreed upon
a measure, and a course of conduct to which the assembly
would have been the last to subscribe as a fixed principle.
The object in view, however, to shoulder the council with
the responsibility for the continued failure of the act, was
easily accomplished. Facetious in the extreme was the as-
sumption that when the governor and council were at odds,
the latter would submit such an important measure solely
to the judgment of the former. The words in the act to
which the council objected do not appear to conflict with the
royal instruction. Had the assembly been entirely sincere,
the council amendment in itself could not have been ob-
jectionable, for it would not have altered the meaning of
the act, unless it were repugnant to the royal instruction.
The real object the lower house had in view was to prevent
the council from amending the bill.
On September 25, 1749, the council and assembly met at
Perth Amboy for the second session of the seventeenth as-
sembly. Samuel Nevill was re-elected speaker. The gov-
ernor's address was delivered three days after the opening
of the session.
Although he had represented the condition of the province
to King George, Governor Belcher hoped the assembly
I45] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 145
might yet take action that they might not suffer severely
for their misconduct.1 An empty treasury, no support hav-
ing been granted at the previous sitting, testified to the
financial needs of the government. Harmony was recom-
mended, that the session might be brief. With the consid-
eration of the quotas act and the support bill, harmony van-
ished. An attempt to pass the former measure was a repe-
tition of the quarrel of the last session. The council
amended the act as before; the assembly refused a confer-
ence, and each house accused the other of obstructing the
desired legislation.2
The council's efforts to amend the bill for the support of
government also resulted disastrously. But more than the
control of the purse was involved in this particular sup-
port act. According to the council, provision not only for
the payment of the colonial agent in England, but for his
appointment also, was made in this bill.3 As long as the
assembly denied the right of the council to amend a money
bill, the council's assent to this particular support act would
have carried with it the implication that the lower house
had the sole right to nominate the colonial agent. There-
fore the council amended the bill, so as to overcome the ob-
jectionable portions. The amended bill was rejected by
the assembly, and the governor was notified that if the gov-
ernment could be supported only by the sacrifice of the peo-
ple's privileges, the support would not be granted.4 And it
was not granted.
An interesting reminder of Governor Morris's admin-
istration was last considered at this session. The quarrels
near the end of his administration had left the government
unsupported from September 23, 1744, to his death in 1746.
lN. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 157. 2 /did., p. 185 et seq.
1 /did., p. 196. * /bid., p. 205.
I46 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [146
His widow petitioned the New Jersey assembly, in 1747,
for the salary arrears of the former governor and for the
money that had been expended for house rent during that
period.1 The house rent was allowed, but the salary was
refused by a vote of 20 to 2.2
The Morris executors having petitioned the lords of
trade to act in their favor, Belcher was ordered to require
of the assembly the payment of the arrears.3 In a message
of October 5, 1749, the governor recommended the subject
to the consideration of the representatives. On October
17th the assembly answered the governor's message.4 Their
reply was a review of the grievances which they had come
to cherish against their departed governor. His abuse of
the powers of government was boldly proclaimed. It was
claimed that none in the colony, save those personally inter-
ested, favored considering this a just debt. By a vote of
19 to 1 the house resolved that no just debt was due to
Morris.5
The council was convinced that no further application on
the part of the governor would alter the decision of the
house, and advised him accordingly.6 Belcher wrote to
the lords of trade of the refusal of the assembly.7 The repre-
sentatives themselves sent a memorial to the lords stating
that the governor lost his salary only because of his ob-
stinacy in not accepting it as the assembly chose to grant
it.8 Although the lords of trade thought this conduct was
1 Assembly Journal, Nov. 30, 1787.
2 Assembly Journal, Dec. 17, 1747. The negative votes were cast to
Nevill and Kearney.
% N. J. A., vol. vii, p. 173. *Ibid., p. 335.
5 Assembly Journal, Oct. 4, 1749. Dr. Johnston voted negatively.
<N. J. A., vol. vii, p. 343. ''Ibid., p. 363.
8 Assembly Journal, Oct. 11, 1749.
I47] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 147
" indecent and disrespectfull to His Majesty," with which
sentiments Belcher felt called upon to agree, the assembly
never paid the bill.1 The last that is heard of the affair is
Chief Justice Morris's petition to the lords of trade, in
May, 1750. to grant relief for the unpaid arrears.2
The assembly had requested a dismissal at the same time
that the governor had been apprized of the failure of the
support act. On October 20th the legislature was prorogued
to meet at Burlington on the last day of the next month.
It was the thirteenth of the following February, how-
ever, before the legislature was again convened. The gov-
ernor's brief message deplored the strife and contention of
the last session, urged that the legislature join with the gov-
ernor to suppress the tumults, and reminded them " that the
Body Politic can no more subsist without Proper Provision
for its Support, than the Body Natural can live without
what is necessary to continue it in being ".8
Whatever strife and contention there had been in the
previous session resulted, so the assembly told the governor
on February 22d, from the attempts of the council to in-
fringe upon the liberties of the lower house.4 As the cases
of several rioters were under prosecution, the assembly was
not disposed to take any action in connection with the land
troubles. The persistence of the council in clinging to the
false supposition that they could alter a money bill ac-
counted for the starvation of the body politic, was the retort
of the representatives to the governor.
Nor was the empty treasury replenished at this time.
For the fifth successive session a bill to settle the quotas
was passed by the house, and amended by the council, only
1 Belcher Papers, Feb. 1, 1750.
1 N. J. A., vol. vii, p. 401. * /did., vol. xvi, p. 210.
4 Ibid., p. 215.
I48 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [148
to be rejected by the house. The assembly was effectually
discouraged from attempting any further legislation and
asked for an adjournment. Regretting the necessity of such
a course, Belcher adjourned the legislature on February
27th.1
A short but unsuccessful session was held at Perth
Amboy from September 20 to October 8, 1750. Belcher's
speech on the 24th of September had repeated the plea for
the support of government.2 The dutiful assembly was
aware of the evil consequences of an unsupported govern-
ment, but had repeatedly tried to fill the treasury. a They
promised to try again, but met with no better success. The
only act passed at this session was for the purpose of natur-
alizing five persons.4
The case of five Burlington county justices was an added
irritant at this time.5 Robert Smith, Joseph Scattergood,
Revell Elton, Thomas Shinn and Nathaniel Thomas had
raised money without the authority of a majority of the
proper freeholders. Elton, Thomas and Shinn, when ex-
amined by the lower house, promised to reform, paid their
fees, and were dismissed. Smith and Scattergood did not
satisfy the assembly as to their future conduct and the gov-
ernor was asked to remove them. The two unbending
justices, having even refused to pay the fees to the assem-
bly for having been summoned, were entrusted to the cus-
tody of the sergeant-at-arms.6
The governor asked the council for advice regarding the
removal of Smith and Scattergood. On March 1, 1750,
the upper house declared that the assembly had assumed un-
1 Assembly Journal, Feb. 27, 1750. % Ibid-., Sept. 24, 1750.
* Ibid., Oct. 3, 1750.
4Allinson, op. cit., p. 189. bN. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 221.
6 Assembly Journal, Feb. 26, 1750.
I49] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY I49
warrantable authority in censuring, imprisoning and tax-
ing the justices.1 The representatives were accused of at-
tempting to seize power which was lodged in the hands of
the governor, council and assembly. To continue the jus-
tices in office was the advice given to the governor, who
acted accordingly.
This decision was announced to the assembly in a mes-
sage on October 8, 1750.2 The only reason given by the
governor for not removing them was that a royal order
prevented the removal of a justice without the consent of
the council. It might be implied, from the wording of the
message, that Belcher would not have continued Smith and
Scattergood in office, had it been prudent to ignore the ad-
vice of the council. To encourage such an implication might
have been intentional, as it would certainly lessen any pos-
sible odium which the nature of the ruling itself might
have brought to the governor. It is not evident what
Belcher's personal attitude toward these justices was.
The fifth and last session of the seventeenth assembly
convened at Burlington on January 24th. The tardy ar-
rival of the councillors delayed the opening speech of the
governor until January 29th.8 Prudent measures for over-
coming the recent obstacles to the support of government
were advised. The king wished a map of the province,
which the governor believed should be promptly prepared
and sent to England. Clinton's request that New Jersey
should become a party to an Indian conference at Albany
in June, 1751, was seconded by Belcher, who volunteered
to act as a commissioner.
Before the session was far spent the assembly obtained
1 N. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 237.
7 Assembly Journal, Oct. 8, 1750.
*N. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 240.
I5o THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [150
a favorable opportunity to attack the council by opposing a
sheriff befriended by the upper house. Complaints of alleged
maltreatment were made by Joseph Bonney against John
Riddle, sheriff of Somerset County. The assembly directed
their attack against councillor Leonard in particular, who
was accused of having qualified the sheriff before proper
oaths were taken and without the payment of proper sure-
ties.1 The assembly passed grave resolutions against such
irregularities, and petitioned the governor for redress.
Leonard, however, denied all the allegations made against
him. The council refused to censure a fellow-member by
advising the removal of Sheriff Riddle, and Belcher notified
the house that the officer could not be deprived of his
office.2
The session was occupied chiefly with the dispute over
the quotas act, which developed even more acumen and
temper than had been formerly displayed. The councillors
attempted to pose as the champions of the poor against the
rich, a rather anomalous attitude.3 They feared that the as-
sembly proposed to tax the poor who lived on poor lands,
as much as the rich who lived on good lands. Such rank
injustice could not be tolerated by the council! It is safe
to assume that it certainly would not have been suggested,
much less supported, by the assembly. To the lower house,
the opposition to the quotas act was due less to the philan-
thropic solicitude of the councillors for the poor, than to
the exemption of their large estates from taxation.4
Long messages and ponderous resolves passed between
the houses, but neither party could bring conviction to the
mind of the other.5 Meanwhile the assembly had addressed
the governor, on February 15th, to the effect that, as iong as
1 Assembly Journal, Feb. 9, 1751. *Ibid., Feb. 22, 1751.
• N. J. A.,vo\. xvi, p. 252. 4 Ibid., p. 254. &Zbid.,p. 261, et seg.
I5I] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 151
the council continued to amend the act for settling the
quotas, the government would continue without support.1
Notwithstanding Belcher's appeal that the assembly recede
somewhat from its position for the sake of the welfare of
the province, his listeners were obdurate.2
Friendly communications between the council and assem-
bly were broken off, and the legislature was prorogued on
February 22, 1751. Only one bill had been passed, the act
to regulate the militia. Three days later Belcher issued a
proclamation dissolving the General Assembly.3 The ne-
glect to support the government and the open avowal on the
part of the assembly that communication with the council
had ended, made a new choice of representatives necessary.
It was hoped, said the governor, that the new representa-
tives would act dutifully and prudently in order to avert
any possible resentment from the king for the non-support
of his government in New Jersey.
The dissolution and prospective election was a matter of
more than local or ordinary interest. Brief pamphlets for
and against the conduct of the assembly in the recent ses-
sion were published in the New York and Philadelphia
weeklies.4 Novel, at least, was one in the form of a dia-
logue between " Freeman ", a representative of twenty years
continuous service in the New Jersey assembly, and " Love-
truth ", one of his constituents. The former furnished
" Lovetruth " with what was declared to be an unprejudiced
and impartial account of the dispute in the legislature. It
is reasonable to suppose that the publicity given in this way
to many facts, otherwise less generally known, aided in se-
curing the salutary results of the next session. The elec-
tion resulted in the return of eleven new members to the
assembly.
1 N. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 259. ' Ibid., p. 283.
• /bid., vol. xix, p. 30. * Ibid., vol. xix, pp. 13, 34, 50.
1 52 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [i$2
On May 20, 1751, the legislature met at Perth Amboy.
Charles Read, one of the new delegates from the city of
Burlington and secretary of the province, was elected
speaker. The session was brief, continuing only to June
7th, but the quotas act was passed and the government was
at length supported.
The governor's speech was brief, asking simply for sup-
port and suggesting the wisdom of following the practise
of the House of Commons, by first voting the money for
the officers of government and the payment of public debts,
and then considering the ways and means for raising the
funds.1 Having passed the support bill, the assembly inti-
mated to the governor that he could follow no better ex-
ample than that of the king in redressing grievances, and
would be glad if Belcher thought his power not so limited
but that he might remove a justice without the consent of
the council. The complaint of the assembly against the gov-
ernor because of a too restrictive interpretation of his powers
was unique indeed.
The much-discussed bill for settling the quotas was passed
as the result of a compromise. In the seven former attempts
to pass this measure the council had fought for a tax
levied upon the quality of the land, the assembly for a tax
levied upon the quantity of the land held by any person.
The bill that passed at this session contained a declaratory
clause that the intent was to tax " Lands hereafter accord-
ing to value in Quantity and Quality between limited sums
to be hereafter fixed, and that all land Purchased from a
larger .Survey or Patent, shall be Esteemed a Separate Tract,
which being the proper business of a Taxation Bill, was not
Explained by either of the said Seven Bills." 2
Following the passage of the act to settle the quotas no
1 N. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 291. ■ Ibid., p. 309.
153] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY ^3
difficulty was experienced with the support bill. Belcher
enthusiastically wrote to Bedford that the new assembly was
fine, settled two points contested for two years, and he be-
lieved it presaged the recovery of peace and order in the
province.1
Unfortunately the governor's visions of peace and plenty
did not materialize. The act of the preceding session had
enabled the legislature to settle the quotas of the several
counties, in order that taxes might be levied, but the first
actual levy of taxes according to the revised schedule of
quotas had yet to be made. Attention to this business was
recommended to the assembly by the governor in his opening
speech at the session in September, 1751.2
By September 25th the lists of the taxable estates of the
counties had been received by the assembly, so that the sup-
port of government and levying the proper quotas upon the
counties could be taken into consideration.8 One bill for
both purposes was passed by the lower house and sent to
the council. The act was amended by the council, chiefly
because that house believed its preamble effectually invali-
dated the declaratory clause added to the quotas bill of the
last session.4 The assembly refused to allow the council
to alter the bill and would not agree to a conference. The
fact that the bill would have supported the government for
the unusual term of five years leads one to believe either
that the assembly had slight hope of its enactment into law,
or were willing to risk its passage in return for undoubted
benefits to be obtained.
The claim was now set up by the lower house to the right
to deliver all support bills to the governor in person, in-
lN. J. A., vol. vii, p. 598. 2 Ibid., vol. xvi, p. 310.
8 Assembly Journal, Sept. 25, 1751.
*N. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 342.
I54 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [I54
stead of sending them to the council, as had been the custom.1
Certain precedents from the minutes of the House of Com-
mons and the legislature of New Jersey purporting to sub-
stantiate this claim were given. The advantage of this plan
was to give the governor an opportunity to peruse the sup-
port bills, in cases where the council had refused to pass
them. The governor, failing to be convinced of the value
of the plan, refused to become a partner to the scheme.
The support act was not passed, but some general legis-
lation for the welfare of the colony received the governor's
assent. The assembly was prorogued on October 23, 1751.
The session which began at Perth Amboy on January 25,
1752, allowed the legislature another opportunity to fill the
treasury. Such a course was recommended by the gov-
ernor, who hoped that the council and assembly would
" become perfect Strangers, to any animosities, or Differ-
ences ".2 Inasmuch as the council did not attempt to amend
the bill, no difficulty arose. The question of the propriety
of sending the support act directly to the governor was re-
vived at this sitting, but by a vote of 13 to 5 it was resolved
to adhere to the usual practice of sending it to the council.
This was evidently a setback for the ardent spirits who were
too prone to antagonize the council.
At this session Joseph Bonney petitioned again for re-
dress against Sheriff Riddle, claiming that the latter held
his office illegally, in consequence of which his acts were
void.3 In response to a similar complaint during the pre-
vious session Governor Belcher had urged that a joint com-
mittee of the two houses consider this case, which had been
1 Assembly Journal, Oct. 22, 1751.
*N. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 353.
* Assembly Journal, Jan. 30, 1752.
IS5] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 155
pending so long.1 An act for Bonney's relief had at that time
been passed by the lower house, but failed to become a law,
because the council amendments thereto were rejected.2
The governor's attitude, in October, 1751, was favorable to
Bonney, but in February, 1752, he refused to order the
prosecution of the Somerset County officials, said to have
been responsible for Bonney's distress.3 The unfortunate
debtor continued to petition the assembly for relief as late
as the summer of 1755, but his efforts seem to have been
unavailing.
The next sitting was occasioned by an additional instruc-
tion which His Majesty had sent the governor requiring a
revised edition of the provincial laws to be sent to Eng-
land.4 In addition, the message of December 18, 1752,
mentioned that the support had expired and that " the Ris-
ing of a Seditious Pack of Villains ", who broke open the
Perth Amboy jail the previous April pointed clearly to the
need of legislation to protect the jails. Belcher, upon the
advice of his physician as well as that of the council, had
called this session to meet at Elizabethtown. However
much such a course might have conformed to the royal in-
structions, the assembly did not regard it as necessary at this
time and refused to proceed to business.6 The governor
was told, however, that as the laws had just been collected
at great expense,6 a circumstance of which the king could
not have been aware when the additional instruction was
issued, New Jersey should not be under the necessity of re-
vising her laws. The house members were horrified at the
breaking of the Amboy jail, but as the rescued prisoner,
1 Assembly Journal, May 5, 1752. * Ibid., Oct. 4, 1752.
• Ibid., Feb. 7, 1752. *N. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 391. *Ibid., p. 394.
•Nevill, Acts of the General Assembly, printed in 1752, were re-
ferred to.
1 56 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [156
Simon Wickoff, had voluntarily returned, the need for new
laws was obviated ! The wisdom of such reasoning is open
to question.
The governor prorogued the assembly on December 22d,
when he replied to the message of the lower house.1 The
farcical character of the assembly position regarding the
Wickoff rescue and the need for safer jails did not pass un-
noticed. Belcher professed surprise at the refusal to pro-
ceed to business at Elizabethtown, and submitted the royal
instruction upon the subject to the assembly. He hoped he
could meet the legislature at the regular meeting-place in
the spring.
The fifth sitting of the eighteenth assembly began at Bur-
lington on May 16, 1753. Owing to the tardy arrival of the
councillors, the Opening speech to the legislature was not
delivered until a week later.2 Except to advise an inquiry
into the state of the paper money, the recommendations
made at Elizabethtown were repeated. The opinion of the
assembly had not changed regarding the revisal of the laws,
or the steps necessary to lessen the violence in the colony.8
A support act was passed.
The inquiry into the condition of the paper money was
the most important question considered at this session.
Responding to the governor's suggestion, a committee, con-
sisting of Wood, Learning, and Spicer, prepared an elab-
orate and able report upon the bills of credit. As a result
of this report, a summary of which is given in a later chap-
ter, it was resolved to petition the crown for permission to
emit additional paper currency. The council refused to join
in an address to the king for the purpose, but this did not
deter the other house.4 It was necessary to postpone further
lN. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 396. * Assembly Journal, May 23, 1753.
*N. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 412. 4/6id., p. 407.
I57] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1 57
action upon the subject of paper money until the fate of the
petition should be known.
Another attempt to force the removal of a sheriff was
made by the assembly at this time. It was claimed that
Enoch Anderson's appointment as sheriff of Hunterdon
County was a grievance, because he had not been a resident
of that county for three years.1 Declaring that to ex-
pound the law was a duty of the judges, and not of a single
branch of the government, Belcher refused to take any
action. The governor's reply was pronounced unsatis--
factory, and the assembly promised to answer it properly at
the next sitting.2 During the interval Anderson having
been removed, the assemblymen soothed their ruffled feel-
ings by the mere declaration of their right to inquire into
and complain of a breach of the law, if not to expound the
law.3
There were eleven bills passed at this session, among
them, besides the support act, acts to regulate the militia,
to erect Sussex County, to redeem the outstanding bills of
credit made current for the Third Intercolonial War, and
to continue the act to prevent actions under £15 being
brought into the Supreme Court.4 The session was pro-
rogued on June 8th.
The encroachments of the French became so bold in 1754
that the colonies most concerned sought to protect them-
selves and called upon their neighbors. To maintain the
fidelity of the Six Nations was of great importance to the
English interest. The famous Albany Conference of 1754
was planned, and New Jersey with the other colonies was
urged to send delegates. The receipt of several important
messages upon this head convinced Belcher of the necessity
1 Assembly Journal, June 6, 1753. * Ibid., June 8, 1753.
s Ibid., June 12, 1753. 4Allinson, op. cit., p. 193.
158 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [158
of calling the legislature. His ill health required the meet-
ing to be held at Elizabethtown, in April, 1754. The coun-
cil and assembly were asked to assist the other colonies in
the important crisis, and to consider whatever else the public
needs demanded.1
The assembly was still unwilling to transact business
away from the accustomed places, and sent a committee of
two members to ask the governor to be dismissed to Amboy,
when he could meet the legislature there. Such messages
were usually sent through the council, so that Belcher cen-
sured the house for their present method of address, de-
claring it unprecedented and disrespectful.2 He intimated
a lack of tenderness and compassion in their unwillingness
to continue the session at Elizabethtown. Despite his ap-
parent displeasure the assembly was prorogued to Perth
Amboy, where it met on June 3, 1754. With more intem-
perate language than had ever before been used by New
Jersey assemblies to Belcher, the lower house protested
against being considered guilty of disrespect and ingrati-
tude.3 The support bill was passed, but no provision was
made for sending commissioners to Albany or aiding the
forces in Virginia. As a result, Belcher regarded it as nec-
essary to dissolve the eighteenth assembly.4 The dissolu-
tion was ordered on June 21, 1754.
A cheerful activity in providing men and money against
the French was the main subject recommended to the legis-
lature by Belcher, on October 1, 1754.5 The election had
resulted in the return of less than half of the old members.
Robert Lawrence was chosen speaker. This assembly re-
solved by a vote of 20 to 2 to grant aid to the king against
XN. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 455.
* Assembly Journal, April 29, 1754.
*N. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 462. 4 Ibid., p. 474. 6 Ibid., p. 487.
159] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 159
the French.1 £10,000 of a £70,000 paper money emission,
for which the house would petition was to to be set aside for
th^s purpose.2 The governor had received authority to as-
sent to a bill emitting paper money, provided a suspending
clause was added. The legislature drafted a £70,000 act,
ignoring the legal tender condition, however, and petitioned
the king for the royal assent. This was ineffectual and the
bill was disallowed.8 Thus the king's service did not re-
ceive the benefit of the seventh part of the expected emission.
The business of the second session of the nineteenth as-
sembly, which continued at Elizabethtown from February
24th to March 3d, was chiefly regarding military affairs.
Only the governor's health and the necessity of the busi-
ness justified the assembly in altering the custom of alter-
nate sittings.4 Two acts were passed at the session, to pre-
vent the exportation of provisions to the enemy, and to pro-
vide for the British regulars during their march through
the colony.5 At the last session the governor had strongly
recommended the revision of the militia act, especially in
respect to the number of musters. The assembly at that
time regarded it as sufficient, but Belcher repeated the
recommendation and elaborated his views at this session.8
Consideration was again given to the militia bill, but the
assembly contined to believe that its provisions answered
the design intended by it.7
The vigor with which the Fourth Intercolonial War now
began to be prosecuted necessitated frequent meetings of the
1 Assembly Journal, Oct. 8, 1754. The negative votes were cast by
Learning and Spicer.
*Ibid., Oct. 11, 1754.
*N. J. A., vol. viii, pt. ii, p. 101.
* Assembly Journal, Feb. 24, 1755. 'Allinson, op. tit., p. 203.
t N. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 517. T Ibid., p. 524.
l6o THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [160
legislature. From this time until Belcher's death all the
sessions were held at Dlizabethtown, fifteen consecutive ses-
sions being held at that place, because of the feeble condi-
tion of the governor's health. The legislature was called
together in April, 1755, to raise men and money for the
summer campaign of that year.1
After the defeat of Braddock, the assembly was called,
in August, 1755, to increase the New Jersey quota of troops
and amend the militia law.2 Both of the recommendations
were rejected, the vote on the latter being 18 to 2.3 It was
the rejection of their petition to have the bills of credit upon
their own terms that was guiding the attitude of the lower
house in the war.4 The original quota of 500 troops was
maintained, but beyond this the assembly refused to go.
" We must be well Assured," said the assembly to the gov-
ernor, on November 14, 1755, in response to his appeal
for the defence of themselves and their neighbors, " the
Occasion must be very Extraordinary to induce a Province,
already loaded as this is, to add anything further ".5 And
in December, 1755, the assembly made provision for the
defence of the frontiers, but again asked to< be excused from
augmenting the New Jersey forces outside of the colony.6
There was a slight change in the attitude of the assembly
at the brief session in March, 1756. The legislature agreed
to act in conjunction with New York and Pennsylvania
against the Indians, pledging to support one-fifth of the
troops raised for this purpose.7
The houses were summoned again in May of that year,
x Assembly Journal, April, 1755.
* N. J. A., vol. viii, pt. ii, p. 128.
5 Assembly Journal, Aug. 12, 1755.
*N. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 543. ''Ibid., p. 562.
8 Assembly Journal, Dec. 23, 1755. 7 Ibid., Mar. 10, 1756.
f6l] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY l6i
and convened at Elizabethtown from May 20th to June 2d.
During this short period much business was transacted.
Emergency legislation in connection with the war was first
passed, after which a vote was taken as to the propriety of
entering upon the general public business there, or ofl
requesting an adjournment to Perth Amboy. By a margin
of one vote, it was decided to continue the sitting at Eliza-
bethtown. The government was supported for one year, and
several acts of the colony which would expire by their own
limitation at the end of this session were continued.1 The
unanimity and dispatch with which the public business had
been transacted resulted in an eminently profitable session.
A five day session was held in July and a three day session
in October, 1756, at neither of which were any laws passed.
The frequent sittings of the legislature prompted the as-
sembly to ask the governor to put them under the necessity
of making the journey to Elizabethtown as infrequently
as possible. The insinuation that he was inconveniencing
the legislators unnecessarily brought a mild rebuke from
Belcher.2 The October meeting had been called to enable
the legislature to grant Lord Loudoun's request for a regi-
ment from New Jersey.8 That time might be given to con-
sider the matter, a recess was allowed until December 23d.
The assembly refused to raise the troops until Loudoun's ex-
act plan was prepared and made known to the legislature.*
One thousand men was the quota which Loudoun wished
from New Jersey. Half of this number was what the as-
sembly resolved, on March 16, 1757, to raise, and despite
the entreaties of the governor, and the personal appeal of
the commander himself, it remained fixed in that determina-
-1 Allinson, op. cit., p. 210. * Assembly Journal, July 24, 1756.
* N. J. A.% vol. xvii, p. 62.
* Assembly Journal, Dec. 23, 1756.
162 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [^2
tion.1 The oposite point of view was consistently main-
tained by Belcher, who continually criticized the assembly
for needlessly limiting their endeavors. His opposition was
not so assertive as to antagonze the legislature, conduct
which was in accord with his general policy in New Jersey.
The house would regularly complain at being the recipients
of the governor's disapprobation only, and then proceed to
grant the usual supply, regardless of the urgent requests
for augmentation.
Paper money was still the obstacle. Provision for the
supply of the troops and necessaries was made by the emis-
sion of bills of credit in accordance with the act of the reign
of Anne. The governor could assent to no emission which
was not to be redeemed within five years from the date
within which the bills of the last preceding emission were re-
deemable. When compliance had not been fully made with
the quotas demanded, the assembly would protest that more
would have been done, had the time for the redemption of
the necessary money been extended.2 That strict obedience
to the royal orders forbade the extension beyond the five-
year limit, was the response of the governor. This per-
sistent disagreement, because of the desire of the people to
push the reckoning day for the expenses of the war as far
from themselves as possible, caused the friction in the gov-
ernment.
During this period practically no general legislation Avas
enacted, except the support act, which was regularly passed.
The war so completely absorbed the attention of the people
that other matters were postponed. Governor Belcher died
on August 31, 1757, while the fifteenth session of the nine-
teenth assembly was in progress. The administration there-
1 Assembly Journal, Mar. 16, 30, 1757.
■ Ibid., June 2, 1757.
16$] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 163
upon devolved upon John Reading. During the last few
years of Belcher's administration the sessions had been so
frequent that difficulty was often experienced in obtaining
a quorum. In March, 1757, upon one day, Wetherill and
Holmes were expelled, and Paxson, Clement and Hancock
were reprimanded for absenting themselves without leave.1
This difficulty was doubtless aggravated because of the ap-
parent feeling that the governor, cognizant of the deter-
mined opinion of the assembly, nevertheless repeatedly sum-
moned the legislature chiefly for the purpose of increasing
the forces.
After Belcher's death the assembly, upon advice of the
council, adjourned from day to day until the acting gov-
ernor was sworn into office. The lower house grew im-
patient under the delay occasioned by the refusal of Reading
to accept the office.2 This may not have been unwarranted,
for the president did not take the oaths until September
13th, following which the legislature was adjourned.
Two sessions were held during Reading's incumbency in
office. Feeble in health, the president was inclined to ad-
journ the session to Trenton, but the assembly strenuously
opposed such a course, determined to suspend no longer
the treasured privilege of holding alternate sessions at the
proper places.8 With few exceptions the acts passed per-
tained to the conduct of the war. A more energetic and com-
prehensive prosecution of the war in the colonies followed
the elder Pitt's accession to power in England and the New
Jersey assembly in April, 1758, doubled the usual number
of volunteers, augmenting its regiment to one thousand ef-
fective men.* This incitement to duty did not pass un-
1 Assembly Journal, Mar. 31, 1757.
*/6td., Sept. 7, 1757. tIbid.i Oct. 18, 1757.
4Allinson, op. cit., p. 216.
T64 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [164
noticed, however, in their message to the executive on April
17, I758.1
It had been evident that from the beginning of the Fourth
Intercolonial War the interests and activities of the people
of New Jersey, as with the other colonies also, were neces-
sarily transferred beyond the confines of the province. To
engage in offensive warfare against the French or to guard
the provincial frontiers from the depredations of the In-
dians required the sustained effort of the colony. Except
for a momentary interval after the close of the French war,
conditions continued to be such that the old causes of strife
between governor and assembly, or council and assembly,
disappeared. Details of the rapid eddy of events induced by
the broadened field of activity and interest are to be con-
sidered in subsequent chapters. The domestic concerns of
the colony caused little difficulty in legislation, but for the
sake of completeness, a survey should be given.
Francis Bernard, the new royal governor, met the legis-
lature for the first time at Burlington, on July 25, 1758.
The usual congratulatory addresses were exchanged, and
as the assembly had already found " Opportunity to form
Rational Prepossessions " in his favor, the governor was
voted £500 to defray his expenses in coming to this grateful
people.2 The new governor appeared to be especially in-
terested in frontier and Indian affairs. {lis services at the
Easton Conference in October, 1758, were of value to the
colony. During the first session of the legislature in his ad-
ministration the act empowering the purchase of the Indian
claims to land was passed.8
Only two other sessions of the legislature were held dur-
ing his administration. The general public business was
1 N. J. A., vol. xvii, p. 175. * Ibid., vol. xvii, p. 181.
' Allinson, op. cit., p. 221.
^5] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 165
transacted with unusual rapidity at the sitting from the
eighth to the seventeenth of March, 1759. There was a
slight disagreement, however, regarding the selection of a
speaker.1 As Lawrence was indisposed, the governor
recommended the election of a temporary speaker to act
until Lawrence returned. The house disagreed and elected
Samuel Nevill, as the regular speaker. In finally consenting
to this choice, Bernard declared that it should not be made
a precedent. At the sitting in 1759, and also in March,
1760, one thousand volunteers for the war were raised.
Bernard, transferred to the Massachusetts government, was
succeeded in New Jersey by Thomas Boone. The new gov-
ernor promised to guard the rights and privileges of the
legislature from violation or infringement.2 Even had he
not been so disposed, it is doubtful if he could have made
headway by acting otherwise. When he told the assembly
that their methods of raising money deviated from the prin-
ciples of the constitution, which he urged the represen-
tatives to consult and " yield to the Emotions of Gratitude/'
the retort was returned that those methods were doubtless
capable of a better construction than first occurred to His
Excellency.3 Nevertheless Boone succeeded in obtaining
the first two-year support act passed since 1749, which fact
he proudly related to the lords of trade.4
It was the twenty-first session of the nineteenth assembly
that began on October 29, 1760, and continued until Decem-
ber 5th, being the longest held since September, 1751.
Twenty-two acts were passed, including measures to pro-
vide for the maintenance or construction of roads and public
buildings, the continuance of acts about to expire, and sev-
1 Assembly Journal, Mar. 8, 1759- *Ibid., Oct. 30, 1760.
8 Ibid., Nov. 2i, 1760.
lN. /. A., vol. ix, p. 248.
166 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [166
eral private acts.1 One of the most interesting of the meas-
ures was for the preservation of the public records of the
colony, an act which Governor Morris had urged years
before.
On the last day of the session, the assembly asked for a
dissolution to enable their constituents to declare their choice
at the polls. A similar request had been submitted to Bel-
cher in March, 1757, but had been ignored.2 Boone at this
time promised to exercise his authority in regard to a disso-
lution whenever the king's service demanded.3 Although
his reply offered no direct encouragement, an election was
held, and the twentieth assembly met for the first time on
March 27, 1761. Ten new members were returned to this
house.
The chief business at the sessions in March and July,
1 761, was to provide for raising troops. Meanwhile Boone
had received an appointment as governor of South Carolina,
and Josiah Hardy superseded him in New Jersey in October,
1761.
The new governor of course came resolved to make the
people of the province the objects of his care, and to pro-
tect their sacred and inviolable privileges.4 In an address
the assemblymen naturally returned thanks for such favor-
able sentiments, hoping likewise that Hardy's administration
by its length would end the rotation of governors sent in
recent years to New Jersey.5 The hope was expressed in
vain, however, because his successor as governor was com-
missioned within a year from the date of its expression.
Only four brief sittings of the legislature were held during
Hardy's regime, the chief business of which was to raise
^llinson, op. cit., p. 226.
* Assembly Journal, Mar. 31, 1757. * Ibid., Dec. 5, 1760.
%N. J. A., vol. xvii, p. 244. 5 Ibid., p. 252.
iSy] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 167
provincial troops, and to provide garrisons for the British
regulars. Hardy's administration was characterized by the
assembly as " disinterested, Candid and benevolent." It will
be remembered that he was removed by the royal authorities
owing to a disagreement relative to the tenure of judges.1
It was almost three months to a day after his arrival in
the colony when the newly-appointed royal governor, Will-
iam Franklin, met the legislature. The happy and glorious
end of the long war against the French afforded a splendid
opportunity, he told them, for giving " earnest attention to
the Arts of Peace." 2 The necessary general legislation was
recommended to the attention of the council and assembly,
as was also the conspicuous unanimity which had charac-
terized the legislative sessions of the recent past. The
reply of the houses was marked by the usual flattering plati-
tudes.
There were in general two chief reasons for the unanimity
that had existed between the branches of the legislature in
New Jersey during the five or six years preceding Franklin's
accession. They were the united purpose in the war against
the French, and the brief administrations of the governors
during that period. In Franklin's administration the gap
between himself and the people widened, just in propor-
tion as did that between the mother country and the colo-
nies. Inasmuch as the details of this administration are
more properly considered in later chapters, only the general
character of the legislative sessions need be here mentioned.
The twentieth assembly was not dissolved at Franklin's
accession, no new election being held until 1769. This was
consequently the longest assembly of the royal period in
New Jersey, continuing from March, 1761, until May, 1768.
Robert Ogden was elected speaker at the first sitting of the
1 AT. J. A., vol. xvii, p. 352. *Ibid.y vol. xvii, p. 344.
l68 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [168
assembly under Franklin, and continued in that position
until his resignation in 1765, as a result of the opposition
in Essex County because of his refusal to subscribe to the
resolutions of the Stamp Act Congress in New York.
The first serious difficulty between the governor and as-
sembly resulted during the Stamp Act controversy, when
the assembly in an extra-legal session held at Perth Amboy
elected delegates to the general Stamp Act Congress above
mentioned. The Stamp Act resolves passed in November,
1765, by the New Jersey assembly widened this breach, and
brought upon the assembly a learned tirade from their gov-
ernor. The subsequent repeal of the obnoxious act brought
a return of apparent harmony to the government.
After Ogden's resignation, Cortlandt Skinner, of Perth
Amboy, was elected speaker. The three sessions in 1766,
1767 and 1768 were of signal success. Much general legis-
lation was passed for the welfare of the province, and also
special legislation for the supply of the royal troops. In
the session of 1766 public improvements, such as the repair
of roads and bridges, received special attention as a result
of numerous petitions presented to the house upon such
subjects.1 At this session twenty-two acts were passed.
But this number was exceeded by one, in the session of
1768, when, among others, bills for the septennial election
of representatives, and for choosing representatives in
Morris, Cumberland and Sussex Counties were enacted.
The twenty-first assembly met on October 10, 1768.
There were thirteen new members. No less than nine mem-
bers of the former assembly had died, making necessary
special elections from time to time for members to serve
during the unexpired terms. In only two cases, however,
were such members re-elected to the new assembly. Old
1 N. J. A., vol. xvii, p, 453, note.
169] LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 169
age rather than dissatisfaction with their representatives
doubtless accounts for the large number of new members
returned by the people.1 This assembly continued until De-
cember, 1 j j 1. Skinner was speaker until his indisposition
in October, 1770, when Stephen Crane was elected, con-
tinuing as speaker until the election of the next and last as-
sembly of the royal period.
The business of the legislature was largely occupied dur-
ing 1769 and 1770 with the investigation and legislation
occasioned by the demonstrations against the lawyers in
Essex and Monmouth Counties. The disallowance of the
bill that had been passed for the emission of £100,000 in
bills of credit marked the beginning of a protracted struggle
on the part of the assembly to force the royal assent to such
an emission by refusing to grant funds, wherewith the bar-
racks for the royal troops might be supplied. This contest
seriously embarrassed legislation, and led to the dissolution
of the assembly on December 21, 1771. The long contro-
versy of this year elicited several long messages from the
governor, and replies by the assembly, upon the financial
circumstances of the colony.
The membership of the twenty-second assembly was en-
larged to 30 members by the new delegations from Morris,
Cumberland and Sussex Counties. The attitude of the new
assembly was no more favorable to the governor upon the
questions that provoked a division than that of the preced-
ing house had been. At the opening of the first sitting in
August, 1772, Stephen Crane was again elected speaker,
but Cortlandt Skinner succeeded him at the next session,
which met on November 10, 1773.
Legislation was interrupted from August, 1772, until
early in 1774, because of the fruitless controversy regard-
1 N. J. Hist. Soc. Proc, series i, vol. v, p. 32.
I7o THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [170
ing the responsibility of the East Jersey treasurer in con-
nection with the robbery of his office. Messages, pages in
length, passed between the governor and the assembly, until
Treasurer Skinner's resignation brought about an accom-
modation in the matter, which relieved the deadlock but
did not settle the dispute.
Governor Franklin's fidelity to his British superiors was
not consonant with the growing estrangement between the
colonists and the mother country. As late as November,
1775, the assembly protested against independence, and
there was an appearance of cordiality or courtesy between
the governor and the house. On November 15, 1775, the
fifth sitting of the twenty-second assembly began at Bur-
lington. The act for the support of government, with seven
other measures, was passed. After the public business had
been transacted, on December 6th, " His Excellency was
pleased to prorogue the General Assembly till Wednesday,
the third day of January next, then to meet at Perth Am-
boy." x But the royal provincial legislature never reas-
sembled.
1 Assembly Journal, Dec. 6, 1775.
CHAPTER VI
The Proprietary System and the Land Troubles
Adjustment of conflicting land claims was the most
annoying and distracting feature of New Jersey history
during the colonial period. In large part, that issue pre-
cipitated the contests between the branches of government
until the close of Governor Belcher's administration. The
line of cleavage between the two rival factions, proprietary
and anti-proprietary, was naturally aggravated, because
frequently a majority of the council held large proprietary
estates, while in the assembly opinion favored the people
who claimed lands under counter-proprietary titles. Better
to understand the land troubles during this period, it will
be necessary briefly to consider the character of the pro-
prietorship and review the early contests. The later dis-
sensions grew out of, and had their inception in, the same
general misunderstandings that characterized the early
struggles.
In the opening chapter, mention was made of the trans-
fers by means of which title to the soil of East Jersey be-
came vested in a board of twenty-four proprietors, and that
of West Jersey came into possession of a much larger num-
ber of owners. -Ihe^facl that the governing power of the_
province after 1702 had no right or title to the soil, is the
jajkat_and distinctive feature ot Mew jersey, as casting
gujshed from other cojojrnes^ Governmental power was
held by the king, and actively administered by the gover-
i7iT" 171
lj2 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [iy2
>_norlwj^a»cil and assembly; the title to land was held by
the proprietors of East and West Jersey, whose affairs
^wej£_acjtrvejy:_ajdrninistered by two councils ^or_boards, one
for each division. Members "of the proprietary boards
were, as has been shown, frequently officers of the govern-
ment or members of the legislature. That the personnel
of the provincial council might in large part be made up
of members of one or the other council of proprietors is
apparent. It was this interaction of proprietary influence
in the government of the colony that encouraged popular
distrust.
Proprietary ownership in East Jersey was much less
democratic than in the sister division.1 The council was
an aristocratic organization of wealthy landowners. Any
of the twenty-four proprietors, or their proxies, who had
retained one-quarter of his propriety was admitted to a
seat in the council. Where the process of sub-division had
left no one person with a fourth part, the holders of the
lesser interests chose one person as their representative.
The council examined the right to land titles, purchased
land from the Indians, rented land to the colonists, and
transacted such other business as properly came to their
attention.
The frequency of council meetings naturally depended
upon the condition of proprietary affairs, although there
were regularly two meetings yearly. Seven members con-
stituted a quorum. A president was annually elected, usu-
ally at a meeting held in March or April. In 1730 John
Hamilton succeeded Lewis Morris as president, and was
annually re-elected until his death. In 1748 Andrew John-
ston was elected president, acting in that capacity until his
•Tanner, op. tit., chs. i, iii, and xxvii.
173] THE PROPRIETARY SYSTEM ^3
death in 1762, after which James Parker was chosen. He
was the last president during the colonial era. The import-
ant office of surveyor general was held from 1716 to 1756
by James Alexander. For forty years the resourceful abil-
ity of this learned Scotchman was devoted with energy and
zeal to further the interests of the proprietors.1 His pres-
ence at council meetings appears to have been indispensable.
On March 22, 1742, " Mr. Alexander being called away
on extraordinary occasions, the council did not proceed
on business." 2 William Alexander, Lord Stirling, became
surveyor general after his father's death in 1756.3 His
successor was John Rutherford, chosen in 177 1. In 1738
Lawrence Smyth was acting as register or secretary of the
board of East Jersey proprietors. Ten years later he was
succeeded in that office by John Smyth, who held the office
until the Revolution, and carried the records to New York
with him, upon his removal there.4 In passing, it may be
mentioned that the East Jersey proprietors maintained an
agent at London to protect their interests at court. Fer-
dinand John Paris, an able and influential London lawyer,
was a staunch and constant defender of proprietary rights,
when acting as agent for more than thirty years prior to
I7595
Although the surrender of the right of government to
the crown greatly decreased the influence of the board, its
personnel continued to consist of men of rank in the prov •
1 See American Historical Magazine, Jan., 1906, p. II.
1 Min. of Council of Prop. ofE. J. , Mar. 22, 1742. Upon Alexander's
death, a eulogistic letter of condolence was sent to his widow, and
spread upon the minutes of the board, June 17, 1756.
lMin. of Coun. of Prop, of E. J., June 17, 1756.
lN. J. A., vol. x, p. 420.
'Ibid., vol. ix, p. 44s; vol. vi, p. 424.
174 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [174
ince. Prominent among its members in 1738 were John
Hamilton, James Alexander, Richard Ashfield, Andrew
Johnston, Samuel Leonard, Lawrence Smyth, Fenwick
Lyell, Joseph Murray, John Burnet and Michael Kearney,
all of whom were active in the public life of the colony.
The following year Samuel Nevill began his association
with the proprietors in America, and in August, 1742, Rob-
ert Hunter Morris took his seat in the council, having suc-
ceeded to the estate of Richard Ashfield.1 Elisha Parker
appeared at the March meeting of 1745, and in later years
James, his son, was closely identified with proprietary
affairs. Between 1750 and 1760 Cortlandt' Skinner, John
Stevens, Dr. John Johnston, the Earl of Stirling and David
Ogden, acting for the Penns, succeeded to membership.
Before the Revolution came to interrupt the regular meet-
ings of the board, Walter Rutherford, Oliver DeLancy
and Henry Cuyler were counted as members. This mere
catalogue of names prominent in New Jersey history is
indicative of the degree of influence wielded by the pro-
prietary interests.
n West Jersey the land was owned by a large number
,ffoi persons.2 There were one hundred proprieties, and the
holding of only a thirty-second part of a propriety was
I- requisite for a voice in proprietary affairs. The council
was a representative body, five members being annually
chosen at Burlington and four at Gloucester. There was
little or no complaint by the people against the landholders,
for they were in large part the people, and had an effective
voice in the conduct of affairs. Hence, whatever contests
there were, were chiefly due to the conflicting interests of
1 Min. of Coun. of Prop, of E. J., Aug. 16, 1742.
"Tanner, op. cit.t chs. i, vi, and xxviii.
175] THE PROPRIETARY SYSTEM 175
the proprietors themselves, and were within the proprie-
tary body.
Annually in May the council elected its own officers, a
president, vice-president, and register. Except in the case of
the surveyor general, who was usually chosen for successive
terms of three years each, the offices changed hands fre-
quently. No less than ten different men acted as president,
eleven as vice-president, and seven as register between 1738
and 1776. Some of the most active proprietors served
terms in each office. James Alexander was surveyor gen-
eral of both East and West Jersey until his death, but he did
not take the same keen interest in the affairs of the latter di-
vision which he devoted to the interests of the former. In
1743 complaint was made against his residing out of the
province, and a similar complaint in 1752 charged that his
deputies were not under his control.1 Consequently William
Alexander did not succeed his father as surveyor general in
West Jersey, but Daniel Smith, of Burlington, was appointed
to executive office. His conduct of the office gave general
satisfaction, and resulted in his appointment for six succes-
sive terms of three years each. In May, 1744, he asked
relief from the cares of the surveyor generalship, and Rob-
ert Smith, Jr., was elected.2 He was recommissioned in
1777 for a second term of three years.
It was the frequent complaint of the governors that
West Jersey did not contain sufficient men with proper
qualifications for their recommendation to the provincial
council. Comparing the public services and activities of the
East Jersey proprietors with the proprietary representatives
in West Jersey, the balance is largely in favor of the for-
xMin. of Chun, of Prop, of E. J., Sept. 16, 1743; Feb. 18, 1752.
* Min. of Coun. of Prop, of W. J., May 3, 1774.
Ij6 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [176
mer. The great number of Quakers in the western division
accounts in part for this discrepancy. It is true also that
some of the most eminent West Jersey proprietors were
never elected to the proprietary council. Included among
the prominent members of the board during this time were
Daniel Coxe, John Reading, Thomas Wetherill, Revell
Elton, John Mickle, John Ladd, Mahlon Stacy, Jacob Hew-
lings, Peter Baynton, Robert Hartshorne, Ebenezer Miller,
Thomas Rodman, John Hinchman, William and Abraham
Hewlings, Samuel Clements and Daniel Ellis. A consid-
erable number of these gentlemen served in the colonial
assembly, and two or three were honored by appointments
to the council of New Jersey. Of course, there were other
West Jersey landowners, never elected to the proprietary
council, who held positions of public trust.
The question of ownership of two extensive tracts of land,
designated as the Elizabethtown Purchase and the Mon-
mouth Purchase, was the chief cause of the land troubles.
These tracts comprised practically five counties of the pres-
ent state, the Monmouth Purchase including the settle-
ments of Middletown and Shrewsbury, and the Elizabeth-
town Purchase the towns of Elizabethtown, Newark, Ber-
gen, Woodbridge and Piscataway. At irregular intervals
during the colonial life of New Jersey, after an apparent
adjustment of claims, the vexatious disputes would again
arise to plague the proprietors. From 1702 until 1738
there was a period of comparative quiet, as regards the
land disputes. But during the administration of Governor
Morris unrest again became evident, and continued through-
out almost the whole of Governor Belcher's long adminis-
tration, assuming at times a very serious aspect.
It will be remembered that in 1664 King Charles II had
granted to his brother James, the Duke of York, the lands
177] THE PROPRIETARY SYSTEM 177
lying between the Connecticut River and Delaware Bay.
Under the command of Colonel Richard Nicolls, a fleet
was despatched by the Duke to take possession of the terri-
tory and oust the Dutch. The expedition proved success-
ful and Nicolls was the governor of this territory, which
thus included New York and New Jersey. In September
of that year some settlers from Jamaica, Long Island, ap-
plied for permission to purchase land, which permission
being granted by Nicolls, these settlers — " Bailey, Denton
and Watson, their Associates, their Heirs and Executors "
— by purchase obtained a deed to a tract of land from three
Indian Sagamores. In the words of the indenture, the
tract was bounded " on the south by a river commonly
called the Raritan River, and on the east by the river which
parts Staten Island and the Main, and to run northward
up after Cull Bay till we come at the first river which sets
westward out of the said Bay aforesaid, and to run west
into the country twice the length as it is broad from the
north to the south of the aforementioned bounds." l Bai-
ley, Watson and their associates had this purchase confirmed
by a patent from Nicolls, with the proviso that they should
render a certain yearly rent to the Duke of York or his
assigns, according to the customary rate of the country for
new plantations. This grant, the so-called Elizabethtown
Purchase, contained a tract of great extent, probably be-
tween 400,000 and 500,000 acres.2
In June, 1664, while the Nicolls fleet was still at sea, the
Duke of York, evidently anticipating the successful outcome
of the expedition, granted by deeds of lease and release to
Berkeley and Carteret that part of his newly acquired terri-
lN. J. A., vol. i, p. 15.
'Hatfield, History of Elizabeth, p. 36.
178 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [178
tory which we know as New Jersey. Of this grant, Nicolls
was, of course, unaware when he confirmed the purchase
of Bailey, Watson and associates, and indeed he probably
was not informed of the transfer to Berkeley and Carteret
until December of that year.1
Thus in these two grants, the one of Nicolls to Bailey
and associates, and the other from the Duke of York to
Berkeley and Carteret, there are two conflicting claims to
the same tract of land. In this conflict of grants is found
the source of those disturbances that for decades disturbed
what might well otherwise have been a period of peace and
quiet in New Jersey history.
After New Jersey was deeded over to Berkeley and Car-
teret, the lords proprietors commissioned Philip Carteret, a
cousin of the proprietor, as their governor. According to
the " Concessions and Agreements " issued by the propri-
etors, lands were to be taken up only by warrant from the
governor, and were to be patented by him. Quit rents
were not required until March 25, 1670, after which
they were to be paid annually, " a halfpenny of lawful
money of England for everyone of the said acres." The
arrival of Governor Carteret in America was not marked
by any disquieting omens, premonitions that might possibly
have been expected of the two conflicting interests which
later would assert themselves so positively, and indeed in-
dications point to the fact that the settlement was quietly
made under the Concessions instead of under the Nicolls
grants,2 for the fact is that a large majority of the people,
sixty-five male inhabitants, swore fidelity to the lords pro-
prietors' claims.3 Newark, Piscataway and Woodbridge
1 N. Y. Colonial Documents, vol. iii, p. 105.
'Tanner, op. cit., p. 68.
%N. J. A., i, p. 49.
179] THE PROPRIETARY SYSTEM 179
were settled deliberately under the Concessions, and oppo-
sition to the proprietors came as an after thought.1
In point of law, as to the legal ownership of the lands in
question, the case rests clearly in favor of the proprietors.
The emptiness of a claim based merely on Indian purchase
was apparent even to the anti-proprietary settlers them-
selves.2 But their position also regarding the Nicolls grants
cannot be sustained. Those transfers of lands took place
after the tracts had passed from James' ownership. By
eminent lawyers the opinion was given that " The Dele-
gated Power which Colonel Nicolls had, of making grants
of the lands, could last no longer than his Master's interest,
who gave him that power; and the having or not having
notice of the Duke's grant to the Lord Berkeley and Sir
George Carteret makes no difference in the law, but the
want of notice makes it great equity, that the present pro-
prietors should confirm such grants to the people who will
submit to the concessions and payment of the present pro-
prietors common quit rents." 8 This right in equity the
proprietors always respected, offering to confirm the grants
made under the Indian purchase and the Nicolls patent, but
at the same time justly claiming their right to the yearly
rent, as prescribed by the concessions.
The pinch first came with the advent of 1670 and the first
demand for quit-rent, as authorized by the concessions and
agreements. There was a general refusal on the part of
the inhabitants to pay the rent, and Governor Carteret,
helpless before determined opposition, leaving Captain Berry
as his deputy, went to England to impress upon the author-
ities the sad state of affairs which existed in New Jersey.
1 N. J. Historical Society Proc, series ii, vol. i, pp. 161 et seq.
'Tanner, op, cit., p. 60.
' Elizabethtown Bill in Chancery, p. 41.
r8o THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [180
The result was decisive, and opposition melted before proc-
lamations oft the proprietors commanding obedience to
Berry, and asserting the invalidity of claims held under the
Nicolls patent.
ly after came the Dutch re-occupation of New York,
be followed closely by the English reconquest. Subse-
quent to this double change of ownership, which New York
experienced between 1673 and 1674, the Duke of York re-
conveyed East Jersey to Carteret. The patent which James
obtained from the king after the resurrender of New York
to the English was an absolutely new one, which according
to English law annulled previous grants. Hence, in the
same way the Duke's reconveyance to Carteret gave the latter
a new and unquestioned title to his part of New Jersey,
and would in point of law necessarily rob the Nicolls patent
of any possible validity which might previously have been
claimed for it. And such was indeed the case, for, with a
single exception, all of the original Elizabethtown associates
obtained warrants for surveys under the proprietors, as
was also quite generally the case in Newark and Piscataway.
For a considerable period occasional mutterings of dis-
content were heard, but the twenty-four proprietors, into
whose hands East Jersey had now come, never relaxed in
their opposition to any recognition of the Nicolls grants,
and comparative quiet was maintained. This, however, was
the lull before a formidable storm which, when its power
was spent, was a chief cause of the surrender of the pro-
prietary government to the crown. In 1693, when Jones
ejected James Fullerton, a landholder under proprietary
title, from his land, the ejectment suit of Jones vs. Fuller-
ton followed, which in the Perth Amboy court resulted in
a decision in favor of Fullerton.1 By an appeal to the
'Hatfield, Hist, of Elizabeth, p. 242.
181] THE PROPRIETARY SYSTEM 181
king in council Jones obtained a reversal of the decision.
This decision was the match which kindled the smouldering
embers of anti-proprietary discontent. The king was peti-
tioned to grant relief from the proprietors, proprietary
courts were overthrown, and scenes of violence were fre-
quent. In the so-called Clinker Lot Division,1 a great ex-
tent of territory was surveyed and divided by the Elizabeth-
town claimants in utter disregard of proprietary rights.
Indeed the Clinker Lot Right men did not recognize the
existence of such an inconvenient abstraction as proprietary
rights. At this juncture, as has been said, mainly because
of the inefficiency of the proprietary government, both the
East Jersey and West Jersey proprietors transferred their
powers of government to the crown, retaining unaltered
their rights to the soil of the province.
In the instructions of 1702 to Lord Cornbury, the first
royal governor of the Jerseys, it was ordered that the right
to the soil should be secured to the proprietors by the pas-
sage of an act of the legislature.2 At the assembly's first
session the so-called " Long Bill " was prepared for this
purpose, and in part provided for the invalidation of claims
to land based on the Nicolls patent. Cornbury, disgruntled
at what he regarded as lack of financial support, prorogued
the assembly before the passage of the " Long Bill," and
this bright hope for a definite and final decision of the con-
flicting interests was shattered. While Cornbury was sur-
rounded by his inner circle of corrupt politicians, a Colonial
Tweed Ring, the interests of the proprietors dwindled to a
very low state. During his administration the way was
paved for great difficulties to the proprietors by the ill-
considered grants of the two large Ramapo and New Brit-
1 Tanner, op. cil., p. 79. * N. J. A., vol. ii, p. 517.
lg2 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [i%2
ain tracts. During Lieutenant Governor Ingoldsby's regime
an ill-starred attempt to secure the right to the soil to the
proprietors was made, but was practically smothered in an
anti-proprietary committee of the assembly.
Upon the succession of Governor Hunter, in 1710, pro-
prietary affairs began to take on a brighter hue. The new
governor took the position that property disputes should be
settled, not by legislative action but by judicial decision.1
An excellent theory that was, and just also, but the con-
ditions were too stoutly opposed to its successful and satis-
factory adoption in practice.
Nevertheless a test case was actually tried in the Supreme
Court with the natural result, a proprietary victory, for the
court was admittedly in the proprietors' favor. Numerous
surveys were then made by the proprietors and the dissen-
sions seemed in a fair way of settlement: but such a sup-
position subsequently proved to be a delusion. Although,
in 1725, a case, that of Vaughan vs. Woodruff, had been
decided against the Elizabethtown adherents, they were
averse to any conclusive settlement. In 1731 several suits
of ejectment were brought against them, the case of Lith-
gow vs. Robinson standing as the test. The tables were
again turned, the case being decided against the proprietary
interests. Encouraged by this decision, the Elizabethtown
associates began bold proceedings. Funds were collected
by assessment with which to maintain their claims, prepar-
ations were made for dividing lands not parceled out in the
Clinker Lot survey, and in 1737 the associates themselves
brought an action against one Vail, who held his land
under proprietary title.
This case was ultimately decided against the proprietors,
but to offset the effect of the reversals in the cases of Lith-
lN. J. A., vol. xiii, p. 427.
^3] THE PROPRIETARY SYSTEM 1^3
gow vs. Robinson, and Jackson vs. Vail, the proprietors
had met favorable decisions in other cases, resulting from
ejectment proceedings brought by them against some of
their opponents.
Such was the early history of the Elizabethtown purchase
up to this time when there had been certain decisions ren-
dered, some in favor of the proprietors, others in favor of
the anti-proprietary party.
Little time need be spent in the consideration of the land
troubles arising from the Monmouth Patent to 1738. This
tract was granted in 1665 by patent from Governor Nicolls
to William Goulding and others, who had before the arrival
of the English expedition purchased the land from Indians.
It included lands between the Raritan and " Sandy Point "
and extending back into the interior for some distance.1
Three years from the date the patentees were to have
settled one hundred families on the lands, and for seven
years they were to be free from rent.2 When Governor
Carteret arrived, the settlers located there refused to recog-
nize the authority of the proprietary title over the lands.
When the quit- rents were demanded in 1670 resolute re-
sistance was offered, but an agreement was finally reached
between Berkeley and Carteret and the Monmouth pur-
chasers, according to which in return for the surrender of
the claims under the Nicolls Patent the settlers were to
have their land granted to them individually in accordance
with the terms of the Concessions.8 This was more an
apparent than real settlement, for the people of Middle-
town later showed their dissatisfaction, even professing
exemption from the payment of quit-rents.
'Tanner, op. cit., p. 61; Whitehead, "East Jersey under the Pro-
prietors" p. 45.
* Parker, N. J. Historical Society Proc, series ii, vol. iii, p. 18.
•Tanner, op. cit., p. 63.
184 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [184
The varying successes of their suits seemed to have tan-
talized the Elizabethtown settlers beyond their powers of
endurance, and they determined to put an end to the whole
business with one fell swoop. To submit their case directly
to the king was the determining stroke which they agreed
upon. Mr. Fitch, a Norwalk lawyer, was engaged to draw
up a petition to the crown.1 After stating the early his-
tory of the grant of New Jersey and the Nicolls patent,
the petition asserts that Governor Carteret " was so far
from insisting on the said Lord Berkeley's and Sir George
Carteret's right to the lands purchased by your humble
Petitioners' Ancestors " that he purchased Bailey's share.2
In many suits, the petition continues, the petitioners have
been successful, but by their continued ejectment suits the
" would-be proprietors " reduced the inhabitants to distress.
The governor, chief justice, judges, and even juries were
interested against the petitioners, and hence there was no
prospect for the distressed subjects except to be heard at
" The Fountain of Justice under Your Majesty's Royal
Care and Protection." 3 The king was asked to hear and
determine the question, appoint disinterested commissions
from the colonies to decide or grant some other relief.
There were 309 names affixed to the petition. It was read
in council July 19, 1744, and subsequently referred to the
Lords of the Committee of Council for plantation affairs,
and later to the Lords Commissioners for Trade and Plan-
tations, but beyond that nothing is known of it.
The settlers who claimed lands in consequence of Indian
purchase alone were as insistent in their opposition to the
proprietors as were those who held title by virtue of the Nic-
olls grants. No matter under what claim the disputed lands
1 Hatfield, op. cit., p. 366. *N. J. A.t vol. vi, p. 209.
*Ibid.t p. 206 et seq.
185] THE PROPRIETARY SYSTEM ^5
might have been held, the people usually made common
cause against the proprietors and joined in acts of violence
at about the same time. Because of an absence of authentic
records to prove the sale, there was more opportunity for
fraud where no claim except mere Indian purchase was set
up. It does not follow, however, that all such claims were
advanced fraudulently. The undisturbed enjoyment of
property rights convinced many that the proprietors were
making unjust encroachments when they did attempt to
assert their authority.
One of the directions which Berkeley and Carteret laid
down for the governor, council and inhabitants of New
Jersey in 1664 was, that " the land is to be purchased from
time to time, as there shall be occasion by Governor and
Council from the Indians, in the name of us the Lords Pro-
prietors, and then every individual person is to reimburse
us, at the same rate it was purchased." ' Although this
rule was observed for the most part, some persons con-
tracted for parcels of land with the natives. In 1683 the
General Assembly of East Jersey passed a law forbidding
this practice.2 By the act, those who made such agree-
ments with the Indians without the license of the governor
might be " prosecuted as seditious persons, and as breakers
of the King's peace, and publick peace, and safety of this
Province." In accordance with this act, proprietary gov-
ernors issued licenses to settlers for the purchase of Indian
lands, upon condition that such transactions conformed to
the concessions of the lords proprietors and the laws of the
province.3
In the instructions to Lord Cornbury, the first royal gov-
1 Learning and Spicer, Grants and Concessions, pp. 37, 54.
* Ibid., p. 273.
*N. J. A., vol. vi, p. 339.
186 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [186
ernor, he was forbidden to allow any persons except the
proprietors or their agents to purchase lands from the In-
dians. The first act of the legislature under the royal gov-
ernment was " for regulating the Purchasing of Land from
the Indians."1 It was provided that after December i,
1703, no person could purchase land from the Indians ex-
cept he had a right of propriety and obtained a license.
For every purchase contrary to the act forty shillings per
acre was to be forfeited. Unless the person obtained a
grant from the proprietors within six months after the pub-
lication of the act, improper purchases were declared void.
The law was in favor of the proprietors and left no
room for uncertainty as to the titles. Deeds to land,
unless issued under the authority of the proprietors, were
clearly void. According to the constitution of the colony,
it mattered not whether the conveyances were lt from some
private foreign stroling Indians, or from such as lived on
the Lands, and might have had some Pretensions to sell
them ;" or whether the purchases were " made for small
or trifling Sums, or for such Considerations as were then
usually given to the Indians." 2 Any such transactions
were void. When active steps were taken by the propri-
etors to assert their authority the colony was thrown into
turmoil.
During the administration of Governor Morris numerous
ejectment suits were brought by proprietors in trespass
cases. Some of the defendants in suits from 1741 to 1743
were Joseph Moss, John Morris, Benjamin Crowell, Jere-
miah Clarke, Barent Kiter, John Crain, Benjamin Man-
ning, Wright Skinner, John Clawson and Isaiah Young-
love. Verdicts for the plaintiffs were invariably rendered,
1 N. J. A., vol. ii, p. 517; Allinson, op. cit.t p. I.
1/6id., vol. vi, p. 300.
187] THE PROPRIETARY SYSTEM 187
in consequence of which the proprietors believed their con-
tentions substantiated.1 In 1745 eighteen actions of eject-
ment were still at issue.2
The Elizabethtown associates complained against the
juries before which the land suits had been tried. The
plea was made that artifice and influence contrived to pre-
vent trials before impartial juries. The defendants were
" inclined to believe " that an alteration of Somerset and
Morris Counties had resulted from the connivance of the
proprietors.8 Middlesex, rather than Somerset or Morris,
juries would have proved more satisfactory to the associ-
ates. Chafing under the sting of supposedly unjust perse-
cution, the people displayed a dangerous temper in the riots
that followed.
In 1745 serious difficulties arose on the part of the occu-
pants of the Elizabethtown Purchase tract, where Newark
was situated. On September 19, 1745, Samuel Baldwin, a
member of a committee of Essex County, chosen to pro-
tect the interests of the people in their disputes over land,
was arrested for cutting logs on the so-called Van Gesin's
tract. The proprietors alleged that his conduct violated a
legislative enactment of 1713, which provided that any man
cutting trees on lands not his legal property " should be
fined twenty shillings.'* In a demonstration, which must
have loomed before the little town of Newark as a danger-
ous riot, a crowd of Baldwin's sympathizers broke open the
county jail at Newark, where he was confined, and released
him. Governor Morris thereupon sent a message to the
assembly urging that the riotous condition of the province
be earnestly considered, and that a militia act or other laws
1 Elizabethtown Bill in Chancery, pp. 48-52.
*fbid., p. 52.
* Answer to the Bill in Chancery, p. 35.
188 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [^8
should be passed to prevent the spread of the disorders.1
To this suggestion the assembly replied on October 3d, by
deploring the lawless riot at Newark, but expressed the
opinion that existing laws were sufficient to bring their
violators to justice.2 The governor obtained little satisfac-
tion from the lower house, for that common cause of dis-
sension, the pulling of the purse-strings, was at this time a
bone of contention between them. Morris at least relieved
his mind by retorting that even if the laws were sufficient
to punish the rioters the militia act then in force could not
quell such an uprising as pestered the colony, nor could the
" Officers and Courts necessary to convict them attend that
service — without salaries or some provision to defray the
charge of prosecution, which are not provided, nor, as ap-
pears, intended to be provided, by your house." s
His Excellency ordered the attorney general to prosecute
any who had been active in the riot, and at the same time,
with the advice of his council, directed the Essex County
sheriff to be diligent in the apprehension of the disturbers
of the peace and violators of the law, committing all such
to any jail they thought most proper.4 The diligence of the
sheriff resulted in the arrest and commitment to the Newark
jail of Robert Young, Thomas Sarjeant and Nehemiah
Baldwin. But of these prisoners, Baldwin was boldly res-
cued while being taken by the sheriff from the jail to the
Supreme Court, and the other two were released from the
jail by a crowd of rioters. Again the governor appealed
to the legislature to take steps to prevent the defiance of
government and contempt of laws, this time with more
satisfactory results. The assembly evidently saw the light,
for a bill for " Better Settling and Regulating the Militia "
lN. J. A., vol. vi, p. 379. iIbid.i p. 250.
9 Ibid,, p. 264. '/did., p. 400.
189] THE PROPRIETARY SYSTEM ^9
was ordered to be brought in. Indeed the tone of the
assembly was so patronizing as to arouse suspicion.
Several publications now appeared which were designed
to justify the acts and claims of the contending parties. A
communication of the rioters, in February, 1746, upheld
the questionable proceedings in Essex County on the ground
that the proprietors threatened ejectment proceedings
against all who would not subscribe to certain unreasonable
demands.
It was thus the exasperation of the people, that refused
to contain itself longer, because their " Rights, Properties
and Possessions " had been invaded by the proprietors. In
a lengthy statement sent forth from a council meeting at
Perth Amboy in March, 1746, the proprietors, after re-
hearsing the history of the titles in dispute, pertinently re-
marked that if deeds were taken based on any titles what-
soever, except " In the Name of the Lords, Proprietors of
East New Jersey," according to an act of 1683 such trans-
actions were criminal,1 and by an act of 1703 were invalid
unless confirmed by the general proprietors within six
months from the date of the act. Responsibility for the
confusion in the province was shifted to the rioters, who
had " Set up sham deeds procured from strolling Indians
for a few Bottles of Rum." A tract which went by the
name of the Horseneck Purchase figured largely in the
ejectment proceedings complained against by the people.
James Alexander, Robert Hunter Morris and David Ogden
were the three proprietors most heavily involved in this
tract. According to the proprietary statement these men,
with Ogden as negotiator, endeavored to have certain con-
ciliatory propositions accepted by the people, but failed.2
1 For the Act of 1683, see N. J. A., vol. vi, p. 302.
lN. J. A., vol. vi, p. 302.
190 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [190
Consequently ejectment proceedings were instituted, in any
or all of which the issue might have been joined, an appeal
to England taken, if so desired, and a settlement definitely
obtained. The poor deluded people were urged by the pro-
prietors " To flie to the Mercy of the Laws for the Expia-
tion of their criminal riots and to the Mercy of the Owners
of the Lands they have been pillaging."
Two formal petitions, prepared by some of the rioters,
were brought into the assembly and read on April 17, 1746.1
It was urged in these documents that the lower house
should grant relief by passing an act to stay all processes
against them until the pleasure of the king should be known.
One petition claimed to be from inhabitants in the northern
part of the colony ; the other from " eight persons chosen
by a great number of the inhabitants of the northern part
of this province, a committee to represent and act for them."
On May 26, 1746, Samuel Nevill made an elaborate ar-
gument before the assembly against the petitions.2 Para-
graph by paragraph both petitions were considered by the
speaker and answered. He concluded by moving that they
be rejected, but that the governor " should extend His
Majesty's mercy to those people by a General Pardon,
Under Such Restrictions and upon Such Conditions as to
his Excellency Shall Seem proper." When a vote was
taken two days later, Nevill and Kearney, both East Jersey
proprietors, were the only assemblymen who voted against
sending the petitions to the governor and council, in ac-
cordance with the prayer of the petitioners.3 The move-
ment toward an act of pardon at this time progressed no
farther than the preparation of such a measure. Taken in
1 Assembly Journal, Apr. 17, 1746.
• N. J. A., vol. vi, p, 408.
• Assembly Journal, Apr. 28, 1746.
I9I] THE PROPRIETARY SYSTEM igi
connection with the impossibility of reaching an agree-
ment between the council and assembly upon a measure to
prevent future riots, this did not bode well for the peace of
the province.
In April, 1746, a communication was sent to the " House
of Representatives " signed by seven rioters, reviewing
Ogden's former proposal of a trial at law and professing
their willingness to join in issue according to the proposal.
A preference was stated that the action be brought against
Francis Speirs, of the Horseneck Tract. The general pro-
prietors agreed to bring an ejectment suit against Speirs
and announced that their attorney would be at the next
Supreme Court at Perth Amboy to sign the general rule
for joining issue in the said action. Later the rioters com-
plained that all the lawyers were engaged in their opponent's
cause and desired the proprietors to release one of their
attorneys that he might be engaged to appear for the
prospective defendants. That the proprietors refused to do
on the ground that all those connected with their side of the
case had been in charge of their affairs for some years, that
there were many other attorneys in New Jersey and New
York not engaged by " fee or interest for the proprietors,"
and that the Supreme Court would require attorneys, if nec-
essary, to serve the committee of the rioters.1 These pre-
liminaries all came to naught, for none of the rioters made
application to the Supreme Court for attorneys nor took
any steps to have a trial on their claims.
Governor Morris died on May 21, 1746, and when Presi-
dent Hamilton, acting governor, met the assembly in June,
he called their attention to the distressed condition of the
province, the inefficiency of all methods of relief and urged
them to take rigorous action, lest they suffer the resentment
lN. J. A., vol. vi, p. 392.
I92 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [192
of the king and Parliament. Later in the year, at President
Hamilton's request,1 Alexander and Morris wrote to the
lords of trade complaining of the riots, and of the assem-
bly's inactivity, prophesying too that unless quelled the dis-
orders would spread and effect the dependence of the plan-
tations.2 While this letter to England was tinted to exag-
gerate the conditions, nevertheless it was true that the
colony was not becoming quieted. On the first day of No-
vember the assembly, having taken no action on the riots,
asked to be dismissed, and had their request granted.
Shortly after, the jail in Somerset County was robbed of a
prisoner, and threats were made against Nevill, then a
judge for Middlesex County. The only measure which the
president could take was to issue a proclamation forbid-
ding the colonists to join the rioters, or assemble with them.
But disturbances were beginning in Morris County, where
one Dalrymple with his family was unceremoniously ousted
from property which he had held under title from the East
Jersey proprietors.3
When the legislature met, in May, 1747, the president
again exhorted the assembly to take measures to prevent
riots and remedy the distracted state of the province, for
the king would not allow his laws to be trampled under
foot.4 Upon the plea that this session had been called only
for the purpose of raising troops, the lower house deter-
mined to take prudent measures at the next session, if the
rioting continued.5
The inactivity of the assembly was apparently interpreted
as a consent to riot by the disturbing elements. Within
a month from the adjournment of the legislature, one of the
1 President Hamilton was ill.
*N. J. A., vol. vi, p. 419. *Ibid., p. 427.
4 Assembly Journal, May 6, 1747. */bid., May 8, 1747.
*93l THE PROPRIETARY SYSTEM 193
most serious of the demonstrations occurred at Perth Am-
boy in Middlesex County. A large number of armed men
marched against the jail, and contrary to the warning of the
sheriff forcibly opened it and released one Bainbridge, held
under indictment for participation in the attack on the Som-
erset County jail. The disturbances reduced even Chief
Justice Robert Hunter Morris to pessimism, for, in July,
1747, he wrote to James Alexander that, although the as-
sembly was about to meet, he had no hopes of any effectual
measures resulting, and that the Grand Jury at Amboy
would hardly indict the rioters, much less hold them on a
charge of high treason, the indictment which Judge Nevill
had urged upon the jury to return.
Possessors of lands in the disturbed counties confessed
that they had joined others in perpetrating what they knew
were acts contrary to the king's laws, but yet they peti-
tioned the legislature for redress of grievances.1 In truth
the outlook for the peace of the province was not encour-
aging, for with no remedy in sight, " persons who had long
holden under the proprietors were forcibly ejected; others
compelled to take leases from landlords, whom they were
not disposed to acknowledge; whilst those who had cour-
age to stand out, were threatened with, and in many in-
stances, received personal violence." Under such condi-
tions was convened at Burlington, in August, 1747, the first
session of the legislature to meet under Jonathan Belcher,
the Massachusetts Puritan.
The accession of Belcher had been regarded with great
satisfaction by the disaffected persons in the colony, but so
far as can be ascertained their joy was unavailing. As ap-
pearances went, it was, however, not without foundation,
because Belcher interested himself in the First Presbyterian
1 Robert H. Morris Papers, vol. ii, p. 33.
I94 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [194
Church of Elizabethtown, of which congregation many of
the defendants against the proprietors were communicants.1
But the governor's first message to the legislature must
have left a discouraging ring in the ears of the Elizabeth-
town claimants. A committee of the rioters sent a con-
gratulatory message to Belcher soon after his arrival, ex-
pressing the hope that under his wise administration the
disorders which they regretted, would cease, and that the
" Lord of Hosts " would " Arise for the help and succor
of the oppressed poor and crushed needy ones." 2 The good
Jonathan assured the rioters that his duty led him to sup-
port the king's authority and punish " breakers of the public
peace " but, with evident faith in the maxim that " soft
words turn away wrath, but the wringing of the nose brings
forth blood ", he promised them his protection "in all things
consistent with Reason and Justice." 3 In a second dutiful
petition to the governor several of the distressed settlers
frankly confessed that they had no intention or desire of
sundering the bonds that held them to His Majesty's au-
thority, but had acted only in defence of their own and their
poor neighbors' rights, which were in danger of suffering
great harm.
In his first address to the legislature delivered in August,
1747, Governor Belcher urged that all departments of the
government unite in an endeavor to suppress the disorders
and restore quiet.4 To this address the council pledged its
support, and the assembly acted in a manner which presaged
and augured well for a harmonious administration under
the new royal executive. The assembly notified the coun-
cil that it had appointed a committee of nine to confer with
1 Hatfield, Elizabethtown, p. 372.
*N. J. A., vol. vii, p. 63.
*Ibid., p. 65. *Ibid., p. 21.
195] THE PROPRIETARY SYSTEM 195
a committee of the council upon the subject as to the ways
to suppress riots and disorders, meetings of the joint com-
mittee to be held at the house of the Widow Hunloke in
Burlington.1 Much to the council's impatience the proposed
meetings were deferred, various excuses being given by the
assembly. On December 10th, after the upper house had
received news of a riot in Hunterdon County, it pressed
upon the assembly the urgent need of meetings of the com-
mittees.2 The assembly ultimately condescended and meet-
ings were held.
It had been rumored that a " tumultous procession " of
rioters was about to take up the march to lay their grievances
before the legislature. The joint committee recommended
that each house pass resolutions discouraging any such
demonstration. Resolutions were passed, pointing out that
such procedure would be not only dangerous to the peace
of the province, but would also be an infringement on the
liberty of the legislature, inasmuch as the intended proces-
sion was desired to awe and influence the council and as-
sembly.8 In January, 1748, there was laid before the joint
committee a statement of facts, prepared by the council
committee, concerning the riots and the remedies attempted
by the government to put an end to them. To what extent
the work and influence of the joint committee was respon-
sible for two acts which were now passed by the legisla-
ture, designed to put an end to the disorders, it would be
difficult to state.
The first act was for " Suppressing and Preventing of
Riots, Tumults and other disorders within this Colony.,,
This measure had passed the second reading at the previous
session, after which it was ordered printed for public per-
lN. J. A., vol. xv, p. 539. *I6id., p. 553.
%Ibid.y vol. vii, p. 559.
196 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [196
i
5*
usal and its reconsideration postponed to the next meeting.
At the session in February, 1748, it passed the three read-
ings and received the governor's assent in remarkably quick
time. The measure was modeled after the riot act of Great
Britain, which declared it a felony " for twelve or more,
tumultously assembled together, to refuse to disperse upon
the requisition of the civil authority, by proclamation, in
form set forth in the act." 2 Those refusing to disperse
within an hour after the order were liable to suffer death.
This act was to be read once at every session of the Supreme
Court, Circuit Court and Court of Quarter Sessions in the
province. It was to continue in force for five years. The
other act, passed at the same time, provided for the pardon
of " Persons guilty of the Insurrections, Riots, Tumults
and other disorders, raised and committed in this Province/'
The measure recites that many are thus guilty, and as
some had prayed the governor for relief, this free pardon
was granted them. Justices of the Supreme Court or com-
missioners appointed for the purpose, were to receive par-
dons and administer the oaths to the penitent culprits.
The mad rush for executive clemency which some had
hoped for did not materialize, and it was not until the next
August that any applied to take advantage of the act of
grace, when nine rioters entered into bond and took the
oaths.3 Affairs were in an unhappy state, and Governor
Belcher, in a quandary, wrote to Chief Justice Kinsey of
Pennsylvania for his assistance and advice in the difficult
juncture.4 The council advised the governor not to dis-
solve the assembly until the rioters had accepted the act of
pardon, and the governor acted accordingly. Some of the
1 Assembly Journal, Apr. 24, 1746. ■ Ibid.
• N. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 4.
4 Belcher Papers, Jan. 11, 1748.
igy] THE PROPRIETARY SYSTEM 197
prominent councilmen felt strongly that, should the assem-
bly be dissolved and new elections be held, noting would
predominate at the elections and there would be returned to
the assembly a large anti-proprietary majority. But that
was but one horn of the dilemma. When this same assem-
bly met at its next session, what should be done with the
rioters who had not accepted the act of grace, and they were
decidedly in the majority? James Alexander, the promi-
nent councilman, took the ground that, once ignored,
clemency could not be offered again. His solution natur-
ally reverted to the necessity of strengthening the hands of
government so that guilty persons could be not only taken,
but kept and brought to justice. That something needed
to be done to strengthen the " hands of government " was
evident, for they now began to fight among themselves.
The disturbances continued, new outbreaks occurring
during November, 1748, in the vicinity of Newark and
Perth Amboy.1 These called forth a memorial from the
East Jersey proprietors to the governor asking him to inter-
pose in support of the king's authority, and arguing that
the refusal to accept the act of grace was a clear mark of
an intention on the part of the culprits to throw off their
dependence on the English crown. This prompted the gov-
ernor to again lecture the legislature, the assembly in par-
ticular, on the necessity of suppressing the " dreadful con-
fusions ". The council's response was considerate, but the
assembly insinuated that the laws were not fully executed,
and said that if this defect was remedied, the laws still prov-
ing to be inefficient, they would consider the matter at the
next session.2
1JV. J. A., vol. vii, p. 178.
* Assembly Journal, Dec. 7, 1748.
I98 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [198
This reply of the assembly afforded ample opportunity
for a conflict between the houses, for the council imme-
diately defended the executive officials of the colony, main-
taining that more effectual enforcement of laws could be
obtained only by added appropriations for the support of
the government. Such an imputation upon the assembly's
control of the purse-strings was resented and brought forth
the resolution among others, " that this House have a right
to enjoy their own sentiments, in all matters and things
that shall come before them, without being accountable or
censured by the Council for the same." * The council,
convinced that the assembly was guilty of a brazen neglect
of duty, urged the governor to join in laying the condition
of the province before the king and his ministers. The
governor signified his intention of trying one more ses-
sion of the legislature before appealing to the king. At this
juncture the unusual happened. The governor and council
came into conflict! After receiving notice from the coun-
cil that it wished to give him advice, Governor Belcher
proudly informed them that when he wanted their advice,
he would ask for it. A few days later, December 22, 1748,
the council communicated to Belcher the opinion that his
stand regarding advice was wrong. Again the council
pressed for immediate application to the king.
Duty so strongly impressed the councilmen, that not-
withstanding the governor's refusal to join with them, an
address was sent to the king and also to the Duke of Bed-
ford, then Secretary of State, urging that such measures be
taken as should be thought best to secure peace in the
province.2 At about the same time, in December, 1748,
the council of proprietors of East Jersey also sent a peti-
XN. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 64.
* Ibid., vol. iii, pp. 183-191.
I99] THE PROPRIETARY SYSTEM 199
tion to the king, asking his protection for their property at
this time, when the colonial laws were unavailing and it was
impossible to execute them. The importance of the matter
was urged upon Ferdinand John Paris, the London agent
of the East Jersey proprietors, by Alexander and Morris.
Their plan was that Paris should persuade the Secretary
of State or the Board of Trade to order Governor Belcher
to call the assembly to action, and if it refused to act, to
threaten the sending of troops for the restoration of order.
Any hope the proprietors had of such strenuous action was
punctured by Paris's letter to .Alexander, stating that no
more than a " strong instruction " from the king to Bel-
cher to call the assembly could be expected.
The suspicion with which the proprietors began to regard
the governor became evident. A new assembly had been
convened in February, 1749, but had taken no measures
against the rioters, which fact, it was charged, was a vir-
tual confirmation of their case. The proprietary agent,
dutiful to his clients, promised to look with diligence for
any possible complaints against Belcher, in order that the
scale might be turned against him.1 But the imputations
against the governor were somewhat shattered by his mes-
sage to the lords of trade, sent on April 22, 1749. The as-
sembly, he said, had no regard for what he directed, there
was no hope that they would raise money to protect the
jails and quell the disturbances, and consequently the king's
special orders would be awaited with great expectancy.
Notwithstanding this, Alexander and Morris sent to Paris
some charges which could be used against the governor.*
In justification of his action in not joining the council in
their address to the king, Belcher himself wrote to the
Duke of Bedford that he regarded it more for the king's
lN. J. A., vol. vii, p. 238. t/did., p. 251.
200 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [200
honor that action should be separate, basing his belief on
his interpretation of the character of the colonial govern-
ment. He renewed his request for special orders from the
king. The lords of trade began their consideration of the
conditions in New Jersey.
Dated June i, 1750, the report of the Lords Commis-
sioners for Trade and Plantations upon the condition of
New Jersey was sent to the Lords of the Committee of
Council.1 The report gave in detail the basis of the pro-
prietary claims and a lengthy statement of the disorders in
the province. After a review of the claims of the rioters
the report, little sparing the feelings of the Elizabethtown
and other claimants, characterized them as a " Set of Free-
booters who enter upon any lands, and cut down and de-
stroy the timber, tho' the lands have been ever so long
granted to others under the King's title."
It was the lords' opinion that the laws passed in New
Jersey designed to check the disorders should be disallowed,
in accordance with a report of the attorney general and
solictor general. The rise and progress of the outbreaks
were due principally to the weakness of the government,
consequent upon the necessity of the governor's either obey-
ing the popular will or being refused support.2 As to rem-
edies, the report declared the most efficient would be to
send a " sufficient military force under the direction of a
commander to be appointed for that service." Or four com-
panies from New York could be sent under the command
of an authorized person, allowed to act independently by
having a competent salary settled upon him at home. Or
if it was believed that either of the above remedies would not
be efficient, New Jersey might be re-united to the govern-
XN. J. A., vol. vii, p. 466. *Ibid., p. 521.
2oi] THE PROPRIETARY SYSTEM 20I
ment of New York according to the plan in vogue before
1738.
The Lords of the Committee of the Privy Council, as a
result of the above report, in July, 1751, directed the at-
torney general and solicitor general to prepare a draft of a
commission to be issued for investigating the grievances
of the king's New Jersey subjects.1 The Lords Commis-
sioners for Trade and Plantation were ordered to prepare
the draft of an additional instruction to be sent to the gov-
ernor of New Jersey. This instruction was to be drawn so
as to include an expression of the king's displeasure with
the assembly for its inactivity, a notification to the inhabi-
tants that a commission had been ordered to inquire into
their grievances, and a declaration that the king had in con-
sideration " the granting an Act of Indemnity to all those
who shall appear to have merited the same," with the added
injunction that the people behave themselves for the future.
The commission intended for the investigation was pre-
pared by the attorney general and solicitor general, and
submitted to the Lords of the Committee of the Privy Coun-
cil.2 It empowered the prospective investigators to make a
full and impartial report upon New Jersey conditions. To
this end, they were granted by the commission, as drawn,
full power to receive necessary information, to examine
witnesses and to send for persons, books, papers or records
that might be useful. This tentative commission was re-
ferred to the lords of trade, who, in reporting it to the
committee of council, gave the opinion that, if it was exe-
cuted,
it must be by the appointment of such persons to be Commis-
sioners as shall be men of known Prudence, Temper and
lN. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 322. %IHd., vol. viii, pt. i, p. 58.
202 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [202
Ability, that these Commissioners should be chosen out of
some of the neighboring colonies or sent from hence, as your
Lordships shall judge most proper, but we are inclined to
think that persons sent from hence would be the least liable
to suspicion of Interest, Prejudice or Partiality.1
Inasmuch, however, as the commission authorized only
an inquiry into the grievances in New Jersey, upon which
subject the lords of trade had already made an exhaustive
report, it was not frankly recommended, and was never
issued. While the plan of appointing a committee to probe
New Jersey's affairs was under consideration, Belcher pro-
posed to Lord Hardwicke three persons for the committee.2
They were De Lancey, chief justice of New York; Fitch,
deputy governor of Connecticut; Saltonstall, first judge of
Massachusetts Bay; all three recommended as gentlemen
of capacity and integrity.
The lords of trade viewed favorably, however, a sugges-
tion of the attorney general and solicitor general that one
of the disputed property cases be brought up for a final
judicial determination, which when settled would serve as
a rule for all other cases.3 An additional instruction con-
formable to that idea was recommended, but never issued.
This plausible theory of a guiding judicial decision had
always worked miserably in practise. The difficulty was
that both sides could point to many such decisions to prove
their claims. The recommendation, if acted upon, would
doubtless have proved insufficient.
In the meantime, while the authorities at Whitehall were
evolving ways and means for the reduction of the restless
lN. J. A., vol. viii, pt. i, p. 90.
■ Belcher Papers •, Dec. 3, 1751.
tN. J. A., vol. viii, pt. i, p. 90.
203] THE PROPRIETARY SYSTEM 2O3
Jerseymen, there was no abatement of that restlessness in
the colony. The disturbers of the peace indeed continued
to regard legislative apathy as a commission allowing them
to defy the law. The counties of Essex, Middlesex and
Bergen particularly became the scenes of violence. Two
men, Ball and Burwell, having been imprisoned, were res-
cued, but later returned to confinement voluntarily and pe-
titioned for speedy trial. The assembly urged the governor
to issue a commission for holding a court of oyer and ter-
miner in Essex County, but acting upon the council's ad-
vice, he refused on the ground that lawful and impartial
juries could not be obtained in the county of Essex.1 In
September, 1749, the governor again appealed to the as-
sembly to take action, but fruitlessly. The appeal was re-
newed in February, 1750, after a riot at Horseneck, but
elicited the response from the assembly that legal prosecu-
tion was the only method to be pursued, and the disturb-
ances might have been checked, if the governor had heeded
the request for a commission of oyer and terminer in Essex
County.1
After a brief respite from disturbances, there occurred
in April, 1752, another jail-breaking and the release of a
prisoner committed for high treason at Perth Amboy. Al-
though the governor had issued his warrant that extra
precautions be taken to hold the prisoner, one Wickoff, in
confinement, he was spirited away before the extra precau-
tions could be taken. The council, on being asked by the
governor for advice, stated that inasmuch as orders might
be expected from the home government at any time, they
should be awaited.8 Belcher continued during the summer
'AT. J. A., vol. vii, p. 402.
* Assembly Journal, Feb. 21-27, 1750.
* N. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 379.
204 THB PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [204
of 1752 patiently to ply the London authorities for orders.
The council now despaired of any good coming from the
assembly, told the governor it would be useless to have
another session of the legislature to consider the state of
the colony, and became content with the suggestion that the
attorney general " should proceed according to the known
laws of the land."
When the assembly did meet in May, 1753, it listened to
the regular exhortation that some action should be taken
to bring the colony out of its difficulties. But after this
session of the legislature the governor could write to the
lords of trade merely the oft-repeated news that nothing
had been done to check the riots, and make the oft-re-
peated request that the king's orders be sent.
Early in 1754 Hunterdon County became the scene of
disorders, and Governor Belcher issued a proclamation
commanding the magistrate to punish the guilty persons.1
One year later another disturbance occurred in the same
county, and there followed the usual procedure — the chief
executive's request for advice from the council, and the
subsequent issue of a proclamation ordering the magistrates
to be diligent and the sheriff to suppress the riots.2
By August, 1755, after more than half a century of
gloomy land dissensions, the horizon began to clear, and
there came a relief from the intermittent distractions. This
fortunate turn in affairs was due particularly to the im-
pending struggle with France and the development of a
disposition on the part of the people to submit their land
title cases to the regular course of judicial procedure. The
Elizabethtown claimants filed their elaborate answer to the
proprietary bill in chancery, and Essex County, the center
of the agitation, was disposed to wait hopefully for the
XN. J. A.t vol. xvi, p. 433. 3 Ibid., p. 513.
205] THE PROPRIETARY SYSTEM 205
results of that suit. In other counties, many former asso-
ciates surrendered their claims to the proprietors. Not only
were the people becoming weary of the profitless struggle,
but they were obliged to turn their attention to the absorb-
ing events of the Fourth Intercolonial War. As early as
August, 1753, Belcher, doubtless encouraged by the less
frequent occurrence of riots, had written to the lords of
trade that the province was in a " better state of peace and
tranquility/' and that the proprietors should improve this
excellent opportunity by bringing forward their actions of
trespass and ejectment.1
Over a year passed before an answer from the lords of
trade to the above letter reached New Jersey. This reply
from London, which Belcher laid before the council in No-
vember, 1754, advised that the governor use his influence
in persuading the proprietors to bring their actions for
trespass before the courts for adjudication.2 A council
committee considered the matter and after six months had
elapsed reported to the governor.8 It stated that after con-
tinued offers on the part of the proprietors to the rioters'
committee to join in an action, one Tompkins was entered
as defendant in 1752, the case to be tried a year later before
a Middlesex County jury, but delays had postponed the
trial of the case. In the meantime, according to a report
which came to the council committee, it was seen that the
spirit of rioting was disappearing.
In Essex County at least sixty rioters were indicted, con-
fessed the indictments, submitted to the mercy of the court,
were fined and ordered to good behavior for three years.
They complied and paid the costs of prosecution. In Hun-
terdon County even more auspicious omens were observed.
lN. J. A., vol. viii, pt. i, p. 151. * /did., vol. xvi, p. 493.
%Ibid.t p. 549.
206 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [206
In the trial of an action of trespass before the Supreme
Court at Burlington, the plaintiffs were able to set forth
their case as so just and evident, that not only were the
jury and bystanders convinced, but even the rioters settled
upon the lands involved in the case, and the defendant's
lawyer, who advised his clients " to contend no farther
against so clear a title.,, x The light of the proprietary
point of view dawned upon the wayward settlers of Mid-
dlesex and Hunterdon Counties, but the majority of the
people of Essex County had not yet, according to the pro-
prietors, become " sensible of their errors."
It must be borne in mind that the inhabitants of Middle-
sex and Hunterdon Counties were not included in the origi-
nal Elizabethtown Purchase. The determining factor in
their outbreak had been the influence of the general restless
conditions about them, or, as was so often mentioned in the
letters and reports of that time, the disorders spread.
Coupled with that was doubtless the hope of substantiating
their questionable claims against those of the proprietors
and in so doing, freeing themselves from the obligation of
the quit-rents, which they had regarded with such hostility.
But in Essex County, the seat of the Elizabethtown Pur-
chase, the outcome was different.
There the controversy came to an end, but not to a legal
settlement. On April 13, 1745, there was filed with the
clerk in chancery, Thomas Bartow, the Elizabethtown Bill
in Chancery.2 The title to the bill ran as follows :
A Bill in the Chancery of New Jersey, at the suit of John
Earl of Stair and others, Proprietors of the Eastern Division
lN. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 551.
"This Bill in Chancery is a rare document, as is also the answer
thereto. Copies are in the New Jersey Historical Society Library.
207] THE PROPRIETARY SYSTEM 207
of New Jersey; against Benjamin Bond and some other Per-
sons of Elizabethtown, distinguished by the Name of the
Qinker Lot Right Men. With three large Maps, done from
Copper-Plates, to which is added; The Publication of the
Council of Proprietors of East New Jersey, and Mr. Nevill's
speeches to the General Assembly, concerning the Riots com-
mitted in New Jersey, and the pretences of the Rioters, and
their Seducers."
The reader was likewise advised that " these Papers will
give a better Light into the History and Constitution of
New Jersey, than anything hitherto published, the matters
whereof have been chiefly collected from Records." The
document was published by subscription, printed by James
Parker. Parker and Benjamin Franklin were to sell a few
copies, the " Price bound and Maps coloured, Three Pounds ;
plain and stitcht only, Fifty Shillings, Proclamation
Money." The bill was an exhaustive defence of the pro-
prietary claims, signed by James Alexander and Joseph
Murray, " of Council for the Complainants." *
After the case of the plaintiffs had been fully set forth,
the bill concluded, praying that the defendants be com-
manded to appear on a certain day in " His Majesty's Court
of Chancery of this Province, then and there to answer
the Premises." The governor was asked to grant writs
of injunction, commanding the defendants and confederates
to commit no further " Waste or spoil upon the lands in
question, by cutting of timber or otherwise howsoever,
until your Excellency shall have given farther directions
therein." 2
The committee of Elizabethtown engaged William Liv-
ingston and William Smith, as their counsel, to prepare
an answer to the proprietary document. This work, " An
l£ill in Chancery, p. 81. Vbid., p. 81.
2o8 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [208
Answer to a Bill in the Chancery of New Jersey," was not
completed until August, 1751, and was printed the follow-
ing year by subscription. Affixed to the " Answer " are
the signatures of 449 freeholders and inhabitants of Eliza-
bethtown. A touch of sarcasm is apparent in the title to
the reply. It purports to be
An Answer to a Bill in the Chancery of New Jersey, at the
suit of John Earl of Stair, and others, commonly called Pro-
prietors, of the Eastern Division of New Jersey, against Ben-
jamin Bond, and others, claiming under the original Propri-
etors and Associates of Elizabethtown, to which is added;
Nothing either of the publications of the Council of Propri-
etors of East New Jersey, or, of the Pretences of the Rioters,
and their Seducers; except so far as the persons, meant by
Rioters, Pretend Title against the Parties to the above An-
swer; but a Great Deal of the Controversy, though much less
of the History and Constitution of New Jersey, than the said
Bill.
The Bill in Chancery was submitted to Governor Morris,
who had established a Court of Chancery and himself ex-
ercised the office of chancellor. Morris's connections might
naturally have inclined him toward the proprietary cause,
had he passed a decision upon the case; but his death in
1746, over five years before the answer was prepared, pre-
vented that contingency. On the other hand, had the case
been adjudicated before Belcher, his possible leaning toward
the defendant's cause would have been a matter of suspi-
cion on the part of many. For unknown reasons, it was
not settled before Belcher.
Some of the leading men connected with the suit died.1
The case dragged along and before a decision was ren-
1 Hatfield, History of Elizabeth, p. 372.
209] THE PROPRIETARY SYSTEM 209
dered the strenuous events beginning in the late fifties in-
terrupted its further progress. The raising of troops for
the French War became the paramount question. Shortly-
after came the tense situation caused by the Stamp Act,
from which time until the outbreak of the Revolution
thought and energy were diverted into other channels than
a suit in chancery over disputed land titles. During the
war for independence there was a suspension of legal busi-
ness, and after the colonies had gained their freedom and
New Jersey had become a state, the suit was never again
reopened. Hence this controversy which had been a thorn
in the side of the province for almost a century, was never
legally decided.
CHAPTER VII
Boundary Disputes
Boundary lines were often subjects of dispute during-
colonial times. Before the wilderness was claimed for
habitation, inexact bounds were not necessarily inconveni-
ent, but with the increase in population the necessity for
the determination of accurate and recognized boundaries
became imperative. In New Jersey history, the northern
boundary line was the cause of a long dispute with New
York. This was the most important controversy of this
nature, although not the only one. The ownership of
Staten Island and the jurisdiction over the waters lying
between New York and New Jersey were also matters of
contention. Of interest to the two proprietary bodies was
the fixation of the line between East and West Jersey.
The Duke of York granted to Berkeley and Carteret
All that Tract of land adjacent to New England and lying and
being to the westward of Long Island and Manhitas Island
and bounded on the east part by the maine sea and part by
Hudson River and hath upon the west Delaware Bay or River
and extendeth southward to the maine ocean as far as Cape
May at the south of Delaware Bay and to the northward as
far as ye northermost branch of the said Bay or River of
Delaware which is in fourtie one degrees and fourtie minutes
of lattitude and crosseth over thence in a straight line to Hud-
son River in fourty one degrees of lattitude which said tract
210 [210
2i i ] BOUNDARY DISPUTES 2I I
of land is hereafter to be called by the name or names of
New Cesarea or New Jersey.1
This was entirely definite, except for the " Northermost
Branch of the said Bay or River of Delaware which is in
fourtie one degrees and fourtie minutes of lattitude." The
determination of this spot caused a hundred-year contest.
Early but fruitless attempts had been made to fix the
northern line.2 The disputed section in New Jersey be-
longed to the proprietors, who naturally were most active
in procuring a settlement. In 1686 occurred the first un-
successful attempt to settle the boundary question. Delays
ensued, and it was not until 17 19 that another concerted
effort was made by the two colonies in this matter. In
that year Governor Hunter issued a commission for deter-
mining the boundary. Each legislature passed an act for
the purpose of appointing commissioners to cooperate in
running the line.8 An indenture was signed declaring the
Fish-Kill to be the northernmost branch of the Delaware,
but an unfortunate disagreement between the surveyors as
to the point on the Hudson, rendered the whole affair
abortive.
Although a settlement was so nearly attained, almost
thirty years elapsed before the controversy was again
actively revived. Meanwhile that section of the colony was
becoming peopled with great rapidity. It was for the
greater convenience of the growing population that Morris
County was established in 1740. This may have served to
revive the troublesome question, for almost immediately
lN. J. A., vol. i, p. 12.
1 See Tanner, op. cit.% p. 641 et seq.\ Whitehead, Northern Boundary
Line, N. J. Hist. Soc. Proc, vol. viii, p. 157.
■Nevill, Acts of the General Assembly, p. 77.
212 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [212
the charge was made that its bounds extended beyond the
confines of New Jersey.1 The two counties in the disputed
section were Morris County, New Jersey, and Orange
County, New York.
When civil officers began to exercise authority in the
newly-erected county, disorders inevitably ensued. Inhabi-
tants near the supposed line denied the jurisdiction of the
Jersey officials over them, and used violence upon persons
in that vicinity who declared their lands were in New Jer-
sey. The bravado of the Orange County men led them into
such reckless conduct that frequent complaints against them
were received by Governor Morris. On the other hand,
the Jerseymen were not entirely innocent of seeking to gain
an advantage, forcibly if necessary. Neither side was in-
clined to be bullied, and there resulted a condition of tur-
moil and violence, well calculated to show the necessity for
a speedy settlement of the boundary line. The council
unanimously advised the governor to urge the Morris
County magistrates to avoid strife, preserve peace, and pro-
tect the inhabitants from insult.2 There is no evidence that
the magistrates were not disposed to follow such excellent
advice, but in itself it was insufficient to correct the frontier
difficulties.
The border encroachments continued. In September,
1 741, a joint committee of both proprietary boards in the
province appealed to Governor Morris to use his influence
in having the line run.3 After a thorough investigation
the petitioners had become convinced that New Yorkers
had overrun the line of that colony and were dispossessing
many of the tenants of the Jersey proprietors from their
lands.
1 N. J. A., vol. viii, pt. ii, p. 266.
* Ibid., vol. xv, p. 185. 8 Ibid., vol. vi, p. 138.
213] BOUNDARY DISPUTES 213
As this petition did not spur the governor to action, the
East Jersey proprietors sent an address to Morris in June
of the next year.1 It was claimed that John Bayard of
New York had started ejectment proceedings in an Orange
County court against persons who lived seven miles south
of where the true line should run.2 Morris was urged to
write to the lieutenant governor of New York with a view
to a settlement of the boundary question. Lieutenant Gov-
ernor Clarke having been succeeded by George Clinton, as
governor of New York, Morris addressed himself to the
latter.8 To impress upon him the seriousness of the situa-
tion, there were sent to Clinton copies of the petitions that
had been received by the New Jersey executive. His aid
in the premises was asked, especially to restrain the people
in his government from engaging in hostile demonstrations
upon the New Jersey frontier. The two governors carried
on an active correspondence with one another, but the
boundary line was not further mentioned. The New York
governor's declared reason for his inactivity was that
£3,000 had formerly been expended in New York for that
purpose, and no settlement reached.4 Clinton was particu-
larly interested in French and Indian affairs, and then too
the Third Intercolonial War began at this time to engage
the activities of the colonists.
Governor Clinton recognized the necessity of running
the line, but shifted the responsibility of any action upon
Chief Justice James De Lancey.6 Robert Hunter Morris
met De Lancey, and other New Yorkers concerned in the
border lands on October 29, 1743, but the meeting broke
up after " much talk to little purpose." 6 Endeavors to
lN. J. A., vol. vi, p. 144. * Ibid., p. 147.
8 Ibid., p. 162. KIbid., vol. vii, p. 152.
6 Ibid., vol. vi, p. 168. • Ibid., p. 171.
2i4 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [214
rouse the officials or landowners of New York to action
failed dismally. The East Jersey proprietors were per-
suaded that only " by an Act of the General Assembly of
this province to be approved by his Majesty for running the
same line ex parte " would the desired end be gained.1 Gov-
ernor Morris was urged to recommend such an act to the
legislature at its next meeting. Morris's indisposition, how-
ever, prevented the delivery of the formal address to both
houses at this session. A bill to settle the New York and
New Jersey line was introduced, but, as with other meas-
ures, no agreement between the council and assembly was
possible.2 Violent constitutional conflicts marked the
course of legislation at this time, and it was almost certain
that any line act, sponsored by East Jersey proprietors,
would not receive favorable action in the assembly.
In the winter of 1747- 1748 the assembly was at length
prevailed upon to pass the bill for ascertaining the partition
line. The council minutes show that James Alexander was
in constant attendance during the legislative session of that
year and presumably was one of the most influential of
those who prevailed upon the lower house to pass the. act.3
It may be noted also, that this was the eminently satisfactory
legislative session shortly after Belcher's arrival at which
the assembly's pet bills were passed. This act had a clause
suspending its operation until the royal pleasure was known.4
By it commissioners were appointed for running the line,
with the consent of New York, and according to the act
of 1718.5
1 N. J. A., vol. vi, p. 218.
8 Assembly Journal, Nov., 1744.
*N. J. A., vol. vii, p. 119.
*Allinson, op. ciL, p. 172. Neither Nevill nor Allinson give the de-
tails of this act.
h N. J. A., vol. viii, pt. i, p. 217.
215] BOUNDARY DISPUTES 215
There was apprehension on the part of the East Jersey
proprietors for the success of the partition act in England.
Governor Belcher strongly urged the confirmation of the
bill as tending greatly to promote the quiet and peace of
the royal subjects, but the attitude of New York was
ominous.1 For the first time in over a decade that colony
had appointed an agent in London. The supposition was
that this appointment was made chiefly with a view to op-
posing the line act. On April 9, 1748, this suspicion seemed
verified. A motion was made by Mr. Gale in the New York
assembly that as
an Act has been lately passed by the Legislature of the Prov-
ince of New Jersey for settling the boundaries between that
Province and this, which, in its consequences, may greatly affect
the properties of many of the inhabitants of this colony, and
tend to lessen and impair his Majesties Revenue Arising by
Quit rents, I humbly move that Mr. Speaker may be directed
to write to Mr. Charles, Agent for this colony in Great Brit-
tain, to use his endeavors that the said act may not receive
royal assent until this colony have an opportunity of making
their objections to, and being heard against the said act.2
It was accordingly ordered that the speaker of the assem-
bly should notify Charles to use his influence against the
bill.
Steps were taken by the New Jersey proprietors to assure
the final success of the act. Robert Hunter Morris, Elisha
Parker and James Alexander were a committee in charge
of the boundary affair. Proofs were sent to their agent in
London which, it was expected, would obviate all the ob-
jections that the New Yorkers might bring forth.8 Alex-
1 Belcher Papers, April 22, 1748.
* N. J. A., vol. vii, p. 120. %Ibid.t p. 126.
2i6 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [2i6
ander hoped that one hearing before the lords of trade
would convince them of the propriety of the bill. The
committee notified the speakers of the New York council
and assembly of the passage of the act, delivering sundry
papers to them.1 Likewise an address was sent to Gov-
ernor Clinton notifying him that the king would be urged
to approve the boundary line act. He was asked to com-
municate to the New Jersey committee any objections he
might have to the measure, in order that such objections
might be satisfactorily answered.2
The governor of New York undertook to explain his
attitude in this matter to the royal authorities in a letter
of October 7, 1748.3 It was his idea that as the lands along
the line were granted to private persons for trivial quit
rents, the settlement was only a matter of adjustment be-
tween the interested parties in both provinces. As it did
not appear to him " that the interest of the Crown or of
this Province in General are any way concerned in the
matter, but only the Pattentees of the lands along that
line," the New York executive declined to bother the home
officials with the controversy.
New York freeholders living near the disputed region
opposed the New Jersey line act, as they " found Sundry
things set forth therein for facts and truths which they
conceived to be otherwise." 4 The bid for royal favor made
by the New York assembly in the resolution of April 9,
1748, referred to above, was clever. To claim that running
the partition line might lessen the king's quit rents was not
a valid argument against settling the boundary difficulty.
As a matter of fact, practically all the lands along the line
lN. J. A.y vol. vii, p. 141.
2I6id., p. 142; Robert H. Morris Papers ', vol. ii, p. 8.
zI6id., p. 159. K R. H. Morris Papers, vol. ii, p. 36.
217] BOUNDARY DISPUTES 217
had been granted away by the crown, and it was imma-
terial to the king where the line fell.1
But whether just or not, the opposition of New York
brought on an expensive and leisurely investigation in Eng-
land. In both provinces the landholders wished the inves-
tigation to be a public charge, but it was made so only in
New York. The East Jersey proprietors were certain that
the assembly would not contribute to the expense and did
not press the matter.2 In New York there was opposition
to saddling the debt upon the public. The opposition)
granted the necessity of determining the line, but insisted
that those who were to reap the benefits should bear tha
burdens.8 A pamphlet discussion was provoked by the
question. One gentleman of New York, signing himself
" Tribunus Populi," asked if it was " reasonable and just,
that those persons who have obtained enormous grants of
two or three hundred thousand acres of land upon that line,
at so small a Quit-Rent as a Beaver skin etc, should expect
the public to pay for running a line to ascertain their
bounds? " * Despite the strong opposition to such a course,
the New York assembly voted in 1750 that the Jersey line
act should be opposed at public expense. This result 13
said to have been due chiefly to the De Lancey influence.8
In due season the New Jersey bill reached England, and
agent Paris received also the papers and data with which
to defend the measure. On February 14, 1749, he sub-
mitted a petition to the lords of trade in defense of the bill.8
The history of the case was recited, including the last in-
effectual attempt to come to an amicable agreement with
*N. J. A., vol. vii, p. 153. *Ibid., p. 262. ■ Ibid., p. 163.
*R. H. Morris Papers, vol. ii, p. 22.
5 Whitehead, Northern Boundary, p. 167.
• N. J. A., vol. vii, p. 229.
2i8 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [218
New York. In conclusion the lords were asked to appoint
a day for a hearing, that they might thereafter recommend
the act to the king. There followed many delays, and
month after month Paris was forced to notify his Ameri-
can clients that the board had not yet considered the bill.1
Aside from the fact that the lords were occupied with other
questions, the delays were in no small part occasioned by the
conduct of Charles, the New York agent. He ever pressed
for a postponement of the case on the ground that instruc-
tions had not been sent to him by the New York assembly.
On July 19, 1749 the privilege of one more postponement
was granted for the benefit of Mr. Charles.2 The delay
was to last only long enough for a letter to reach America
and have an answer returned. Intercourse between the
mother country and the colonies was slow at that time, but
not to such an extreme as the delay that actually ensued.
Many letters might have been exchanged between Charles
and the New York assembly before the question was again
revived. The next hearing was not held until June 7, 1753.
It appears that agent Paris had slight hope for the suc-
cess of the East Jersey proprietors in this affair. The
whole thing was distasteful to him, yet he claimed to have
labored as faithfully as if he " had liked the Cause." 8 To
James Alexander he wrote, " but I assure you, was this a
matter recommended to me by A Person whom I had less
regard for, no Pecuniary Reward whatsoever should drag
me to it." The cause of this " heavy heart " on Parish
part was that the East Jersey proprietors were urging him
to state " the case a little too tenderly and favourably for
themselves." He feared that he would suffer ill-conse-
quences from such a course of procedure. It was with evi-
lN. J. A., vol. vii, pp. 234, 240, 297.
'/did., p. 300. */6id., p. 300.
2IQ] BOUNDARY DISPUTES 219
dent relief that Paris learned of the intended visit of Chief
Justice Morris to England. " I shall every day look for Mr
Ch: Justices arrival", he wrote on November 10, 1749.*
Morris had sailed from Newcastle, Delaware, about twelve
days before that date.
Whatever may have been the proprietary agent's personal
feelings, he never wavered in the task before him. After
the long period of apathy, Paris could finally report, on
March 7, 1753, that a hearing of the case had been or-
dered " on the first committee after Easter." 2 The request
that a day be set for the consideration of the boundary act
had been made by Paris on December 2, 1752.8
After testimony had been taken on the boundary act, the
opinion pronounced by the lords of trade was unfavorable
to New Jersey.4 The lords declared that if the boundary
grants were doubtful recourse might be taken to one of
two methods of settlement. Either all parties concerned
might concur, or the regular channels of judicial procedure
might be utilized. The latter method necessitated a com-
mission from the crown under the great seal. The act under
consideration was pronounced unwarrantable and ineffect-
ual because it had not the concurrence of the other parties
concerned. As former proceedings in this difficulty between
New York and New Jersey were not warranted on the part
of the crown, they were not binding upon the crown. Any
determination of the boundary prejudicial to New York,
according to the report, would affect the king's interest, in
that he might be deprived of escheats and quit rents. How-
ever meagre such rents might be, the essence of the ques-
1 N. J. A., vol. vii, p. 360.
*R. H. Morris Papers, vol. ii, p. 62.
1 Collections of N. J. Hist. Society, vol. v, p. 298.
'M J. A., vol. viii, pt. i, p. 128.
220 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [220
tion was not altered. From this reasoning the conclusion
was logically reached that Governor Hunter ought not to
have issued his commission for running the line. It was
declared impossible to recommend this line act for ap-
proval, and the agents of the two provinces were ordered
to attend the board meeting on July 4th. Later in the same
month the lords of trade submitted their opinion to the king
in a representation which declared the New Jersey line act
not fit to receive the royal approbation.1
The industrious Paris made immediate preparations to
oppose favorable action on the lords of trade's representa-
tion, but was handicapped because of a lack of instructions
and funds.2 A committee of the privy council, to which
the king had referred the report, had the matter under ad-
visement. Paris decided to adopt the former tactics of the
New York agent and spar for a delay in the proceedings.
On August 7, 1753, the case was held up until a petition
could be prepared for the Jersey proprietors. The East Jer-
sey agent found the proprietors of the western division dis-
inclined to risk the expense of opposing the opinion of the
lords of trade, but Robert Hunter Morris believed the West
Jersey Society would take a " proper part in the affair." *
The petition, however, was submitted by the East Jersey
proprietors alone. After an elaborate review of the case,
the petitioners asked that they might be heard against the
report of July 18th. All efforts were of no avail, and the
act for determining the boundary line was disallowed.
Over five years had elapsed since the passage of the bill in
the New Jersey legislature!
The East Jersey proprietors fell into error because of
1 N. J. A., vol. viii, pt. ii, p. 144.
*Ibid.y p. 152. *Ibid., p. 158.
221 j BOUNDARY DISPUTES 22 1
their insistence that nothing should be done to invalidate
what had been accomplished in 17 19. It indicates the fear
on their part that they could not hope for a more favorable
decision than that would have been had it been consum-
mated, and the intimation that nothing less favorable to
them should be considered. The royal authorities, however,
by assenting to the boundary line acts of both provinces in
1719, did warrant the proceedings at that time. But those
proceedings resulted in no definite or final agreement and
should not have been made almost the sine qua non in the
case of the Jersey proprietors over thirty years later. On
the other hand it was not strict justice to consider the royal
quit rents in this boundary dispute. The true determination
could be made only according to the interpretation of the
land grants and not by any gerrymandering of the line to
suit the royal revenue. An impartial consideration of every
circumstance does not appear to have been the constant rule
of any of the parties concerned, but the attitude of New
Jersey is less reprehensible than that of New York or the
crown.
At this time, the summer of 1753, the upper parts of
Morris County were erected into Sussex County.1 New
courts, new officials, and new tax-gatherers were estab-
lished along this border country, thus increasing the possi-
bility of disorders. On December 20, 1753, Governor Bel-
cher, in view of the riots and outrages that had taken place,
besought the lords of trade to consider ways and means to
bring about a settlement of the boundary, as there was little
prospect of an amicable adjustment between the two pro-
vinces.2 In July, 1753, Richard Gardiner, an East Jersey
surveyor, had been threatened " with horrid oaths and a
1 Allinson, op. cii., p. 194.
•iv~. J. A.t vol. viii, pt. i, p. 100.
222 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [222
pistol ", wounded and robbed.1 New Jersey officials were
arrested and hauled before New York justices for per-
forming their duties in the disputed territory. It was said
that to " enumerate all the cruelties and abuses committed
by the people of New York upon people of New Jersey "
would have filled a large volume!
But it is not to be supposed that the Jerseymen along the
border were entirely passive. The records of each colony
testify to the violence of the other party. On a Sunday in
February, 1754, New Yorkers claimed that "about fifty
Jersey People had attacked and taken Justice Swartwout
and Justice Westbrook, and had greatly beat and abused
Justice Swartwout and had carried those two Justices down
below Pechaqualong before Justice Van Camp." 2 Not only
were Orange County officials thus summarily dealt with,
but it is likewise alleged that inhabitants of that county
deserted their homes or else converted them into veritable
forts.
Little time elapsed after the notice of the disallowance
of the act of 1748 before the East Jersey proprietors made
the next move. They were rather stirred to activity by
discrediting reports published by the New York legislature.
A most exhaustive and detailed statement of the dispute
was presented to Belcher in a memorial of the council of
the East Jersey proprietors, dated November 20, 1753.3
The following March it was sent to the lords of trade by
Robert Hunter Morris. The distinguishing feature of this
document was its advocacy of a temporary line of jurisdic-
tion. It was contended that there were no sufficient reasons
for not regarding the observations of 1719 at least as fixing
lN. J. A., vol. viii, pt. i, p. 226 et seq.; vol. xvi, pp. 435 et seg.
a Ibid., vol. xvi, p. 437; vol. viii, pt. ii, p. 20.
* Ibid,, pp. 202-286.
223] BOUNDARY DISPUTES 223
a temporary line. If New York regarded this as an en-
croachment, running the true line would be the remedy, or
New York should show better reasons for any other tem-
porary line. The governor was urged to assert the juris-
diction of the province up to the line designated in 171 9.
To further evince their earnestness in the matter, the East
Jersey council of proprietors entered into a bond of £2,000
to pay half the charge for executing a royal commission
to settle the bounds between New York and New Jersey.1
The lords of trade concurred in the belief that a tem-
porary boundary should be fixed, and promised shortly to
so recommend to the king. In the meantime Governor
Belcher and Lieutenant Governor De Lancey were both to
take all legal and proper measures to preserve the peace in
the disrupted region.* New York, however, showed no
disposition to agree even to a temporary line of jurisdic-
tion.8 Belcher's repeated letters to De Lancey urging that
such action be taken were ignored. There was no respite of
violence along the frontier and the governor of New Jer-
sey feared much bloodshed and many murders, if De Lancey
did not cooperate with him to restore and preserve peace.*
By November, 1754, Governor Belcher wrote to the lords
of trade that matters " seem to be come to a Crisis ; and I
am in much pain, least there should be bloodshed, among
the Borders, before King's Orders can arrive." B
The New Yorkers at length found it imperative to have
a semblance of order maintained along the border. De
Lancey wrote to the lords of trade, on December 15, 1754,
of the necessity of a speedy settlement of a temporary line.*
XN. J. A., vol. viii, pt. i, p. 200. * Ibid., p. 206 et seq.
• Ibid., vol. viii, pt. ii, p. 27. * Ibid., vol. viii, pt. ii, p. 30.
* Ibid., vol. viii, pt. ii, p. 72. *Ibid., p. 74.
224 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [224
He was advised by the New York assembly to exercise
jurisdiction to the line of 1686. This line was, of course,
less favorable to New Jersey than the one of 1719, and in
addition, as claimed by New York at this time, was some
distance south of the actual observations of 16861 The
failure to agree upon even a temporary boundary precluded
a speedy termination of the dispute. James Alexander
felt that the New Yorkers were trying to wear the East
Jersey proprietors out, but believed that none of the pro-
prietors would grow weak in the contest. He evidently
thought the dispute would be handed down from genera-
tion to generation. Intimating that proprietary affairs
must soon devolve upon others, because he was becoming
old, the veteran Alexander wrote to Paris, in January,
1755, that he also "must be well Advanced in Years."*
The agent was advised to fee some dependable gentleman,
who could assist Paris in case he should become sick or dis-
abled, for the differences with New York would continue to
need an able manager.
On June 12, 1755, the lords of trade reported against
an act of the New York legislature " for submitting the
controversy, between the Colonies of New York and New
Jersey, relating to the partition between the said Colonies
to the final determination of His Majesty." 3 To allow the
king to decide the dispute without either party having the
prospect of an appeal was pronounced unusual. To pre-
viously ascertain the limits of the disputed property, as
this act did, was declared improper. To propose .a method
of decision to which the New Jersey proprietors had not
consented was regarded as ineffectual. The disallowance
of the bill was recommended.
lSee Map, N. J. Hist. Soc. Proc, vol. viii, p. 157.
*iV. J. A., vol. viii, pt. ii, p. 90. 8 Ibid., p. 108.
225] BOUNDARY DISPUTES 22$
At the same time, the proper method of procedure in
this boundary dispute was declared to be by a commission,
from whose decision either party could appeal to the king
in privy council. As this was the plan which the New
Jersey interests had continually favored, it was proposed
that an additional instruction be sent to the governor of
New York, now Sir Charles Hardy, directing him to
recommend to the assembly of that province the payment of
half of the expense of executing the suggested commission.
The instruction was issued, and Hardy recommended to his
assembly a dutiful compliance with what the king had or-
dered.1 Belcher, optimistic as usual at the first appearance
of light, wrote to the lords of trade of the importance of
settling disputes between the colonies " in this time of Gen-
eral Danger when their united strength is so necessary.,, 2
But had Belcher lived a decade longer than he did, he would
not even then have had the satisfaction of witnessing the
final adjustment of this persistent dispute.
In colonial history it was frequently the case that the
king proposed, but the assembly disposed. Governor Hardy
urged and argued the matter with the New York assembly,
but nothing was done.8 That body pleaded the heavy ex-
pense to which the province would be put as the reason for
this negligence. The New York executive suggested the
propriety of having a commission in England determine
the case, but the lords of trade rejected this as unprece-
dented and not less expensive than the desired scheme.*
He was ordered to again urge the assembly to make proper
provision for the expense of the commission. The assem-
bly however showed no disposition to obey the royal in-
struction, and evidently had no intention of so doing.
lN. J. A., vol. viii, pt. ii, p. 183. * Ibid., p. 187.
5 Ibid., p. 207. * Ibid., p. 213.
226 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [226
On September 1, 1756, Belcher again entreated the Lon-
don officials to interpose in the dispute, that more unfor-
tunate consequences might be prevented.1 The East Jer-
sey proprietors again petitioned the king.2 They definitely
asked that a royal order be issued declaring the line of 17 19
the line of jurisdiction until the true line should " be finally
settled, run and marked under a commission from your
Majesty to be issued and carried into Execution at the Joint
and Equal Expense of your Petitioners and the said pro-
vince of New York."
It seemed that this definite and just proposal must receive
due consideration. The petition was referred to the lords
of trade, and December 21, 1756, was the day appointed for
a hearing.3 The usual delays followed. At length, on
January 27, 1757, the lords of trade reported in favor of the
temporary line, as indicated in the East Jersey petition.
Agent Charles of New York had repeatedly succeeded in
obtaining postponements, but the lords finally saw the neces-
sity of restoring peace between the provinces.4 New York
was allowed six months in which to provide for the ex-
penses of the final settlement, before the temporary arrange-
ment should take effect. The report of the lords of trade
was subsequently approved by a committee of the privy
council.5
Six months were allowed ; years were taken. With char-
acteristic neglect the matter was not pushed to completion
and border strife again began. The inhabitants of northern
New Jersey were particularly restive. Philip Swartwout
certified to the council of New York that " one Petrus
Smoke, who called himself Sheriff of Sussex County in the
XN. J. A., vol. viii, pt. ii, p. 224. */bid., p. 225.
*R. H. Morris Papers, vol. ii, p. 79 et seq.
'N. J, A., vol. viii, pt. ii, p. 243. bIbid., p. 256.
227] BOUNDARY DISPUTES 227
Province of New Jersey, with eleven other persons pre-
tending to be inhabitants of New Jersey, but in fact being
all or most of them possessors of Lands within the ancient
and long exercised jurisdiction of this Province," that is
New York, forcibly ousted him and his family from their
possessions.1 The Orange County sheriff, obeying an order
of the New York council, reinstated Swart wout in his
possessions.2 But this did not end that gentleman's troubles
with the unneighborly Jerseymen. In the winter of 1761,
" dreading the miseries to which an imprisonment in this
rigorous season of the year would naturally expose him,"
Swartwout signed a £1,600 bond to appear at the Sussex
County court on the third Tuesday in February.8 President
Colden of New York urged Governor Boone to take meas-
ures for Swartwout's relief and prevent further encroach-
ments upon the New York frontier.4
An interval of quiet ensued, until finally, on December
11, 1762, the New York legislature passed an act to settle
the line.5 General Monckton, appointed governor of New
York the preceding year, sent a copy of the act to Governor
Franklin, who laid it before the New Jersey legislature on
May 28, 1763.* The measure passed in New York was en-
titled,
An Act for submitting the property of the lands which are
held or claimed by grants under the Great Seal of this Colony
and are affected by the Controversy about the boundary or
Partition line between this Colony and the Colony of New
Jersey to such a method of decision as his most Gracious
1N. J. A., vol. ix, p. 178.
1 Ibid., p. 182
• Ibid., p. 250.
'/bid., p. 253
*N. Y. Colonial Laws, vol. iv, p. 640.
1 Assembly Journal, May 28, 1763.
228 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [228
Majesty shall think proper by his Royal Commission or other-
wise to appoint and for defraying the expense to accrue on
the part of this colony on the final settlement of the said Line.
John Cruger, Henry Holland, Frederick Philipse, John
Morin Scott, William Bayard and Benjamin Kissam were
appointed agents to manage the controversy. The act was
to be void if New Jersey did not pass a bill for the same
purpose within a year.
At no previous time had all parties concerned been so
unanimously agreed upon the necessity of a settlement of
the line of jurisdiction between the two provinces. In the
New Jersey legislature a similar bill was promptly intro-
duced, passed both houses and received the governor's ap-
proval on June 3d.1 Five agents were appointed by the act
to manage the controversy. By an act passed at the same
session, the East Jersey proprietors bound themselves to in-
demnify the province for any funds drawn out of the
treasury for the purposes of the boundary settlement.2
Of the five agents nominated to manage the New Jersey
interests in the controversy, one was opposed by the lords
of trade and a second died shortly after the enactment of
the law. The other three were John Stevens, James Parker
and Henry Cuyler, naturally all large East Jersey land-
holders. Inasmuch as the line act of 1763 was disallowed
because of the one objectionable agent, only the title is
given in Allinson's collection of laws, and the names of the
undesirable and of the deceased nominee are not known.
On February 21, 1764, Governor Franklin advised the
asembly to pass another act for settling the line, in every
respect like the former one, " except that instead of the two
gentlemen first named therein/' the names of William Don-
1 Allinson, op. cit., p. 254. * Ibid.
229] BOUNDARY DISPUTES 229
aldson and Walter Rutherford should be inserted.1 This
was accordingly done and two days later the act for sub-
mitting the property of lands in the colony, " to such a
method of decision as His most gracious Majesty shall
think proper by his Royal Commission or otherwise to ap-
point," was passed.2 Another bill was also enacted for
subjecting the estates of the East Jersey proprietors to the
exemption of the province from any expense.3 Three more
years elapsed before the boundary commission was issued
under the privy seal.
The delay may have been caused by the selection of the
commissioners. In August, 1764, Henry Wilmot, the New
Jersey agent, submitted a list of five commissioners for run-
ning the line. They were Governor Franklin, Andrew
Oliver, Peter Randolph, Peyton Randolph, and Richard
Corbin.4 These men were evidently selected on the part
of New Jersey, with the idea that New York would submit
a similar list. In 1766 the list of commissioners to adjudi-
cate the boundary dispute was announced, but met with
some objections on the part of Wilmot. Petitioning the
king for an alteration of the personnel of the commission,
he asked that Charles Stewart be appointed instead of the
late John Temple, and that Richard Bulkley, Charles Morris,
Joseph Guerrish and Joseph Gorham be struck from the
list.8 The rejection of the four last named gentleman was
asked because they were Nova Scotia officials, and too far
removed from the scene of action. Wilmot mentioned that
the appointment of fewer commissioners would have been
more agreeable to both provinces. According to the list
as finally issued, Morris was the only Nova Scotia officer
1 Assembly Journal, Feb. 21, 1764-
*Allinson, op. cit., p. 263. 3 Ibid., p. 265.
*N. J. A., vol. ix, p. 447. hIbid., p. 589.
230 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [230
included, but the names of both Temple and Stewart ap-
pear.
The draft of the commission to settle the boundary dis-
pute between New York and New Jersey was approved,
June 26, 1767.1 Thirteen commissioners were appointed,
five of whom constituted a quorum. If at the first or sec-
ond meeting agents of the two provinces had not su,b-
mitted to the adjudicators a full statement of the case, the
commissioners might proceed ex parte in the execution of
the commission. Full powers were granted to adjudicate
the case. Not sooner than two months, nor later than three
months, after the decision was rendered, the commissioners
were to meet in order that either party, if aggrieved, might
enter an appeal to the king in privy council.
The thrteen commissoners were:2 Charles Stewart, John
Temple, and Peter Randolph, surveyors general of the
customs for the district of Quebec, and of the northern and
southern districts of America, respectively; Andrew Elliot,
receiver general of quit rents in New York; Chambers
Russell, judge of the Court of Vice Admiralty in Massa-
chusetts; William Allen, chief justice of Pennsylvania;
Samuel Holland and William De Brahm, surveyors gen-
eral of lands for the northern and southern districts of
America; Andrew Oliver, secretary of Massachusetts;
Charles Morris, surveyor of lands of Nova Scotia; Peyton
Randolph, attorney general of Virginia; Benjamin Frank-
lin, of Pennsylvania, and Jared Ingersoll, of Connecticut.
Two years passed before the first meeting of the com-
missioners, held in New York in July 18, I76g.* Six of
the thirteen were in attendance, Stewart, Morris, Elliot,
1 N. J. A., vol. ix, p. 630. tIbid., p. 624.
'Whitehead, Northern Boundary, p. 174.
231] BOUNDARY DISPUTES 231
Holland, Oliver and Ingersoll. John Jay was appointed
secretary. For New York, Scott, Bayard and Cruger were
the most active agents; for New Jersey, Parker, Stevens
and Rutherford.
It is not within the province of this study to follow the
proceedings of the commissioners.1 The decision, ren-
dered on October 7, 1769, and the subsequent developments
in the case will be noted. The point on the Delaware de-
termined upon was at the junction of the Mackhackimack
and Delaware Rivers.2 That station, in latitude 41 degrees,
21 minutes and 37 seconds was believed to have been in-
tended in the deed from the Duke of York as at the north-
ernmost branch of the Delaware. The point on the Hud-
son should be fixed at 41 degrees. The straight line drawn
between these two points was declared to be the true bound-
ary. Samuel Holland and Charles Morris did not concur
with the other commissioners as to the station at the Hud-
son River.
The decree was satisfactory to neither province. New
York declared that both points were too far north; New
Jersey insisted that the station on the Delaware was too far
south. By this decree, observed a New York newspaper
account, " many Hundred Thousand Acres of Land, and
a vast number of antient possessions held by patents under
this colony, are totally ceded to New Jersey " ; and again,
" Tho' by this decree the court house and Church in Orange
Town is left a few Rods to the Northward of the line de-
creed; yet upwards of 150 families settled in that antient
county town, will, if the Decree be confirmed, be dismem-
bered from this colony, and exposed to utter Ruin." 8 In
their report to the governor, the New Jersey agents, on the
1 Minutes of the Boundary Commission, in N. Y. Hist. Soc. Library.
*N. J. A., vol. xviii, p. 15. s Ibid., vol. xxvi, p. 518.
232 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [232
other hand, declared that the line, as decided would deprive
their colony of at least 150,000 acres of land.1
The New York agents immediately appealed from the
decree. The appeal was refused, as it could not be received
until two months after the decision had been rendered. The
commissioners thereupon adjourned to meet at Hartford,
Connecticut, on December 8th, for the purpose of hearing
the appeal of either party.2 Bayard, one of the New York
agents, went to England presumably to exert his influence
in favor of that province.3 The East Jersey proprietors
sought to obtain the aid of the province in the further nego-
tiation of the boundary dispute. Governor Franklin was
advised by his council to recommend to the assembly that
the New Jersey managers of the dispute should receive
provincial assistance in any possible litigation before the
crown.4 In addition the East Jersey proprietors petitioned
the legislature to grant a sum of money to enable them " to
appeal to the king in council and support the just claim of
this province against the extravagant claim of New York." 5
Although the immediate controversy was between indi-
viduals, Franklin told the assembly it affected the interests
of the two provinces, and New Jersey, like New York,
should aid in defending the claims.6
A conference was held between committees of the coun-
cil and assembly, the initiative having been taken by the
lower house.7 It was resolved to introduce a bill empower-
ing the treasurers to take a bond, from the agents appointed
to manage the controversy, for funds drawn pursuant to the
XN. J. A., vol. xviii, p. 14. * Ibid., vol. xxvi, p. 519.
s Whitehead, Northern Boundary, p. 183.
*N. J. A., vol. xviii, p. 21.
6 Assembly Journal, Nov. 9, 1769. *Ibid.t Nov. 18, 1769.
7 A. J. A., vol. xviii, p. 86.
233] BOUNDARY DISPUTES 233
line act, but that the treasurers should be indemnified by
the agents. The committee of correspondence was directed
to order the London agent to support the claim of the pro-
vince by a memorial to the king.1 An act to indemnify the
treasurers for advancing not over £3,000, received the gov-
ernor's assent on December 6, 1769.2 This was of course
simply a loan by the province to the proprietors.
On December 8, 1769, the day set for the appeal, Elliot
and Morris were the only two commissioners at the Hart-
ford meeting. The following day also there was no quorum,
and as the New York commissioners would not agree to act
without a quorum, adjournment was taken to July 4, 1770.
Meanwhile application was made to the royal authorities for
further instructions. The king ordered that any action
taken by the commissioners, on July 4, 1770, should be
valid regardless of a quorum. One lone commissioner, An-
drew Elliot, appeared in New York on the day set, and
adjourned " the meeting " to the " first Tuesday in May
next." 8
The agents of both provinces, however, decided to abide
by the decision of the commission and no further meetings
were held. Arrangements were made for surveying the
line.4 James Parker, John Stevens, and Walter Ruther-
ford for New Jersey, and John De Noyelles and William
Wickham for New York were to supervise the necessary
surveys. The governors of both provinces issued procla-
mations requiring the inhabitants along the border to aid
the agents and surveyors, threatening with punishment any
who hindered the work.5
1 Assembly Journal, Dec. I, 1769.
'Allinson, op. cit., p. 335.
8 Minutes of the Commission, N. J. A., vol. xxvi, p. 587.
*N. J. A., vol. x, p. 194. h Ibid., pp. 178, 194.
234 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [234
On October 18, 1770, the East Jersey proprietors peti-
tioned the assembly for leave to introduce a bill confirming
the terms of agreement made between the New York and
New Jersey agents for running the line.1 The permission
having been granted, an act establishing the boundary and
confirming the titles and possession of the lands adjacent
to the line was passed, and received the governor's assent
on October 27, 1770.2
A proviso was in the bill that New York should pass a
similar act. The bill which the legislature of that province
passed on February 16, 1771 did not entirely correspond
to the New Jersey measure. Consequently Governor Frank-
lin, in September, 1772, recommended the enactment of a
law similar to that of New York.3 Such an act received the
governor's assent on September 26, 1772.4 In the assem-
bly the bill passed by a narrow margin, the affirmative vote
of the speaker saving it.5 The boundary acts of both pro-
vinces were approved, and the exasperating and lengthy
dispute was settled.8
The surveyors of the boundary line, John Stevens, Walter
Rutherford, Walter Wickham and Samuel Gale, reported,
on November 30, 1774, that the partition line had been
marked " so that it may be sufficiently known and dis-
tinguished." 7 A rock on the west side of the Hudson in
latitude of the 41 degrees had been marked. Trees along
the line had been designated " with a Blaze and five notches
under the same." Forty-eight stone monuments were
erected at one-mile intervals with " the words New York
on the North Side of each of the said Monuments and the
1 Assembly Journal, Oct. 18, 1770. ' Allinson, op. tit., p. 342.
8 Assembly Journal, Sept. 11, 1772. * Allinson, op. tit., p. 368.
6 Assembly Journal, Sept. 19, 1772.
%N. J. A., vol. x, p. 416. 7 Ibid., p. 150.
235] BOUNDARY DISPUTES 235
words New Jersey on the south side of each of the said
Monuments."
In a question of this nature the material interests of the
persons concerned not unnaturally determined their point
of view. This is evident when it is considered that, al-
though the language of the original grant was remarkably
free from ambiguities, there were so many opinions as to
where the true line should go. " To the northward as far
as ye Northermost branch of the said Bay or River, of
Delaware which is in fourtie one degrees and fourtie min-
utes of latitude," New Jersey was to extend according to
the grant. The confluence of the Delaware and the Mack-
hackimack was in latitude 41 degrees and 21 minutes.
Neither the specified latitude of the grant nor the descriptive
clause as to the northern branch of the river was observed.
The decision seemed to fix upon a point midway between
a line run at random in 17 19, the most favorable to New
Jersey, and the line claimed by New York as the one agreed
upon in 1686, the most favorable to that province. If the
point, as fixed, is regarded as a compromise, New York
fared much better than her neighbor. Regarded in the light
of the terms of the grant, New Jersey's interests were ap-
parently sacrificed to those of her more powerful and
wealthy rival.
In connection with the northern boundary difficulty, ref-
erence may be made to the disputed claims to the ownership
of Staten Island. A mere glance at the map shows that
this island is geographically a part of New Jersey. The
territorial grant to Berkeley and Carteret, quoted at the
beginning of this chapter, included the tract of land " to
the Westward of Long Island and Manhitas Island ".1
This clearly indicates that the Duke of York granted Staten
x N. J. A., vol. i, p. 12.
236 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [236
Island to the two noblemen. The hostility of Governor
Nicolls to the Duke's transfer to Berkeley and Carteret has
been mentioned, and he never Allowed the New Jersey au-
thorities to exercise jurisdiction over the island. The repre-
sentations of New Jersey to secure possession, during the
proprietary period, and once, in 1704, after the surrender
to the king, were of no avail.1 From that time until after
the Revolution no formal action was taken in the matter,
and Staten Island was recognized as belonging to New
York. All boundary disputes between New York and New
Jersey were not adjusted until 1833, when the question of
the jurisdiction over the waters lying between the two states
was decided.
The determination of the northern boundary line dis-
turbed an agreement of long existence between the East
and West Jersey proprietors. An agreement between Car-
teret and the West Jersey proprietors, in 1676, declared the
line between the two divisions to be one drawn from Little
Egg Harbour to the northernmost point of the province.2
No effort, however, was made to run the line for several
years. Later, when attempts were made, difficulties en-
sued.3 Twice,, in 1686 and again in 1688, negotiations for
the purpose fell through. In the last named year, a rather
arbitrary agreement was made between Robert Barclay of
East Jersey and Daniel Coxe of West Jersey.4 So unfav-
orable to the East Jersey proprietors was this arrangement
that they rejected it, and thirty years passed before negotia-
tions were again resumed. To run the line in accordance
with the agreement between Carteret and the West Jersey
proprietors in 1676, was the decision in 1718. This was,
1 N. J. A., vol. i, p. 349, 350; iii, p. 61. *Ibid., p, 212.
'Tanner, op. cit., p. 633 et seq.
4 Samuel Smith, History of New Jersey, p. 196.
237] BOUNDARY DISPUTES 237
of course, not such an attractive proposition for the men
of the western division. A legislative act for the purpose
was passed and commissioners were named, but the oppo-
sition of Coxe and the return of Governor Hunter to Eng-
land interfered with the success of the project at that time.
Although the efforts of the Coxe interests to secure the
disallowance of the act of 1719 for running the line failed,
almost another three decades elapsed before an attempt was
made to make the surveys. The West Jersey proprietors
persistently refused to join with the eastern proprietors in
determining the boundary, and in 1743 the latter decided to
run the line ex parte. John Hamilton and Andrew John-
stone, as commissioners under the partition act of 17 19, ap-
pointed John Lawrence to run the line. A commission and
a set of twenty-one instructions were issued to him in the
summer of 1743.1 To aid Lawrence in the work he was
" to employ Martin Ryerson or Gersham Mott or some
other as an assistant surveyor " and before the end of that
year the division line of the two sections of New Jersey
had been determined. This independent action on the part
of the East Jerseymen naturally did not receive the un-
qualified approval of the landholders of the other division.2
Nevertheless the former insisted upon the justice of the
Lawrence surveys and the West Jersey proprietors by sub-
sequent acts practically acquiesced therein.
It will be remembered from the discussion of the northern
boundary question that the West Jersey proprietors did not
regard themselves as directly affected by that controversy.
The Lawrence line had been run in 1743 from the most
southerly point of the east side of Little Egg Harbor to
what was then regarded as the most northerly point of
1 N. J. A., vol. vi, p. 154.
* Minutes of the Council of East Jersey Proprietors, Aug. 17, 1742.
238 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [238
the province, in latitude of 41 degrees and 40 minutes. By
the decision of the royal commission in 1769, however, the
northernmost point was thrown far to the eastward. Con-
sequently it was decidedly to the advantage of the West
Jersey proprietors to regard the newly-determined point at
the confluence of the Delaware and the Mackhackimack
as the northern point of division between the two parts of
the province. On December 1, 1775, Daniel Coxe, then
president of the council of West Jersey proprietors, peti-
tioned the legislature for permission to have introduced
at the next session a bill for appointing commissioners to
settle the line dispute.1 He suggested that the East Jersey
proprietors should acquiesce in such a mode of determining
the differences. The desired leave was granted. As no
further sessions of the provincial legislature were held, and
the turmoil of the Revolution interrupted, the subject was
dropped for some years. Although outside of the period
of this study, it may be mentioned that an application to
the state legislature in 1782 for the above mentioned pur-
pose was rejected by a substantial majority.2
Had the plan of the West Jersey proprietors, to have
the partition line run from the northern point as deter-
mined in 1769 to Little Egg Harbor, succeeded, they would
have gained about four hundred and twenty-five thousand
acres of territory.3 The line fixed in 1743 gave West
Jersey an excess of at least a million acres over East Jersey.
To have made the disparity almost two million acres was
more than the men of the eastern division were willingly
disposed to allow. Leaving out of consideration any
thought of the equalization of the two divisions, the position
1 Assembly Journal, Dec. i, 1775.
J Gordon, History of New Jersey, p. 74.
%Jbid.t p. 75, statistical note.
239] BOUNDARY DISPUTES 239
of the West Jerseymen was not unnatural or extreme.
Both parties had in practise regarded the north partition
point as marking one end of the line. The final decision
as to the location of that point was not rendered until 1769,
when it was officially declared to be not in latitude 41 de-
grees and 40 minutes, but at the junction of two streams.
According to the final decision, latitude 41 degrees and 40
minutes was far outside of the province, and could not
properly be regarded as the beginning of a line to divide
the province into two parts. Whether the point as fixed
by the royal commission was equitable is another question
The fact is, it was accepted and regarded as the northern-
most point of New Jersey.
CHAPTER VIII
The Judicial System
A study of the judicial system of New Jersey shows that
little essential change had taken place since its organization
under Lord Cornbury's "Ordinance for Establishing Courts
of Judicature/' in 1704. The materials, existing in New
Jersey under the proprietary system and in the other colo-
nies, were systematized and formed the basis for the ordi-
nance.1
This ordinance marked at least one bright spot in the
corrupt Cornbury administration. The reorganization pro-
vided for justices of the peace, with jurisdiction in debt and
trespass cases up to forty shillings, a right of appeal to the
court of sessions being granted in cases involving over
twenty shillings. There was to be a Court of Common
Pleas held in every county where there were Courts of Gen-
eral Sessions. These courts could hear and determine all
common law actions, with the proviso that actions involving
ten pounds or over could be heard in the Supreme Court.
Courts of General Sessions were held four times a year at
designated times and places. The highest regular court was
the Supreme Court, having jurisdiction in all pleas, " civil,
criminal and mixt, as fully and amply, to all intents and
purposes, whatsoever, as the Courts of Queens Bench, Com-
mon Pleas and Exchequer within her Majesties Kingdom
1 For this general subject, see Field, Provincial Courts of New Jersey,
and Tanner, The Province of New Jersey, ch. xxiii.
240 [240
241 ] THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 241
of England." * The provision of the ordinance that the
Supreme Court should sit alternately at Perth Amboy and
Burlington, was later superseded by an ordinance of 1728,
establishing two Supreme Courts, one at each of the above
named places.2
And thus outlined, such to-day is the general structure
of the judiciary. Changes naturally did occur in the prac-
tise of the courts. Such alterations were instituted by either
royal instructions, governor's ordinances or provincial legis-
lation. Let us trace these alterations during the period
under consideration.
During Belcher's administration, on December 5, 1753,
an additional instruction was sent to the colonial governors
altering the methods of appeals.3 The royal instructions in
New Jersey had from the first allowed the right of appeal
from the highest provincial court to the governor and coun-
cil in cases exceeding £100 Sterling. If the case involved
over £200, appeal might be made to the crown's privy coun-
cil.4 The new instruction cited this method as having be-
come defective and improper. Appeals were now to be
made to governor and council only when the cases involved
at least £300 Sterling, and to the crown in privy council
when the amount exceeded £500. Only when security was
given that the suit would be prosecuted was appeal to Eng-
land allowable. The instruction further provided that
where judges of the court from which the appeal was made
were members of the provincial council, they could be pres-
ent at hearings and give reasons for their judgment but
could not vote. Of course, execution was suspended until
1 For the Cornbury Ordinance, see Field, op. tit., Appendix C.
'Field, op. tit., Appendix F.
*N. J. A., vol. viii, pt. i, p. 188.
*/6id., vol. ii, p. 551.
242 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [242
the final determination of appeals. Exception to the £500
rule was also made in cases involving sums payable to the
crown, when appeal could be made even though a less sum
was involved.
In December, 1761, an instruction which later had its in-
fluence in the Revolution was prepared by the lords of trade,
and subsequently sent to the royal governors. Up to this
time the royal instructions to the New Jersey governors
guarded against arbitrary removals of judges by making
their commissions unlimited as to time, which naturally
came to be interpreted by the colonists to mean during good
behavior. In 1761 Lieutenant Governor Colden of New
York with great hesitation assented to an act of the legisla-
ture explicitly providing that the judges should hold their
commissions during good behavior. The additional instruc-
tion recited that certain of the colonial legislatures had en-
acted laws granting judges good-behavior tenures, and
that certain governors had, contrary to instructions, granted
some commissions during good behavior. Such commis-
sions were declared to be for the advantage of neither colo-
nies nor home government and the governors were ordered,
upon pain of removal, to refuse their assent to legislative
acts, granting like tenures to judges of the provincial courts.
Commissions were to be granted during pleasure only,
" agreeable to what has been the Ancient Practise and
Usage " in the colonies.1
That such could be said to have been " the Ancient Prac-
tise and Usage " in general in the colonies may not be true
and strict adherence to it had not been given in New Jersey.
An instance of this is found in New Jersey history in the
case of the Jones-Morris contest for the chief justiceship,
1 N. J. A., vol. ix, p. 329. This instruction was sent to the gover-
nors under date of Dec. 12, 1761.
243] THE WDICIAL SYSTEM 243
later to be mentioned. That the crown made colonial
judges dependent upon his will became one of the chief
grievances against the mother country in the American
Revolution.1 It was asserted by the colonists that in Eng-
land this wrong had been righted, years before, by the Eng-
lish Revolution. The lords of trade maintained that the
circumstances in the colonies were in no way similar to
what they had been in Great Britain.2 They complained,
and not without some truth, that owing to the lack of a
suitable allowance for the judges, governors had been ob-
liged to commission inferior persons, who consulted their
own interests and became " the Partizans of a factious As-
sembly," upon whom they were dependent for support.8
As events proved, their proposed remedy for an evil, which
they exaggerated, was scarcely remedial.
In New Jersey the royal authorities were soon given op-
portunity to display their firmness in this matter. Upon
the death of George the Second, there appears to have been
a cessation of business in the Supreme Courts, because the
judge's commissions had not been renewed.4 Upon his ar-
rival in the province, Governor Hardy, fearing evil conse-
quences from such a condition of affairs, renewed the com-
missions " as they have hitherto been granted, which is
during good behaviour." 5 Moreover the assembly refused
to make provision for judges who accepted commissions
with tenure during pleasure. The governor had commis-
sioned three judges, Morris and his two associates on the
Supreme Court bench, during good behavior and the lords
of trade, as previously mentioned, recommended his re-
moval. Before Hardy received notification of his removal,
1 See the Declaration of Independence.
1 N. J. A., vol. ix, p. 312. 3 Ibid., p. 313.
*Ibid., p. 346. s Ibid., p. 346.
244 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [244
he had revoked several commissions granted by Belcher
to judges of the Common Pleas, having the objectionable
tenure, and the Supreme Court judges thus commissioned
had agreed to accept commissions as the king wished.1
Eleventh-hour compliance did not satisfy the authorities,
however, and the governor was deprived of his office.2 The
home officials were also thus enabled to show that a strict
adherence to this new instruction would be required.
In May, 1764, during Franklin's rule, the lords of trade
prepared an additional instruction against the taking of
exorbitant fees in the colonies.3 The governors were or-
dered to have displayed in all public offices tables of the
legal fees, and further, to enjoin all officers to receive only
the legal fees or suffer removal and prosecution. That this
instruction was ever sent to the governors does not appear.
An " Ordinance for Holding the Supreme Court for the
Province of New Jersey " was issued by Governor Franklin
on May 11, 1764.4 The appointed times for holding the
sessions had come to be inconvenient and consequently
were changed. Doubtless because of the growth of the
province, there was a provision that if, after the regular
five-day session, a " Multiplicity of Business then Depend-
ing " rendered it expedient, the regular term at such time
might be prolonged to the Tuesday following the commence-
ment of the term. The regular term was from Tuseday
to Saturday. Appeals, this ordinance stated, were to be
made to the Supreme Court in accordance with the laws of
" England and the laws of our Province of New Jersey not
Repugnant thereto." Provision was made for holding4
yearly Circuit Courts in all the counties, except Cape May,
to be presided over by a Supreme Court justice. The times
1iV. J. A., vol. ix, p. 367. *Zbid., p. 361.
lIbid., p. 440. KIbid.y p. 434.
245] THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 245
and places of such sittings were to be appointed by the
justices. Cape May causes were to be tried in Cumberland
County. This provision for circuit courts was essentially
the same as under Hunter's ordinance of 1725.1
An important ordinance relating to the judiciary was the
" Ordinance in relation to the Court of Chancery," issued
by Governor Franklin on March 28, 1770. Equity Courts
encountered considerable hostility in the colonies, and al-
though this was perhaps most pronounced in New York
and Pennsylvania, nevertheless New Jersey harbored much
similar distrust.2 Lord Cornbury by ordinance had con-
stituted the governor, lieutenant governor and any three
councillors as a Court of Chancery, but Governor Hunter
exercised the powers alone. This one-man power was op-
posed, but the action of Hunter meeting with the approval
of the crown, the exercise of chancery powers continued
under his ordinance until 1770.
In April, 1768, Franklin addressed the legislature upon
the subject of the Chancery Court.3 Mischiefs would at-
tend its disuse, said the governor, for which reason he had
maintained the court to his own pecuniary disadvantage.
As there was no salary for the necessary officers and the
fees were insufficient, he recommended a reasonable allow-
ance in order that appointments to the necessary offices
could be made. The assembly asked the governor to notify
them specifically what officers were needed. Although he
sent them a list of the officers and suggested fit salaries the
assembly did not enter into the proper measures, being loath
to create new offices and expend extra funds.
Thereupon the governor turned to the council for advice.
They were informed that doubts had arisen as to the au-
1 Field, op. cit., p. 287. * Ibid., p. 108 et seq.
*N. J. A., vol. xvii, p. 467.
246 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [246
thority of the governor to execute the office of chancellor,
and were asked to report in writing, before May 14, 1770.1
This was in November, 1769, and meanwhile all chancery
proceedings were to be suspended.
The opinions of the councillors were varied and interest-
ing, the majority favoring an ordinance appointing the gov-
ernor to be chancellor. The most elaborate argument was
that of Richard Stockton, who submitted his opinion in the
form of a letter to Hillsborough, the Secretary of State.2
Considering the subject under these two questions, " 1st,
Whether a Court of Equity does Exist in this Province?
and if it does, 2dly, Whether the Governor is the Judge of
it?" he decides both affirmatively. He supports his de-
cision by a long and able argument. Frederick Smyth was
of opinion that as the governor had no special commission
as chancellor, nor any authority as such under his general
commission as governor, he was not legally authorized so
to act.3 The chief justice further maintained that provision
for such a court would be made after application to the
crown. Inasmuch as Cornbury had been justified in the
original establishment of a Court of Chancery in New Jer-
sey, wrote Samuel Smith, the present governor with the
same authority in his commission had power with the advice
and consent of the council to continue the court.4 After a
rather extended argument, Charles Read concluded that no
equity court existed in New Jersey, and the matter being
important should be settled in England.5 David Ogden,
reaching his opinion by answering eight questions at great
length, believed that the governor had the power neither by
his commission, his instructions, nor by the common law of
lN. J. A., vol. xviii, p. 25.
1 Ibid., vol. x, p. 155. 3 Ibid., vol. xviii, p. 121.
*Ibid., p. 128. 5 Ibid., p. 130.
247] THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 247
England to act as sole agent in equity cases.1 The power
to erect the court was vested in the legislature, declared
Ogden. With great interest in the case, the learned Ogden
submitted a " further Opinion," arriving of course at the
same general conclusion. James Parker agreed that it
never was the intention that the governor should act as
chancellor, but that a chancery court might be established
by ordinance and then the king's further instruction asked.2
John Ladd was of the opinion that the court still existed.3
Although existing, the court had not been properly estab-
lished since 171 3, observed John Stevens. An ordinance
should be issued and the king's further instruction sought.*
That if the court does not exist, the governor has full power
to erect it and should issue an ordinance for the purpose,
was the opinion of John Smith.6 Lord Stirling wrote that
Franklin never having been so appointed was not justified
in acting as chancellor.* The necessity for such a court
was however apparent, he continued, and one or more
proper persons should be by ordinance commissioned as
judges. In addition to laying before the council these
opinions, the governor submitted some of his royal instruc-
tions to them and some extracts from council minutes bear-
ing upon the subject.7 Taking all the materials into con-
sideration, the council advised that the attorney general
draw up an ordinance for better establishing the Court of
Chancery and appointing the governor Chancellor.8 After
subsequent approval of the ordinance by the council, the
governor, on March 28, 1770, took the oath as chancellor.
The ordinance purported to be for the better establish-
lN. J. A., vol. xviii, p. 135. ' Ibid., p. 161.
8 Ibid., p. 163. *Ibid., p. 164.
1 Ibid., p. 165. «Ibid., p. 167.
7 Ibid., p. 154. sIbid., p. 169.
248 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [248
ing of the Court of Chancery, which had always existed in
the province.1 Franklin was appointed by virtue of the
powers under the great seal. The form of oath was pre-
scribed and the chancellor was empowered to fix days for
the hearing and determination of causes, to appoint and
commission necessary masters, clerks, examiners, registers
and other officers, and to make rules and regulations for
carrying on the business of the court. This ordinance con-
tinued until 1776, but the Court of Chancery under the
State government succeeded to virtually the same powers.
On June 19, 1772, Governor Franklin issued a proclama-
tion appointing four regular terms of the Court of Chan-
cery, two to be held at Perth Amboy, and two at Burlington.2
The day for the beginning of the term was in each case
appointed and they were " to continue from Day to Day as
long as may be expedient."
The first legislative alteration in the practise of the
courts during this period was the " Act to prevent Actions
of Fifteen Pounds, and under, being brought into the Su-
preme Court of this Colony," passed in 1741.3 This act was
a bone of contention between Governor Morris and the as-
sembly. He regarded it as no more than an attempt on the
part of the popular body to restrict the jurisdiction of the
highest court and lessen the judges' salaries.4 Only because
it was a temporary act, having the council's approval, was
his assent given. His suggestion to the lords of trade, how-
ever, that their disallowance of the act would be more bene-
ficial to prevent such attempts by the assembly in the future,
than his refusal to assent would be, was not followed. The
lords decided that they should first learn how the bill worked
1 N. J. A., vol. x, p. 184. tIbid., vol. xviii, p. 289.
8 Allinson, Statutes of New Jersey, p. i59«
'Morris Papers, p. 140.
249] THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 249
in practise, before they proposed its disallowance.1 It was
forbidden to bring suits for less than fifteen pounds, Queen
Anne's proclamation money, into the Supreme Court, ex-
cept in cases involving land titles. A penalty was prescribed
for bringing suits contrary to the intent of the act.
In 1744, Morris complained to the lords of trade that his
former fears had not been groundless.2 The act had been
prejudicial to the chief justice and had lessened the jurisdic-
tion of the Supreme Court. As it was now about to expire,
the assembly, he rather wildly asserted, would probably
make it perpetual. The bill was introduced in the March
session of 1746, but the council refused to pass it. The
second assembly that Governor Belcher met, however, came
to an agreement with the council more readily, and the bill,
limited to five years, was passed, February 18, 1748. It
was subsequently renewed in 1753, and in 1760 was con-
tinued without limitation.8
When Morris denounced the bill he was representing to
the home officials the side of the office holders. The benefits
to the people, however, outweighed any disadvantages.
The opposition of the council, in 1746, to the renewal of
the act was doubtless due to its domination by Morris.
Only a year later with the same council, but a different gov-
ernor, there was little or no opposition to its passage.
In 1748, another act which had been strenuously objected
to by Morris and his council was rather quietly passed in
Belcher's administration. This was " an Act to oblige
the several Sheriffs of this Colony of New Jersey to give
Security, take the Oaths or Affirmations therein directed
for the Discharge of their Offices, and to prevent their too
long Continuance therein." * Complaints were upon occa-
1 Morris Papers, p. 150. *Ibid., p. 183.
* N. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 406; Allinson, op. tit., p. 227.
4Allinson, op. tit., p. 156.
250 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [250
sion made that sheriffs refused to give the required security
for the proper discharge of their duties.1 Upon three oc-
casions, in 1742, attempts were made by the assembly to
secure the passage of the above-named bill, only to come to
a disagreement with the council upon amendments, and to
have it finally rejected at each session. The opposition to
the bill was engendered because it limited slightly the gov-
ernor's power in appointing sheriffs. And Governor Morris,
seconded by his council, was always touchy regarding his
prerogatives.
The measure received Governor Belcher's assent, January
18, 1748, and was later allowed by the royal authorities.
The lords of trade, however, did not show eagerness to ap-
prove the measure, for after it had been reported favorably
by Matthew Lamb, one of the royal counsellors-at-law, they
returned it to him for his reconsideration.2 He justified
his decision on the ground that similar acts had been passed
and confirmed in neighboring provinces, and even in Eng-
land legislative acts had somewhat limited the crown's au-
thority in the appointment of sheriffs.3
By the act sheriffs were obliged to enter into bond for
£800, except the Cape May county sheriff, whose bond was
fixed at £200. The form of oath which the officers were to
take was identical with one required in the " Act for secur-
ing His Majesty's Government in New Jersey," passed in
1722.4 A special form of affirmation for " the People
called Quakers " was prescribed. Sheriffs who did not
enter into bond and take the oaths were disqualified. The
oaths could be administered by any judge of a Court of
Common Pleas, or any mayor or chief magistrate. The
1 N. J. A., vol. xv, p. 90.
*Ibid., vol. vii, p. 296. ■ Ibid., p. 329.
4Allinson, op. tit., p. 62.
251] THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 25 1
form of the required bond was also given. The last sec-
tion, limiting the sheriff's continuance in office to three
years, was the provision that had caused opposition to the
act. They could hold office again after three years. Sher-
iffs, furthermore, were required to be freeholders and resi-
dents of the county for which they were appointed.
The question of the amount of the fees which should
properly be taken by the various officers of government was
subject to frequent dispute, the parsimonious assembly en-
deavoring to make the legal fees as low as possible. An
act to establish fees and regulate the practise of the law
had been passed in 1733 under Cosby, but was disallowed by
the crown two years later.1
Ten years later, in December, 1743, another act for regu-
lating fees was passed but met the same fate as the former
measure.2 It was not objectionable in point of law, but com-
plaints had been received that the fees determined upon
were too small, " so inconsiderable that no Persons of Char-
acter or Reputation will care to accept Employment
therein." 8 This was Governor Morris's complaint, and he
had a smart altercation with the assembly over the bill.
The measure was passed with a suspending clause, but the
assembly ordered the bill printed, soon after its passage, and
by " suggesting " that the judges " ought " to conform to
it, practically ordered its enforcement before the royal
pleasure was known.4
This was unwarrantable conduct and justified the gov-
ernor in protesting strongly against the assembly, as it is
needless to say he did.5 The conduct of the assembly in
having the bill printed prematurely was given as a further
1 N. J. A., vol. v, p. 377.
tIbid., vol. xv, p. 309. 3Ibid., vol. vi, p. 238.
'/bid., p. 239. %Ibid.y vol. xv, p. 315.
252 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [252
reason for its disallowance. The royal disallowance, dated
at Kensington, June 28, 1749, was laid before the council
of New Jersey by Governor Belcher on October 12th. This
is a striking example, also, of the leisurely manner in which
the wheels of government moved. The bill was passed,
December 5, 1743, and the council notified of its disallow-
ance, October 12, 1749.
Meanwhile an act providing among other things " for
the Payment of the Services of the Several Officers of the
Colony, and for preventing the said Officers from taking
exorbitant Fees " was passed in February, 1748, and re-
ceived the royal assent, November 23, 1749.1 This act had
passed the council with practically no opposition.2 It set
forth that after the king's assent only the fees therein
stated should be accepted by public officers for their ser-
vices. For every offence in accepting greater fees, £20 was
to be forfeited. The law in addition enacted that if a cause
was lost because of neglect or mismanagement on the part
of an attorney, he should be liable for damages. The fees
as established by this act continued to be in force during the
rest of the colonial period, but were frequently complained
against as insufficient, and scarce affording the officials a
proper maintenance.8
" An Act to erect and establish Courts in the several
Counties in this Colony, for the Trial of small Causes" was
passed in 1748, as a previous bill for the same purpose was
about to expire. The original measure unfortunately has
been lost, but is thought " to have continued the jurisdic-
tion of Justices of the Peace to recover Debts and other
Demands for and under Five Pounds." 4 The act passed
^llinson, op. ctt., p. 160.
*N. J. A., vol. xv, pp. 614-618. lIbid., vol. ix, p. 592.
*Allinson, op. ctt., p. 188.
253] THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 253
the legislature without difficulty in 1748. Actions for debt
involving under £5 were made triable before any one Justice
of the Peace.1 In cases involving over 40 shillings either
party might .demand trial by a jury of six men. Appeal
might be made to the next Court of Common Pleas also in
cases of more than twenty shillings, except where the trial
had been before six jurors. Fees to be taken in actions
covered by this act were fixed. The bill of course detailed
the process necessary to its operation, and excluded certain
actions from the operation of the act. It was to continue
for seven years.
An act with the same title was passed in 1760, the former
bill having " been found very beneficial to the inhabitants
of this Colony; and it being near expired of its own limita-
tion." 2 It modified the former act, in that actions under
£6 were to be cognizable before any one justice, but appeals
could be taken in judgment of 20 shillings or more, as
before, except where a jury verdict had been given. This
act likewise was limited to seven years. In 1769 and 1775
it was renewed after expiration. In every case the council
made certain amendments to which the assembly assented.
The legislature had passed an " Act to erect Courts in
the several Counties in this Colony for the Trial of Causes
of Ten Pounds and under," to which the governor assented
on December 6, 1769.8 In the council this measure had en-
countered opposition and was disallowed by the crown in
June, 1 77 1.4 The assembly having been notified of the royal
disallowance, expressed regret inasmuch as it was intended
to make the recovery of small debts easier and less costly.6
1 Ncvill, Acts of the General Assembly, vol. i, p. 388.
1 Ibid., vol. ii, p. 335.
8 JV. J. A., vol. xviii, p. 217.
*fbid., p. 261. iIbid., p. 219.
254 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [254
The law had been in operation up to the time of its disallow-
ance and in the opinion of the lower branch of the legisla-
ture had " answered the Ends proposed, and proved bene-
ficial to the People." The governor issued a proclamation
declaring the act void. The order of the Privy Council
does not state the reasons for the disallowance of the act.
There appears to have been some doubt in the colony as
to the effect of the death of George II upon the proceedings
of the courts transacted after his demise. The justices and
practitioners in the Supreme Court, expressing doubts to
Governor Boone as to the validity in the reign of George III
of an ordinance issued under the authority of the late king,
urged him to issue a new ordinance.1 In order to prevent
the possible interruption of legal proceedings, the council
advised the governor to adopt the suggested course. The
ordinance is not given, and inasmuch as an act of assembly
for the purpose was passed shortly thereafter doubtless was
never issued.
The act of assembly was entitled " for obviating Doubts
respecting the Acts of Assembly passed last Session; and
for Confirming the Proceedings of the Courts of Justice in
this Province, since the Demise of his late Majesty." 2 It
confirmed the legislative and judicial proceedings in the
colony subsequent to the death of George II and previous
to the proclamation of George III, provided for the future
continuance of assemblies until six months after the death
of the crown, and applied the above six months provision
to the courts and their officers. This act was disallowed in
1 76 1, as materially affecting the royal prerogative.3 The
lords of trade declared that no doubts had ever arisen or
could arise " with any Shadow of reason " regarding the
1JV. J. A., vol. xvii, p. 232.
1 Nevill, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 300. *N. J. A., vol. ix, p. 331.
255] THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 255
validity of acts legally enacted after the death of a ruler.
The provision continuing the courts and their officers was
objectionable because it might be interpreted to deprive the
crown of the power to remove officers or suspend commis-
sions during the six months' interval. The order in coun-
cil giving notification of the disallowance was laid before
the New Jersey council, April 6, 1762.1
Another legislative enactment pertaining to the judiciary
was disallowed in 1771. The act, however, had been passed
in 1765, during the Stamp Act agitation. That it was
aimed at the Stamp Act, Franklin may have thought possible,
but such doubtless was not the case, for the people did not
seriously intend to use stamped paper. The act, which was
never printed, was " for regulating the Practise of the Law,
and other Purposes therein mentioned." 2 The law would
have reduced the number of court proceedings, and pre-
vented certain illegal practises of the lawyers. Governor
Franklin had assented to the measure only with a suspend-
ing clause, but agreed to the necessity of the law, and so
informed the lords of trade.8
The governor had notified the lords that the assembly
would urge its confirmation. After waiting patiently for
five years to hear from the New Jersey assembly, the lords
of trade recommended the disallowance of the act.4 One
of the king's lawyers had reported that the act contained in-
novations, without sufficiently stating the inconvenience of
the old methods. The worthy lords, moreover, were of
opinion, that the neglect of the assembly to urge the bill's
approval betokened lack of argument in its support. Gov-
ernor Franklin in communicating this disallowance to the
'M J. A., vol. xvii, p. 284.
'Allinson, op. tit., p. 283.
*N. J. A., vol. ix, p. 400. *Ibid., vol. x, p. 199.
256 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [256
assembly said that the act had been rendered needless, be-
cause of a subsequent act of the legislature.1 The measure
to which the governor had reference was passed in March,
1770, and was entitled an " Act to provide a more effectual
Remedy against excessive Costs in the Recovery of Debts
under Fifty Pounds in this Colony ; and for other purposes
therein mentioned." 2 It brings us to the consideration of
a critical period in the history of the judiciary.
The legislation regarding the courts up to this time
shows that the subject of fees and legal practises had long
been matters, not only of importance, but of contention be-
tween the different branches of the government. After
the Fourth Intercolonial War there were evidences of great
prosperity, followed, however, by a period of distress. For
years lawyers had been accused of lengthening lawsuits and
making legal proceedings expensive. When in Governor
Franklin's administration, owing to the stringency of the
times, money became scarce, debts piled up, and prosecu-
tions increased, the people redoubled their clamorous
charges against the courts and their officers.3
Numerous charges were made against some of the most
respected members of the New Jersey Bar. Bernardus
Legrange, having been accused of accepting exorbitant fees,
was ordered to appear before the assembly. The house, not-
withstanding his strong defence, declared the charges sus-
tained. Later, however, certificates from the Supreme
Court justices were shown declaring that the accused had
not taken unwarrantable fees, and Legrange was exon-
erated. Bias, because of the popular outcry, may have
influenced the assembly in its previous resolution. Samuel
lN. J. A., vol. x, p. 241.
"Allinson, op. cit., p. 339.
'Field, op. cit., p. 164 et seq.
257] THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 257
Allinson was another against whom groundless charges
were made.
Many petitions against the base lawyers were pouring
into the assembly. On October 24, 1769, James Kinsey,
Samuel Allinson, and John Lawrence, three prominent New
Jersey lawyers, presented a memorial to the lower house
which was an able defence of their conduct.1 It declared
that the petitions sent to the assembly were all so similar
that they doubtless came from one source. Numerous
debtors implied numerous debts, on account of which credi-
tors had the right to expect money. The indiscretion of the
people, not the laws or lawyers, accounted for the many
financial failures. The memorial declared that the sher-
iffs were guilty of oppression for they were not obliged to
submit their bills of costs for taxation, nor file them in any
office, as was the case with the lawyers. They then pre-
sented charges against Samuel Tucker, a Hunterdon County
sheriff who had been elected to the legislature in 1769,
and submitted what they regarded as evidence of his having
charged exorbitant fees in three particular cases. The
charges were especially interesting because Tucker had
been particularly active in bringing charges against the
lawyers.2
Tucker's defence was insufficient and upon investigation
the assembly decided that in at least two of the cases ex-
cessive fees had been charged. The house came to two reso-
lutions, namely, that " it is illegal, a high misdemeanor, and
a very great Grievance," for officers to take fees other than
those allowed by government, and that Tucker had taken
illegal and excessive fees, which was oppressive and a
grievance. No further action was taken against him, how-
ever.
1 Assembly Journal, Oct. 24, 1769. ■ Ibid., Nov. 3, 1769.
258 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [258
The discontent became so pronounced that there was ser-
ious rioting in Essex and Monmouth Counties, which threat-
ened to stop the course of justice. In July, 1769, an attempt
was made by a mob of malcontents to prevent the session of
the County Court at Freehold, Monmouth County. Al-
though unsuccessful in this attempt, they later accomplished
their purpose, when in January, 1770, the lawyers were
driven from their court and the laws set at naught. There
were similar riots in Essex County, where also the burning
of considerable property belonging to the prominent law-
yer, David Ogden, revealed the seriousness of the situation.
Ogden's affairs were so crippled that he was obliged to re-
sign from the assembly.1 Action against the rioters in
Monmouth County was so dilatory and half-hearted that
they practically escaped punishment for their misdeeds.
Essex County showed a commendable spirit and quickly
tried, convicted and punished the culprits.
Impelled by the seriousness of the situation, Governor
Franklin called a council meeting, directing also the attend-
ance of the sheriff and justices who were present at the
Monmouth riot in January, 1770.2 The assembly was also
called for March 14th, and two days later the governor ad-
dressed a long message to them upon the subject of the
riots, urging firm measures to cope with the situation.3 The
unjustifiable methods taken by the people to redress griev-
ances were denounced in strong terms, especially after the
legislative investigation had exonerated the lawyers. In the
unwillingness of some and the inability of others to pay
their debts, the governor believed lay the causes of the
violence. That the people were unreasonable against the
lawyers, Franklin showed by citing the activities of the
lN. J. A., vol. x, pp. 149, 183. i/did., p. 148.
*Ibid., p. 172.
259] THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 259
Monmouth Grand Jury. After uncommon activity on the
part of the Grand Jury in obtaining evidence, indictments
only to the amount of fifty shillings could be found against
them. After three lawyers were indicted, the indictments
of two were easily quashed, the third not being at the time
tried, because the accused was sick. The governor recom-
mended acts for reviving and continuing the militia law,
for better preventing tumults and riotous assemblies, for
compelling the reparation and strengthening of prisons and
for providing a sum for answering contingent and extraor-
dinary expenses that might arise. He concluded with a
warning as to the consequences that would attend the con-
tinuance of anarchy and mob rule.
The assembly " heartily grieved at the Occasion " of
their meeting, and expressing regret for the errors of the
" deluded People," set to work to enact the necessary laws.1
An act was passed to revive and continue the process of
the courts of Monmouth County,2 as also acts to revive and
better regulate the militia of the colony, and to prevent
dangerous tumults and riotous assemblies. The governor
was also asked to issue a proclamation offering £25 reward
for the discovery and punishment of the perpetrators of the
Ogden outrage.8 Franklin immediately issued the procla-
mation, March 21, 1770, offering the suggested reward
" for discovering and bringing to condign Punishment the
Person or Persons guilty of that atrocious and Alarming
villainy." * An accomplice who aided in the punishment
of any of his associates was offered the royal pardon.
The assembly was commendably impartial in its judg-
*N. J. A., vol. x, p. 180.
"Allinson, op. cit., p. 339.
1 Assembly Journal, Mar. 21, 1770.
4N. J. A., vol. x, p. 183.
200 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [26o
ments in this matter. They asserted their belief that the
best remedy against any abuses from the lawyers was " an
honest Care to fufil Contracts; and a patriotic Spirit of
Frugality and Industry," but to quiet any popular misgiv-
ings and prevent future outbreaks it seemed to them that
there should be a regulation of the practise of the law.1
As has been mentioned, many petitions had been sent to the
lower house, not only from the counties where disturbances
had occurred, but from others also.2 Some of the petitions
may have been " padded/' as was charged in the case of
those emanating from the storm centers, but they were so
numerous as to show widespread dissatisfaction. They
were similar in tone. The great number of lawsuits and the
high charges of prosecution were the grievances which the
assembly was called upon to remedy.
After considering the petitions the assembly entered into
a series of resolves, which show their earnest desire to
denounce the riots and also to redress any grievances
actually existing.3 Declaring their desire to hear grievances
and secure their redress, they characterized the riots as an
insult to government and pledged themselves to oppose
such attacks upon government and upon private property.
The resolute conduct of the Essex County magistrates was
commended, and it was at this time that the governor was
asked to proclaim the offer of a reward for the persons
guilty in the Ogden affair. A bill was ordered to shorten
the practise of the law and regulate the recovery of debts
between £10 and £50. A bill for this purpose, entitled " An
Act to provide a more effectual Remedy against excessive
Costs in the Recovery of Debts under Fifty Pounds in this
lN. J. A., vol. x, Ibid., p. 181.
* Assembly Journal, Mar. 15-19, 1770.
' Assembly Journal, Mar. 19, 1770.
26l] THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 26l
Colony; and for other Purposes," was passed. The gov-
ernor expressed doubts as to the efficacy of this act when
tried, but it was allowed by the royal officials.1
A similar act had been rejected by Franklin in 1769, be-
cause he had regarded it as inadequate and injurious to the
clerk of the Supreme Court, a royal patentee. He had also
been opposed to it, because it had no suspending clause, and
contained certain clauses contradictory to an act 2 at the
time pending the royal approval. The governor gave as the
condition of his assent, a repeal of the act of 1765 and the
addition of a suspending clause to the one in question. Re-
garding a suspending clause to a five year bill designed as
an experiment of its utility as inexpedient, the assembly
had asked the governor to obtain the permission of the
crown to assent to such a bill at the next session.8 That
such assent was obtained is not on record, and it is doubt-
less the unusual events of the recent months that led Frank-
lin to assent to the act for remedying excessive costs in
1770. The later act, however, had been altered to meet the
governor's chief objections, but doubtless did not prove as
satisfactory as was expected.4 Allinson did not think it
necessary to print it in his collection of laws in 1775, for it
would expire at the next assembly session and " there is
Reason to believe it will not be revived without Altera-
tion." 5
Futile attempts were made to secure the passage of other
laws during this agitation. An act for the better regulation
of the admission of attorneys-at-law progressed only as far
XN. J. A., vol. x, p. 108.
"The act passed in 1765 referred to above.
1 Assembly Journal, Dec. 6, 1769.
*N. J. A., vol. x, p. 193.
6 Allinson, op. cit., p. 339.
262 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [262
as its second reading, in December, 1769, and was then or-
dered to lie on the table.1 One to explain and amend a
former act for the relief of insolvent debtors was passed in
March, 1770, but was disallowed by the crown, June 7,
1 77 1.2 In 1772, the governor refused his assent to an act
for the return of able jurors and the regulation of juries.3
In November, 1773, a second attempt to pass this bill was
defeated by the governor.4
In the crisis just described, the abuses and evils against
which the people complained were undoubtedly grossly ex-
aggerated, but this made the dangers to government none
the less real. A lack of confidence in the integrity of the
courts was a weakening of the hands of government in a
most vital spot. The base motives of some, added to the
fancied or real grievances of others, encouraged a popular
frenzy that was alarming/ All branches of the provincial
government acted with commendable promptness and zeal.
The activity of the council and civil magistrates in sup-
pressing the riots was commended by the Earl of Hills-
borough.6 The bright circumstance during this period was
the inability of the complainants to substantiate their gen-
eral and sweeping charges against the New Jersey Bar.
No consideration of the personnel of the highest court
in the province can but impress one with the variety of
duties which its members performed in the public service.
The early justices were not even members of the legal pro-
fession in many cases. It was a characteristic of the period
for one person to hold numerous offices at the same time,
1 Assembly Journal, Dec. 1, 1769. s Ibid., Mar. 27, 1770.
*N. J. A., vol. xviii, p. 330. iIbid., p. 404.
*It may be noted that the riots occurred in anti-proprietary sections.
Many lawyers were prominent proprietors.
6jV. J. A., vol. x, p. 198.
263] THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 263
and the justices were no exception. As a study of the
personnel of the council showed, many of the councillors
were also justices of the Supreme Court. This combina-
tion of offices was strongly objected to by the assembly,
chiefly because the council acted as a court of appeal, and
it was said the same judge might sit upon a case twice. The
position was not well taken, however, for a royal instruc-
tion prevented any irregularity on that account. Despite
the many complaints because of the meagre income, many
of the ablest persons in the province sat on the Supreme
Court bench.
At the beginning of Governor Morris's administration,
Robert Lettice Hooper was chief justice, John Hamilton
second judge, and Colonel Coxe third judge. Hooper and
Hamilton have been previously mentioned as members of
the council. Colonel Daniel Coxe died soon after Morris
became governor.1 He was a holder of large proprietary
interests, whose early connections with Cornbury somewhat
shadowed his active career in New Jersey politics. His
appointment to the Supreme Court came in 1734. It will
be remembered that Governor Morris commissioned his
son, Robert Hunter Morris, as chief justice to succeed
Hooper in 1739.
A most interesting and delicate question arose during
the chief-justiceship of Morris. During the year 1757 the
chief justice made a visit to England, and in his absence
William Aynsley was appointed to his place. The repre-
sentation of the lords of trade resulted in the appointment
of Aynsley " in the room of Robert Hunter Morris, Esqr.
who has resigned." 2 This was the mistake that brought
about a most unfortunate controversy. Morris had not at
this time resigned.
'Field, op. cit., p. 132.
*N. J. A., vol. viii, pt. ii, p. 248.
264 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [264
In 1754, however, when the chief justice had accepted
the appointment as governor of Pennsylvania, he had sent
his resignation to the lords of trade.1 This resignation
was not accepted, or at least Morris, receiving no reply
from the lords of trade, accepted their silence as a refusal
to allow the resignation.2 He continued as governor of
Pennsylvania only two years, when, upon returning to New
Jersey, he again acted as chief justice.
The explanation of the appointment of Aynsley is that
the lords of trade were, in February, 1757, appointing him
to the position, in accordance with the vacancy created by
the resignation of Morris in 1754. Dilatoriness on the part
of the royal officials in colonial affairs, was not unusual,
and although this seems an extreme case, the representa-
tion of the lords of trade had as its object simply to supply
the Morris vacancy.3 The appointment of Aynsley does not
seem to have been due, as Judge Field suggests, merely to
the difficulties attending the transition from Belcher to Ber-
nard in the province.4
During Morris's absence in England in 1757, Aynsley
came to America, and began his duties as the chief justice
in 1758. Previous to that his mandamus to fill the office
during the royal pleasure had been received by President
Reading, and the commission had been published.5 The
new chief justice was not destined to fill his honored posi-
tion in the province for a long term. He died early in July,
1758, his death occasioned, according to Governor Bernard,
" by his drinking milk and water when he was Very hot on
1 Field, op. tit., p. 149.
*N.J. A., vol. ix, p. 206. %Ibid., p. 231.
4 Field, op. tit., p. 151.
*N. J. A., vol. xvii, p. 136.
265] THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 265
Wednesday last," his death having occurred the day follow-
ing that fatal imbibing.1
In May of the year following, one Nathaniel Jones was ap-
pointed to succeed Aynsley on the Supreme Court bench.2
This appointment was approved on May 31, 1759. Mean-
while, Morris had returned to New Jersey from his trip to
Europe and proposed to resume the chief- justiceship under
his old patent. Bernard was in a quandary, for had not
Morris been replaced by another? An agreement was
reached according to which Morris would not undertake to
resume the office and Bernard would appoint no one to suc-
ceed Aynsley until the royal mandate was known.3 The
royal mandate was Jones's appointment, and Bernard, re-
garding the agreement with Morris as terminated, asked
the royal officials to advise him regarding his conduct, if
Morris should oppose the claim of Mr. Jones. The lords
asked for the reasons upon which Morris based his conduct,
instructing Bernard meanwhile to obey the king's com-
mands.
The former, and as afterwards transpired the then, chief
justice frankly stated that he wished the office because he had
had no permission to resign.4 Lack of permission he re-
garded as a prohibition. Governor Belcher, even, had told
him that the two offices, that of chief justice of New Jersey
and governor of Pennsylvania, were not incompatible. In
view of the feeling existing between Morris and Belcher at
that time, such a statement would certainly be proof of Gov-
ernor Belcher's charity. Morris added with modest display
that it was not the income the office afforded which prompted
his desire, for he took the office " rather to prevent it falling
into Contempt than expecting any Support from it." He
XN. J. A., vol. ix, p. 124. *Ibid., p. 173.
*Ibid., p. 176. *Ibid.} p. 206.
266 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [266
wished that the office should " always be in the hands of a
Man of independent fortune and Known Integrity." Gov-
ernor Bernard sent Morris's explanation to the lords of
trade, after the latter had promised the governor not to in-
terrupt Jones in assuming the office.1
Despite his frank confession of the fact, Morris was, of
course, a man well suited for the office in question, and of
great prestige and influence in the province. Whoever
Nathaniel Jones was, he doubtless was inferior to Morris
in ability, and was an almost absolute stranger to the peo-
ple. It is true that he had been given a flattering reception
at Elizabethtown in November, 1759, upon his arrival, but
the people of that community were doubtless more opposed
to Morris than they were in favor of Jones.2 General dis-
satisfaction at Jones's appointment was expressed, and even
the governor was sceptical of his ability to hold the office.3
On the ground that he could not resist the importunities
of the people to accept the chief- justiceship, Morris took
his seat in the Supreme Court, intimating to Bernard that
as the governor was about to leave the province, Morris's
promise to him was no longer binding.4 It was Bernard's
opinion that the promise affected Mr. Jones and the lords
of trade also, and consequently could not be so easily re-
jected but Morris could not to advantage believe in such an
interpretation.
There was an interesting session of the Supreme Court of
New Jersey held at Perth Amboy, March 18, 1760.5 Chief
Justice Morris, and Samuel Nevill, the second judge, were
lN. J. A., vol. ix, p. 210.
1 Morris once spoke of M the Absurdity, to say no more of his (Jones's)
behaviour after his Arrival." N. J. A., vol. ix, p. 236.
SN. J. A., vol. ix, p. 211.
'Ibid., p. 212. 5 Ibid., p. 214.
267] THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 267
present. The king's " trusty and well beloved " Nathaniel
Jones was also there. He offered a commission dated Nov.
16, 1759, appointing him chief justice and asked that it be
read. First, however, Morris's commission under date of
1738 was read. It frankly stated he was to hold the posi-
tion with all its emoluments, fees and perquisites during his
good behavior. Jones's commission appointed him " in the
room of William Aynsley Esqr. deceas'd." He was " to
have, hold, exercise and enjoy the said office " during the
royal pleasure ; and with all the rights and profits that Ayns-
ley had enjoyed. Request was made by Jones that the oath
of office be administered to him. At his request certain
entries from the minutes of the. court were read to show
" that William Aynsley Esqr. deceas'd Satt as chief justice."
It seemed that Mr. Jones had confirmed his right to the
position for which he held the royal commission.
Morris naturally declined to pronounce judgment in the
case and Nevill delivered the opinion. Morris's commis-
sion, the court decided, gave him a freehold in the office,
of which he had not legally been divested. The oath
could not be administered to Jones, but he might prove his
right to the office by due course of law. Thereupon Morris
requested David Ogden and Charles Read to defend any
action that might be brought against him. Against the de-
cision of Judge Nevill, Governor Bernard entered a public
protest in the king's defence.1 The lords of trade urged
the king to refer the matter to the attorney general for his
consideration and report proper measures in support of the
king's " Right of Nomination Against the extraordinary
and unprecedented claim of Mr. Morris." 2
Upon Governor Boone's arrival in the province, Morris
lN. J. A., vol. ix, p. 213. 'TfoVf., p. 232.
268 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [268
wrote him a detailed account of the dispute.1 The governor
transmitted it to the lords of trade, mentioning that Morris
was of the opinion that a satisfactory account of his oppo-
sition to Jones had never reached them. The chief justice
could have no ground for complaint now for his letter was
laid before the king,2 who was asked for a speedy deter-
mination of an affair producing confusion in the colony,
difficulty to the governor and hardship to Jones. Here the
case ended; Morris keeping his office, and Jones returning
to England.
In 1762 Jones petitioned Hillsborough for the chief -
justiceship of South Carolina, which was then vacant, but
in vain.3 It seems an unjust fate that he should not have
been thus rewarded for the hardships he had suffered by
his trip to the Jerseys. The expenses he had been under in
that venture had exhausted his resources and he had in vain
attempted to recover his lost legal practise. A remonstrance
in his behalf was signed by four judges and sent to the Earl
of Halifax in January, 1762.4 They were " really con-
cerned for this Poor Gentleman/' and solicited Halifax's
favor in recommending him to some office or making pro-
vision for him. Five years later, he again met with failure
in applying for the chief -justiceship of New York.5 In
1768 he made application to Hillsborough for relief. It is
difficult to appreciate the attitude taken by the home gov-
ernment in his case.
The commission of Robert Hunter Morris was during
good behavior. The difficulty caused by that commission
was doubtless one of the arguments which led the royal
XN. J. A.y vol. ix, p. 235. '/did., p. 264.
8 Ibid., p. 342. *Ibid., p. 344-
hN. J. Hist. Soc. Proc, vol. viii, p. 73.
269] THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 269
authorities to issue at this time the additional instruction
to the royal governors forbidding judges holding commis-
sions under such tenure.
After the death of Coxe and the resignation of Hamilton,
there seems to have been a rather long interval before two
associate justices were appointed. In notifying the lords of
trade of Hamilton's resignation, Governor Morris men-
tioned his appointment of Joseph Bonnell. Morris was ex-
pecting his resignation also because of the insufficient salary
of the associate justiceship.1 Bonnell, however, accepted
the appointment. The governor did not at the same time
appoint a successor to Coxe, for there was no salary, and
he was debating the possibility of the office going to a
Quaker.
As Robert Hunter Morris's associates on the bench for
the greater part of his long tenure, Richard Salter and
Samuel Nevill occupied their positions with ability. Salter,
a councillor at the time of his appointment, was commis-
sioned in 1754, succeeding Charles Read.2 Nevill, who was
at various times speaker of the assembly, was commissioned
second judge in 1748.
The successor of Morris as chief justice was Charles Read
who had been an associate justice before 1754, when he re-
signed, and again after Salter's death in 1763.8 In 1763
he had gone on circuit for Mr. Nevill, who had long been
" rendered incapable of Business by a stroke of the Palsy."
He had officiated as chief justice for but a few months when,
in October, 1764, Frederick Smyth took the oaths. There
had been opposition to Read as chief justice and this may
have had influence in England, for as early as July, 1764,
1 Morris Papers, p. 48.
*N. J. A., vol. ix, p. 340. s Ibid., p. 424-
270 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [270
Smyth had been appointed to the chief -justiceship by the
king.1 Read continued to act as second judge until his
death in 1774, when Richard Stockton took his ploce on the
bench. Franklin was somewhat in doubt as to Stockton's
acceptance, but his name appears in the support bill of 1774,
with a salary of £i50.2
Read's appointment as chief justice created a vacancy in
the court to which John Berrien was appointed, with the?
advice and consent of the council, in February, 1764.8 His
commission was read in court on March 20, 1764.4 He
was a gentleman of ordinary ability, with a loose tongue.
Smith, the historian, regarded him as " a babbling County
Surveyor, not fit to be a deputy to any sheriff in England."
Twice during his incumbency of the justiceship, the provin-
cial council was bothered by complaints against him. The
chief justice, in April, 1768, complained of having been " in
several instances treated with great indignity by Mr. Ber-
rien." 5 Upon investigation the council found that the
manner of both men had been " unbecoming their Stations,"
but Berrien was more deserving of censure and reprehen-
sion. Both were recommended to behave more suitably in
future, not only to prevent their high offices from being dis-
honored, but also to prevent " recourse to Measures that
may more effectually prevent the like Complaint for the
Future." 6
Complaints against Berrien did not come singly, for
the week following the council's report on his controversy
with the chief justice, the governor laid before the council
XN. J. A., vol. ix, p. 446.
* Assembly Journal, Feb. 21, and Mar. 2, 1774.
*N. J. A., vol. xvii, p. 374.
* Minutes of the Supreme Court, Mar. 20, 1764.
*N. J. A., vol. xvii, p. 500. *Ibid.t p. 506.
271] THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 2yi
a letter which Berrien had written to Cornelius Low, a law-
yer in the province.1 The contents of the letter are not
known, but the associate justice was ordered to give " his
Reasons if any he has, for writing a Letter of so extra-
ordinary a nature to Mr. Low." 2 After that there is no
further mention of the case, but Berrien held his position
on the bench until his death in 1772. The complaints made
against him in 1768 do not seem to have injured his popu-
larity, for in the following year he was elected to the as-
sembly from Somerset County.8 Berrien's successor was
David Ogden.*
Mention of the provincial attorneys general may well be
made at this time. They were commissioned by the gov-
ernor in the king's name and to hold office during pleas-
ure.5 Joseph Warrell held this office from 1734 until 1754,
when he asked leave to resign in order to spend the re-
mainder of his days away from the contentions of the court-
room. He asked that Courtlandt Skinner should be ap-
pointed in his place.8
Skinner was appointed and held office during the re-
mainder of the colonial period. The news of the change
in this office had evidently not reached England in 1761,
or else it was a clerical error which at that time led to the
order in council continuing Joseph Warrell in his office of
attorney general, at the accession of George III.7 Having
studied law under David Ogden, Skinner was well qualified
for the ' position. His early opposition to British oppres-
sion changed as the Revolution broke out and he supported
the British cause. As speaker of the assembly previous
lN. J. A., vol. xvii, p. 507. *Ibid., p. 511.
%Ibid., vol. xviii, p. 37. 'Ibid., p. 372.
5 Ibid., vol. x, p. 450. tIind., vol. viii, pt. i, p. 293.
1Ibid., vol. ix, p. 257.
272 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [272
mention of him has been made. His conduct as attorney-
general gave satisfaction to the chief executive. Belcher
hoped he would not be supplanted in his office, for he was
a young man of good virtue and understanding.1 Boone
regarded his conduct as irreproachable, but saw little or no
value in the office he held.2
During the early years of royal government in New Jer-
sey corruption and abuse marked the course of so-called
justice. Credit must be given chiefly to Governor Hunter
for loosening the grasp which the corrupt political ring of
Cornbury's administration had fastened upon the judicial
system.3 From that time the period of judicial despotism
in New Jersey may be said to have ended, and after 1738
complaints of the miscarriage of justice became com-
paratively infrequent. Exception may be made in the pro-
prietary land suits, for the defendants therein clamored
against the undue proprietary bias of the courts. Never-
theless this outcry was frequently unreasoning and was in-
dulged in from ulterior motives. The right to appeal from
the Supreme Court to the council, or to the crown, was
rarely exercised.
The minutes of the Supreme Court indicate that it was
not unusual for cases to be removed from the jurisdiction of
the court, to be referred to the determination of certain per-
sons appointed for the purpose. Notice having been given
to the parties concerned, the referees would meet at a desig-
nated time and place to consider the case. The report of the
referees was regarded as binding upon both parties and was
in effect a judgment of the court.*
lN. J. A., vol. viii, pt. ii, p. 200. 2 Ibid., vol. ix, p. 279.
"Tanner, op. cit., p. 480 et seq.
4 Minutes of the Supreme Court, April 10, 1773; Thos. Ricke vs. John
Gill.
CHAPTER IX
The Financial System
In the pioneer days of which we are speaking, not the
least of the difficulties of government was caused by finan-
cial affairs. With difficulty do we think ourselves into the
conditions of that early period and realize the problems
with which the people labored. The fact that very little
currency circulated among that scattering population made
recourse to some other medium of exchange necessary.
Little gold and silver was current in New Jersey, and what
little there was is said to have come into the hands of
farmers near New York and Pennsylvania through sales of
wheat, and was then hoarded for the purpose of making
land purchases.1 The ordinary medium of exchange among
the colonists was bills of credit, so disadvantageous because
of their fluctuating and usually deteriorated values.2 Dur-
ing the later colonial period the expenses of government
mounted up unusually high because of the frequent wars.
It is of course true that these expenditures were in part, at
least, repaid by the mother country. The now familiar
phrase, the high cost of living, was uttered with great regu-
larity by the officials, in their frequent demands for higher
salaries. Questions of expenditures, taxation, and the
issues of the bills of credit will necessarily be considered
in this chapter.
The support of government was an almost annual subject
1 Morris Papers, p. 166. ■ Ibid., p. 53.
273] 273
274 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [274
of discussion, and frequently of contention, in the history of
the colony. The assembly successfully maintained their
demand to unrestricted control of the colonial purse, this
demand receiving unwilling acquiescence on the part of the
governors and royal authorities, who never credited the
lower house with the legal exercise of such control. The
expense of government was either paid by the interest of
money emitted on loan or by funds raised annually by a tax
upon real and personal property. Salaries and incidental
charges were granted annually, being issued upon a war-
rant of the governor, with advice of the council and ac-
counted for by the two treasurers to a joint committee of
both houses of the legislature.1 Thus the assembly not only
initiated all money bills, but also had partial charge of the
auditing of accounts.
The governors were especially interested in increasing
the salaries, and in having the support of government
granted for as long a term as possible. In both of these
matters the assembly's interests usually ran counter to those
of the governor. Pretending economy, the assembly was
reluctant to increase salaries. The longer the term for
which the support of government was granted, the greater
would be the governor's independence upon the lower house.
This was fully realized and action was taken accordingly.
The pulse of an administration can usually be felt in con-
nection with the bill for the support of government.
The general character of one of the so-called support bills
can best be shown from an outline of its contents.2 The
preamble would state that the support was voted out of
" Duty, Loyalty and Gratitude " to the crown. The sal-
aries of the different officers were then given, and the method
XN. j. A., vol. ix, p. 580.
'Nevill, Acts of the General Assembly, vol. ii, p. 287.
275] THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM 275
of payment described. Provision was made for the pay-
ment of any arrears to an official's executors, in case of his
death or removal. House rent for the governor was al-
lowed, it being necessary that he be provided " with a House
to live in, until one shall be provided for that Purpose."
Sixty pounds was allowed for this purpose. Separate sec-
tions contained appropriations for circuit courts, payment
of councillors, miscellaneous items to various persons and
the pay of the " Members of the House of Representatives."
It was designated from what funds the charges should be
paid, or if necessary how the money should be raised.
With Governor Morris's uncompromising disposition it
was but natural that the branches of government should
frequently be at odds regarding financial affairs. He re-
minded his first assembly that it was incumbent upon them
to make ample provision for the government, in return for
the king's graciousness in granting the colony a separate
governor.1 Nevertheless the assembly and council became
involved in the altercation, already mentioned, over the
question of altering the support bill. An act was passed
for supporting the government for three years, but it was
a disappointment to the governor, who regarded it as fear-
fully insufficient.2
The contest over the bill had been so bitter that not a
perfectly satisfactory one could be expected. The failure
to provide for the incidental charges of government was
certainly a defect, but the bill at least supported govern-
ment for three years. Whether the salaries were too scant
or not depended upon the point of view. None of the
salaries were changed except the governor's, which was in-
creased from £500 to £1,000 and house rent. The earlier
amount, it should be remembered, was paid to the ap-
lN. J. A., vol. xv, p. 2. ■ Ibid., p. 79.
276 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [276
pointee who acted as governor of New York also. The
chief justice received £150, while the two associate Supreme
Court justices, the attorney general, and the treasurers re-
ceived £40 each.1
Morris said that the assembly thought they had done
wonders, but in his opinion the officers of government were
so " scantily provided for that they can scarce perform the
services required of them." 2 The lords of trade sympa-
thized with Morris because the people were no more grateful
to their sovereign " for His Gracious Condescension to their
Request, in granting them a Separate Governor. " 3 It is
true that Morris might reasonably have expected a salary
more than double that which was given to officials who
rarely had come into the province, and troubled themselves
too little about its affairs.
The assembly later found that a mistake had been made
in omitting the provision for contingent charges from the
support bill, and in 1740 a bill for the purpose was intro-
duced. Opposition to it, voiced chiefly by the governors
son in the council, prevented its passage. Young Morris
protested because it empowered the assembly to appoint the
printers of the laws, it did not make suitable provision for
the proper fulfilment of the duties of the clerk of the coun-
cil, it made no provision for incidental charges arising from
unforeseen accidents, and because the council had the power
to " amend, alter, or begin any bill for the disposition of the
public money." 4 Inasmuch as there does not seem to have
been any attempt to amend this particular bill in the council,
Morris's last protest was simply a flaunt at the assembly.
x N. J. A., vol. xv, p. in. The salary of the chief justice was later
decreased to ^*ioo.
1 Ibid., vol. vi, p. 68.
8 Morris Papers, p. 48. * N. J. A., vol. xv, p. 165.
277] THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM 277
The bill for the support of government having expired
when the assembly met in October, 1741, the governor
urged them to continue the support and remedy their former
mistake of neglecting to provide for the incidental charges
of government.1 In order that qualified men should accept
positions the officers of government should be amply paid.
The assembly did not see fit to increase the salaries, how-
ever, and granted the support for only one year. Morris
was not discouraged, and flattered himself at having chosen
" the softest way of treating them," meaning that he was
less contentious with them than usual.2 He had hopes of
better success in the next session. At the next session he
met with as much success, but no more, another support act
being passed for only one year.8
In the session beginning in October, 1743, the assembly
and governor were on bad terms, but the support bill was
as usual passed. His Excellency again reminded the repre-
sentatives, that they had promised to support the added
expenses of the government when they had a separate gov-
ernor and significantly promised his assent to any laws
beneficial to the public.4 What piqued the governor at this
session was that the assembly postponed sending the sup-
port bill to him for his signature, until they were positive
no further business was to be transacted. To suffer for
their conduct, they were read a long lecture by the gov-
ernor about their unwarranted behavior.5 The support bill
granted the usual salaries for a year.
The unusually acute situation that existed in the legis-
lative sessions of 1745, owing to the assembly's efforts to
pass their pet measure for the emission of £40,000 in bills
1 N. J. A., vol. xv, p. 200. 2 Morris Papers, p. 139.
1 N. J. A., vol. xv, pp. 246, 257. 4 Ibid., p. 279.
5 Ibid., p. 315.
278 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [278
of credit, their refusal to confer with the council on the
militia bill, and their order to print the fee bill, left the gov-
ernment unsupported.1 With frankness the assembly asked
the governor to pass their bills before action was taken
upon the support bill. Morris took this as a threat that if
he refused his assent to the bills, " they would not support,
or as they call it, grant a support for the government." A
support bill was prepared but the salaries were halved, be-
cause, as the assembly resolved, " while Things remain in
this Situation the Colony is not in a Condition to support
Government so largely as they have done for some years
past." 2 Of course the council refused assent to such a bill,
and at the last mention of it in the records it was under the
council's consideration.3 This method threw the blame for
the non-support of the government upon the governor and
council.
The governor's complaint to the lords of trade was drawn
out to even greater length than usual. The encroachments
of assemblies should be stopped and they should be " re-
duced to such proper and legall bounds as is consistent with
his Majestie's Prerogative and their dependance." 4 He
suggested that all money in future raised should be de-
clared to be given to the king, to be by him applied for any
use and in any manner that he saw fit. The king was to
delegate the governor with the advice of his council to
direct the expenditures. Morris, as a royal official, had
evidently lost the ability to read the signs of the times.
In 1746 the efforts to have the government supported
were still unsuccessful. The beginning of the session was
1 Morris Papers, p. 213.
* N. J. A., vol. xv, p. 372. ■ Ibid., p. 373.
* Morris Papers, p. 225.
279] THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM 2yg
not without an appearance of harmony, and gave hope that
the desired end might be accomplished. In a brief message,
on March 4th, the governor remarked that it was unneces-
sary to call attention to the fact that the support had long
since expired.1 The house expressed willingness to supply
the deficiency and pay for the necessary expenses of govern-
ment.2 In May the governor promised to assent to the
Militia Act and the act for bringing actions of less than
£15 into the Supreme Court, if support would be granted
to the government.8 Because the treasury was low, re-
plied the assembly, the governor would be given £500 a
year for two years, but the other salaries would be as usual.
An inducement of £1,000 extra, however, was offered to
the governor if he would assent to the act for the emission
of £40,000 in bills of credit, and it should receive the royal
approval.4 Enraged, the governor refused to pass the bills
unless the government was supported as amply as here-
tofore. There was no possibility of agreement, and a sup-
port bill was not passed. This was the last contest between
Morris and the legislature.
Although Governor Belcher boasted that holding the af-
fection of the people afforded him more satisfaction than
a " bigger Salary," 5 he continually complained of his in-
sufficient remuneration. He characterized the assembly as
tolerably honest but stingy.6 Contests between the assembly
and council, chiefly growing out of the land disturbances,
and the methods of settling the tax question upon the sev-
eral counties, interfered with the regular support of govern-
ment during this administration, a circumstance which was
1 Assembly Journal, Mar. 4, 1746. 8 Ibid., May 6, 1746.
* Ibid., Mar. II, 1746. 4 Assembly Journal, May 7, 1746.
5 Belcher Papers, Mar. 14, 1748.
* N. J. A., vol. vii, p. 106.
28o THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [28o
Belcher's misfortune rather than his fault. In 1750 he
urged upon the members of his family in New England to
sell some of his property there, in order that he might ob-
tain subsistence.1 Miscreant gossipers, however, had told
of the great emoluments of his office, and Belcher, worried
at such falsifications, told his family that however much he
might wish such reports to be true " they are false and
Vile." 2
The first assembly to meet Belcher did not change the
amount of the salaries. The support bill of 1748 provided
for but one year's support, although Belcher had urged a
fixed yearly salary suitable to the dignity of the office.
This was of course refused, the assembly declaring the
settlement as ample as formerly and telling the governor to
expect nothing more.3 This bill was saved from defeat
only by the withdrawal of the council's claim to amend a
money bill. Disagreement between the branches of the
legislature regarding the quotas bill, prevented the support
of government in 1750. All the governor's entreaties that
the assembly should take the next best method to support
the government, if it could not be done in the way they
thought best, were to no purpose, and the assembly was
dissolved.4 In this respect, at least, this was a successful ex-
pedient, for at the next session, a two-year support act was
passed.5
The harmony was of short duration, however, for the
mooted question of council amendments to a money bill
brought disagreement. Additional friction was fostered
by the new claim of the assembly to submit acts to the gov-
ernor in person, even after the concurrence of the council
1 Belcher Papers, Nov. 15, 1750. * Ibid., Feb. 1, 1751.
3 Assembly Journal, Feb. 17, 1748.
*N. J. A., vol. vii, p. 583. %Ibid., p. 598.
28 1] THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM 28l
had been refused.1 Both the governor and the council
characterized this claim as irregular.2 That proved to be
the last disagreement upon this subject during this admin-
istration, and thereafter annual support bills were regularly-
passed.
From 1 75 1 to 1757 the province was spared the expense
of a chief justice, because of Morris's absence. Nevill per-
formed the extra services during this period, and in Sep-
tember, 1 75 1, petitioned the assembly for the first time for
extra recompense.3 Receiving no relief, the request was
repeated in January, 1752. Thereupon, he was allowed six
pounds for each court he attended during the absence of the
chief justice.4 During this period the officers of govern-
ment, except the attorney general, were gratified with no
salary increases. The attorney general suffered a ten-pound
decrease.
Government was supported in the usual way during the
rapid changes of the next three administrations. It was
customary upon the accession of a new governor to allow
him £500 extra to aid in defraying his transportation and
other expenses. The additional amount was given to Ber-
nard, but when Boone succeeded after such a short interval,
it was only the affirmative vote of the speaker that saved
the sum for him.
Although Governor Franklin frankly confessed to the
lords of trade that he had no hope of having the salaries
settled permanently, he urged it upon his first assembly.5
The representatives were told that the necessaries of life
had increased threefold in the last seven years and the sal-
aries were inadequate.6 They responded to the cost of liv-
1 N. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 332 et seq. * Ibid., vol. vii, p. 625.
8 Assembly Journal, Sept. 17, 1751. * Ibid., Jan. 30, 1752.
*N. J. A., vol. ix, p. 384. 6/taf., p. 384.
282 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [282
ing argument by raising the governor's salary to £1,200, the
chief justice's to £150, and the associate justice's to £50.
The usual extra £500 for expenses in taking up the admin-
istration was refused to Franklin, and the royal instruction
urging permanent salaries was ignored. Scarcely any diffi-
culty was experienced in passing the support bills during
this administration, but demands for higher salaries were
frequent and insistent, even if to no effect.
In 1765 the inhabitants of certain islands in the Delaware
River petitioned to be annexed to New Jersey. These
islands, being outside of the jurisdiction of the royal courts,
sheltered many malefactors, which circumstances rendered
the holding of land titles there insecure.1 For the protection
of their land titles the inhabitants were willing to pay large
quit rents to the crown. Here Franklin saw a grand op-
portunity. The quit rents might be sufficient to support the
entire civil establishment of the province! In place of in-
sufficient salaries, and dependence upon the assembly, Frank-
lin had visions of bountiful salaries and freedom from
domineering assemblies. He urged upon the royal Secre-
tary of State the annexation of the islands to New Jersey
in order that sufficient revenue might be had for the in-
crease of salaries.2 Secretary Conway told the governor
that the petition of the possessors of the islands of the Dela-
ware River would receive the consideration due its im-
portance.3 Doubtless Franklin thought its importance was
greatly underestimated, for his scheme was not carried into
effect.
In 1769 the governor was unsuccessful in his attempt to
have the assembly appropriate part of the interest money
.of the bill for emitting £100,000 in bills of credit in order to
make more proper provision for the officers of gvernment.4
lN. J. A., vol. ix, p. 488. 'Ibid., p. 488.
8 Ibid., p. 492. * Ibid., vol. x, p. 144.
283] THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM 283
The assembly might be brought to compliance, Franklin
told the royal officials, if this act was disallowed, and it
was specified that royal assent would be given to an act
which set aside part of the interest money for the support
of the government and provided for each officer.
The £ 100,000 bill of 1769 was disallowed, but for other
reasons. Undaunted, the governor kept recommending sal-
ary increases with commendable patience. In 1773 his
suggestion that the crown might pay the salaries out of
royal revenues, thereby lessening the dependence of the
royal officials upon the lower house, ruffled the assembly not
at all. They determined to cross no bridge before they
came to it. Despite his father's disapproval of his desire
for added salary as likely to embroil him with the people,
the younger Franklin asked Lord Dartmouth, in 1773,
either for an increase in salary or promotion to a better
government.1 Although Dartmouth promised his aid in the
matter, it was never forthcoming.*
The governor was not alone in requesting added com-
pensation for public service, during this period. Chief
Justice Smyth was particularly insistent. Smyth joined
with Franklin in asking for an allowance from the king's
revenue, in order to be more independent of the legisla-
ture.8 In 1768 he declared that he had continued in office al-
most wholly at his private expense, but had continually been
expecting a salary from England.4 The governor recom-
mended that Smyth's salary be increased, and the chief
justice sent a memorial to the assembly, but no change was
made.5 In 1772 Smyth was allowed a salary from the
crown, and ordered to accept of no further allowance from
the assembly.*
1 N.J.A.y vol. x, p. 390, note, p. 393. * Ibid., p. 401.
• Ibid. , vol. ix, p. 489. * Ibid. , vol. x, p. 62.
6 Assembly Journal, June 16, 1766. *N. J. A., vol. x, p. 361.
284 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [284
Attorney General Skinner sent a memorial to Lord Dart-
mouth in 1772, requesting the latter's favor in obtaining a
royal salary.1 For eighteen years this gentleman had been
inadequately compensated, according to his petition, which
was seconded also by the governor.2 Attorneys general
in other colonies had been the recipients of salaries from
the king, and Skinner craved a like favor. During the re-
maining years of the colonial establishment, he annually
received no more than his £30, plus fees.
Requests for better pay were repeated down to the end
of the colonial period. In 1775 the £100,000 act, passed
by the legislature the previous year, received the royal ap-
proval.3 As a return for this favor, the king urged that
the government be more liberally supported for the period
of the existence of the loan. In response to requests from
the governor, the assembly declared it not beneficial to
grant salaries for a longer period than usual, and inex-
pedient to erect a building for the legislature. The usual
support only was granted. Franklin regretted their remiss-
ness, and promised Dartmouth to allow the assembly at
their next session an opportunity to retrieve for past ne-
glect. But there was not another session of the royal colo-
nial legislature of New Jersey. The last appropriation act
had provided for support until October, 1776, but the royal
government in New Jersey was non-existent months before
that date.
During the later colonial period it became habit with
the people to protest that their regular taxes for govern-
ment were burdensome. This was ever the excuse pleaded
when they did not wish to grant a royal requisition for the
support of royal troops. Actually the taxes were small
1N. J. A., vol. x, p. 383. *IHd., p. 389.
3 Assembly Journal, Nov. 22, 1775.
285] THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM 285
indeed, and the methods of raising them simple.1 The
amount to be raised for the support of government at no
time exceeded £3,000 a year, and was levied upon property
and land. Minimum and maximum rates were prescribed
for different properties, between which limits rates might
be assessed at the discretion of the assessors.
Ordering that taxes should be " assessed, levied and
raised on the several Inhabitants of this Colony, for the
time being, their Lands and Tenements, Goods and Chat-
tels," by legislative enactment the particular classes of peo-
ple and property, with the rates, were enumerated.2 In one
long list, without division or proper classification, the tax-
able classes were given, such as householders, merchants
and shopkeepers, saw-mills, grist-mills, fulling-mills, fur-
naces, forges, glass-houses, distilleries, ferries, single men
working for hire, servants and slaves, cattle, and particular
kinds of vehicles, " wagons, the bodies of which hang on
springs," being separately enumerated. Profitable tracts of
land held by deed, patent or survey were to be valued at the
discretion of the assessors, the minimum and maximum
valuation per hundred acres varying in the different coun-
ties. Acts to settle the quotas were passed from time to
time, as the circumstances of the colony altered, and, as
has been seen, caused much contention and bitterness be-
tween council and assembly.
During this period the methods of colonial taxation re-
mained essentially without change. In each county there
was an assessor and a collector for raising taxes. The
county collector received the money raised by the town col-
lectors, and transmitted it to the provincial treasurer, or
1 For the subject of taxes, see Tanner, op. cit., p. 519 et seq.\ Parker,
Taxes and Money in New Jersey before the Revolution, in A^. J. Hist.
Soc. Proc.y series ii, vol. vii, p. 150.
'Allinson, op. cit., p. 317.
286 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [286
paid it according to the directions of the justices and free-
holders if it was for county purposes.1 In 1740 an act was
passed which regulated the election of the county collectors.
It enabled the freeholders in conjunction with three justices
of the peace to choose such collectors, and required the per-
sons elected to render an account to the justices and free-
holders upon demand. A penalty was of course provided
for neglect in this matter.
Appeals might be taken by any who felt aggrieved by
an assessment. The method of appeal was altered by an
act of October, 1770.2 Jurisdiction in such cases was no
longer to be held by justices of the peace, but appeal could
be taken to the next Court of General Quarter Sessions of
the Peace of the particular county. Judgments of this court
were to be final. The former method of appeal had been
found inconvenient and unsatisfactory.
In the quotas act of 1769 there was provision for the
taxation of " Hawkers, Pedlers, or petty chapmen." 3 This
was in accordance with an act for the purpose passed
in July, 1740. In the opinion of the assembly, these stroll-
ing merchants reaped a harvest without contributing any-
thing to the revenue. Most of the venders were non-resi-
dents. Peddlers were henceforth to be required to pay a tax
to the overseers of the poor in each county in which they
offered their wares for sale. The hawkers were graded and
taxed accordingly, if traveling with a cart ten shillings, with
a horse six shillings, on foot three shillings yearly. The
overseer's receipt was in effect the peddler's license to do
business. The money received was to be applied by the
overseer for the relief of the poor.
The people, of course, had other public obligations to
1 Allinson, op. tit., p. 115. *Ibid., p. 341.
9 Ibid., p. 112.
287] THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM 287
meet aside from those imposed by the regular act for pro-
vincial support. Although these were for county or local
purposes, they were nevertheless levied by the provincial
assembly. After the enactment of a law, to meet some local
need, the money for the purpose was levied in the usual
manner, and expended by the persons authorized by the act,
frequently the justices of the peace. The objects for which
such local taxes were raised included the laying-out of high-
ways, the building of jails and court-houses, and the con-
struction and repairs of bridges. The inhabitants were also
liable for a slight tax for the relief of the poor of the com-
munity.
Somewhat different in scope and purpose were measures
which laid duties upon certain articles of commerce. As
early as Hunter's administration, attempts had been made
by means of export duties on staves to preserve timber.1
In 1743 another act for the same purpose was passed, ap-
plying to East Jersey.2 A duty was laid upon logs or timber
exported to any of the other colonies. An exception was
made, however, in the case of firewood less than four feet
in length. The early act imposing a duty on pipe and hogs-
head staves was continued throughout the colonial period,
but was altered from time to time. It was finally reenacted
for seven years, in December, 1771, with increased penal-
ties, and certain modifications in the judicial procedure
under the act to remedy the defects shown by experience.8
There was an article also which exempted the parties to the
Elizabethtown Bill in Chancery from the operation of the
act.
It was during the administration of Hunter also that a
duty had first been laid upon slaves in the colony.4 After
banner, op. cit., p. 532. 'Allinson, op. cit., p. 134.
lIbid., p. 354- *Ibid., p. 31.
288 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [288
the expiration of this early act in 1721, except for un-
successful attempts under Morris to pass a similar meas-
ure,1 the subject was not again brought before the legis-
lature until 1 76 1. A bill laying a duty upon the importa-
tion of negroes into the province was dropped at that time
after it had passed the assembly, because it conflicted with
one of Governor Hardy's instructions.2 In September,
1762, after sundry amendments, " An Act for laying a Duty
upon Negroes and Mulatto slaves imported into this Pro-
vince " was passed, gaining the governor's consent only
when a suspending clause was added.8 This measure was
peculiar in that the import duty in the eastern division was
but forty shillings, while that in the western division was
six pounds.4 This divergence was due to the fact that
New York had a low import duty of but two* pounds, while
Pennsylvania had a high ten-pound tax upon all slaves.
While the lords of trade had no objection to the principle
of the bill, they regarded the provisions requiring the pay-
ment of the duty by the importer, and providing for a re-
servation of part of the duty in case of re-exportation as
incompatible with the governor's instructions.5 The bill
was not laid before the King.
The objections to the former act were obviated by the
" Act for laying a Duty on the Purchasers of Slaves im-
ported into this Colony," passed in November, 1769.6 A
duty of fifteen pounds, proclamation money, for each slave
was imposed, payable within ten days after the purchase.
The county collectors were ordered to account for and pay
the duties to the provincial treasurer, and all fines result-
XN. J. A., vol. xv, pp. 30, 50, 343, 348.
2 Ibid., vol. ix, p. 345. sI6id., p. 382.
*Allinson, op. tit., p. 253.
*N. J. A., vol. ix, p. 447.
•Allinson, op. tit., p. 315.
289] THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM 289
ing from the act were to be applied to the support of gov-
ernment. The act was limited to ten years.
In 171 6 an avowed excise tax was levied but this meas-
ure was allowed to expire at the end of the five year limi-
tation. To gain the same end, the taverns were more care-
fully regulated, and tavernkeepers were obliged to pay a
yearly assessment fee in return for their license.1 By an
act of 1743 a duty was laid upon rum and wines which
were not imported directly from the British West Indies.2
This was of course not a direct excise duty, but was simply
designed to encourage the importation of rum from the
West Indies.
The simple conditions under which the people of that
time lived made the development of any elaborate system of
taxation as unnecessary as it was impossible. Their con-
scious and evident desire was to distribute the burdens of
providing for the public expenditures as equably as pos-
sible. Whatever in their estimation could be with certainty
and propriety taxed was assessed. It is doubtless true that
the people were not tax-burdened. Governor Franklin be-
lieved that the Jerseymen had less cause to complain of ex-
cessive taxation than almost any of the other English At-
lantic coast colonies.
The issue of bills of credit is a subject closely related to
that of taxation. The colonists well knew that the home
authorities looked with suspicion upon the issuance of paper
money, but they excused their persistence in demanding
permission to strike bills of credit, because of the lack of a
circulating medium. It is to the honor of New Jersey that,
notwithstanding the enormous sums, which were issued in
paper bills, the emissions were always regularly and properly
conducted.
■Allinson, op. cil., p. 101. */bid., p. 125.
290 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [290
In 1740 an additional instruction was sent to the gov-
ernors directing that the act of the sixth of Anne " for
ascertaining the Rates of foreign Coins in her Majesty's
Plantations in America " should be strictly observed and
executed.1 Because it had not been duly observed many
illegal practises were declared to have grown up. The gov-
ernors were further ordered to pay strict obedience to a
former instruction which forbade their assent to any act
whereby bills of credit were issued in lieu of money, unless
there was a suspending clause to the act. Governor Morris
announced by a public proclamation in January, 1 741, that
the act of Anne referred to in the additional instruction
would be punctually and strictly enforced.2
The problem was difficult. The lords of trade asked the
governors to prepare statements of accounts as to the paper
money, and to give their opinions upon the knotty subject.3
This brought few results and the lords of trade confessed
that they could lay no adequate proposition before the
House of Commons for redeeming the bills of credit. Gov-
ernor Morris sought the council's advice in New Jersey,
but they had observed no evil consequences of paper money
in their colony, and promised to submit to any remedy
recommended by Parliament, if that honorable body was
convinced of the existence of harmful irregularities.4
As for a remedy or a substitute Governor Morris had none.
He reported at length to the lords of trade upon currency
in New Jersey, but bluntly wrote, " Where Gold and Silver
is wanting that it is necessary there should be something to
pass current as medium of trade in Lieu of it seems to me
evident." 5 Even so, the lords of trade hoped for a day
lN. J. A., vol. vi, p. 94. *Ibid., p. 117.
%Ibid., p. 122. *Ibid., vol. xv, p. 194.
57bid., vol. vi, p. 137.
291] THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM 29 1
with no paper bills of credit, and urged Morris to care for
the punctual redemption of the outstanding bills.1
In July, 1740, an act was passed making £2,000 current
in bills of credit to provision and transport troops for an in-
tended expedition to the West Indies,2 but the people were
sending petitions to the assembly for an emission to relieve
their necessitous condition.8 For the latter purpose a bill
was introduced, in November, 1742, for striking £40,000
in bills of credit.4 Governor Morris, however, rejected it,
thereby gaining the approbation of the lords of trade,5 and
retaining the enmity of the colonists. The measure again
passed the assembly, in October, 1743, but was tabled in the
council.8
It was in the following year that the lack of harmony
between the branches of the legislature became most acute,
and the council rejected some of the assembly's favorite
measures, among them another bill for the emission of
£40,000 in paper money. The lower house believed that
Morris had unduly influenced the council, but the governor
protested that he neither directly nor indirectly sought to
influence any councillor.7 Complaining that the assembly
had resorted to the tricky subterfuge of declaring the in-
tention, in the preamble of the bill, of appropriating part
of the money to be raised for building a house for the gov-
ernor and for the assembly and council meetings, but actu-
ally making no appropriation in the bill for these laudable
purposes, the council opposed the measure. Nor was this
the single ground of opposition. The council at this time,
1 N. J. A., vol. xv, p. 241.
* Allinson, op. cit., p. 120.
8 Assembly Journal, May, 1740.
*N. J. A., vol. xv, p. 253.
iIdid., vol. vii, p. 142. %Ibid., vol. xv, p. 284.
7 Morris Papers, p. 229.
292 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [292
with its membership practically the same, reversed its
former position, and went on record as opposed in principle
to the emission of bills of credit.1 Unreasonable and of
fatal consequence to the people were such emissions, in the
opinion of the council at this time. That the governor did
not consciously attempt to convert any of the members of
his council to his own views upon this subject may be true,
but his well-known opposition to the measure and the acri-
mony then existing between the branches of the legislature,
without doubt exerted great influence upon the opinions of
the upper house.
At the opening of the session in April, 1745, Morris
censured the assembly for attempting to pass a paper money
bill, while an act was pending in the British Parliament,
which if passed, would affect the colonial paper currency.2
The assembly's retort was that inasmuch as their bill had
a suspending clause it was in the nature of a petition to the
king. The act of Parliament to which the governor re-
ferred was to prevent the issue of bills of credit in the
colonies to be legal tender in payment for money.3 The
assembly resolved unanimously that this measure, if en-
acted, would not only be an encroachment upon the funda-
mental constitution of this colony, and the concessions made
to the first settlers thereof, but would also be destructive
of the " liberties and properties of his Majesty's subjects." *
Partridge was ordered to oppose it vigorously.
Petitions were again sent to the assembly early in 1746,
urging the necessity for an added emission of paper money,
and the assembly resolved to have another bill introduced. 5
An inducement of £1,000 was to be offered to the governor
lN. J. A., vol. vi, p. 220. * Ibid., vol. xv, p. 393.
3 Assembly Journal, Nov. 9, 1744. KIbid., Nov. 9, 1744.
hIbid., Mar. 12, 1746.
293] THE FINA]*CIAL SYSTEM 293
for his assent, provided the king's assent was subsequently
obtained.1 Mutual suspicion prevented any agreement be-
tween the governor and assembly, so that the plan failed.
At this juncture President Hamilton assumed the ad-
ministration, owing to the death of Governor Morris. Dur-
ing Hamilton's brief administration, £11,850 in bills of
credit was raised for defraying the expenses of five com-
panies of Jersey men in the Canadian expedition.2 It was
confidently expected that the colony would be reimbursed
for the funds thus expended.
But willingness to contribute to the supply of troops for
expeditions against the enemy increased belief in New Jer-
sey in the justice of the demand for more paper money.
Partridge petitioned the king in 1746 that in the instruc-
tions of the newly-appointed governor there should be an
instruction of leave for passing the bill to emit £40,000 in
bills of credit.3 Inasmuch as the New Jersey assembly had
not formally authorized the petition, it may have been made
at the request of Belcher, who had not at the time sailed
for America. The fact that the agent did not have specific
authority from the New Jersey legislature was given by the
lords of trade in their representation to the king as the
reason for not complying with the petition.4
Belcher's position with regard to the striking of bills of
credit was different from that of his predecessor, and when
the favorite £40,000 act was brought before him with a sus-
pending clause it received his assent.5 He urged the home
authorities to confirm it because the New Jersey paper
currency had been superior to that of the other provinces
1 Assembly Journal, May 7, 1746.
'Allinson, op. tit., p. 147.
•iV. J. A., vol. vi, p. 361. K Ibid., vol. vi, p. 433.
5 Assembly Journal, Feb. 18, 1747.
294 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [294
and the treasury was empty.1 Representations were made
against the bill in England, and the governor was required
to send over an exact account of the condition of paper
money in New Jersey.2 The report which Belcher sub-
mitted showed that all the outstanding bills would be re-
deemed by 1753, only half of the last emission, that of 1735,
still remaining outstanding.3 Governed by the same wise
and successful principles as the last act of emission, the
measure now submitted was, according to Belcher, worthy
of confirmation. No amount of argument on the part of
the governor could overcome the hostility of the English
officials to paper money, in addition to the influence of Bel-
cher's opponents at the court. The act was accordingly dis-
allowed in November, 1749.4
Four years elapsed before the paper money question was
again seriously considered. In response to a suggestion
from the governor, the assembly, in May, 1753, appointed
Messrs. Wood, Learning and Spicer, a committee to in-
vestigate and report upon the condition of the paper money.5
Their opinion was unanimous in favor of the absolute neces-
sity of a further emission. No dependence could be placed
upon foreign specie ; the balance of trade was in favor of the
British merchants; government had long since been sup-
ported by public taxes from public funds ; and the province
groaned under a heavy debt. With paper money the in-
terest of which could be applied to the public relief, the
just debts could be discharged with the foreign specie,
otherwise hoarded. The argument, too, so prominent a
decade or two later, was advanced, that deprived of a suffi-
cient medium of exchange, domestic manufactures would be
1 Belcher Papers , April 22, 1748.
*N. J. A., vol. vii, p. 174. *fbid.t p. 246.
4Allinson, op. tit., p. 172.
6 Assembly Journal, May 23, 1753.
295] THE FINAMCIAL SYSTEM 295
improved and developed to the injury of British merchants.
This report was a clear and strong statement of the colonial
viewpoint.
Having considered this report, the assembly resolved to
petition the crown for a new emission of paper money, and
to redeem the outstanding £15,302 in bills made current
during the late war by levying provincial taxes.1 The coun-
cil refused to join with the assembly in the proposed peti-
tion.2 In order that New Jersey might redeem the bills of
credit made for the king's service in the late war, support
the government, and aid the merchants themselves, the as-
sembly asked the king to assent to a £60,000 emission.3
Admitting that a moderate quantity of such bills, properly
secured, would be advantageous to a trading community,
the lords of trade recommended a royal instruction in favor
of the New Jersey petition, provided the new bills should
not be declared a legal tender in payment of debts, and that
the accruing interest should be appropriated to the con-
tingent services of the government.4 An insurrection was
accordingly sent to the governor, conformable to the lords'
sentiments, and in addition forbidding the governor's assent
to any new emission until the bill had been transmitted for
the royal approval.5
New Jersey assemblies had ever regarded it as axiomatic
that bills of credit were useless, if they could not pass as
legal tender. Their opinion was not changed by any num-
ber of royal instructions. Even the council now believed
that the bills must necessarily be lawful tender for the pay-
ment of debts.8 A bill was accordingly drafted similar to
1 Assembly Journal, May 30, June 21, 1753.
*N. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 407. ■ Ibid., vol. viii, pt. i, p. 183.
'Ibid., pt. i, p. 196. 5 Assembly Journal, Oct. 7, 1754.
*N. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 487.
296 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [296
former acts, and a petition prepared, setting forth .that if
the bills were not a legal tender, the good purposes of the
measure would be defeated.1 The emission was for £70,-
000, the £10,000 in excess of what had previously been re-
quested, being for the aid of the neighboring colonies in
the contest against the French.
The draft of this bill was submitted to the royal authori-
ties, who were urged to give the governor authority to
assent to it, if passed. Belcher suggested that a clause
should be added to obligate the province for any deficiency
caused by the depreciation of the bills.2 In a lengthy
memorial, Partridge urged that consent be given to the
passage of the measure.3 As the proposed bill violated the
recent royal instruction in the two most essential features,
the recommendation of the lords of trade was improbable.4
In the summer of 1755, Belcher was notified that the bill
was inconsistent with the royal instruction, and could not
properly be approved.5
Although the province had again failed to obtain finan-
cial relief upon the terms that were desired, during the next
succeeding years there were numerous emissions to provide
for the expenses of the Fourth Intercolonial War. These
emissions were all made conformable to the act of the 6th of
Anne, and the bills were to be legal tender only to the
province. The assembly had refused to contribute supplies
with which to resist the French in 1754, because of the re-
jection of their bills of credit proposition, but with the out-
break of the war in earnest, with splendid zeal they fur-
nished both men and money. In rapid succession came the
emissions, £15,000 in April, 1755, for the expedition to
•
XN. J. A., vol. viii, pt. ii, p. 14.
*lbid., pt. ii, p. 72. %Ibid., p. 95.
4 Ibid., p. 100. hIbid., p. 124.
297] THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM 297
Crown Point,1 another £15,000 in August of the same year
for the supply of Peter Schuyler's army,2 and £10,000 in
December for the defence of the frontiers.3 In June, 1756,
£17,500 was made current for the further supply of the
troops under Colonel Schuyler and the defence of the fron-
tiers;4 in March, 1757, an additional £10,000, 6 and in Oc-
tober, 1757, a bill for the emission of £30,000 for the use of
the king's service in the war was passed.6 A seventh emis-
sion followed in April, 1758, by which £50,000 was ordered
struck to augment the New Jersey regiment to one thousand
men for the campaign of 1758, to which was added £10,000
in August for supporting 150 men on the frontiers.7 To
defray the expenses of a thousand men in 1759, a £50,000
emission was ordered, and in 1760 for the same purpose
£45,000. 8 Thus within five years there had been ten emis-
sions and a total of £252,500 was struck in bills of credit!
By subsequent emissions of £25,000 in 1761, £30,000 in
1762, £10,000 in 1763 and £25,000 in 1764, New Jersey's
grand total of money raised for the war was £342,500.
The manner in which the particular amounts making up
this large sum were emitted was practically the same. The
tender of the bills was declared to be as good and effectual
in law as any other current coin in the province. Counter-
feiting them was to be punishable by death. The quotas
to be annually assessed were of course prescribed, as also
the time during which the particular emissions were to be
current before redemption. Likewise, the details regarding
the signing and printing of the bills, and other necessary
matters were as usual given in the bill.
•Ncvill, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 32. 'Ibid., p. 50.
1 Ibid., p. 75. * Ibid., p. 92.
*Ibid., p. 118. €Ibid., p. 146.
T Ibid., pp. 175, 203. % Ibid., pp. 253, 279.
298 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [298
But after such an enthusiastic and rapid expenditure of
money, there came an inevitable aftermath. With every
new emission the taxes for the future years increased. The
old question was immediately revived. Should the govern-
ment be supported by taxes levied upon the properties of
the colonists ; or should more bills of credit be loaned, the
interest of which would support the government? The
table of the assembly became buried with petitions praying
the emission of additional paper money.1 The assembly re-
garded more paper money as the remedy which would alle-
viate the grievous complaints of their constituents,2 and
passed a bill for the emission of £1 00,000. 3
Inasmuch as the money was to be made a legal tender
and the assembly refused to add a suspending clause to the
act, even a far less cautious governor than Franklin would
have hesitated to sign the measure. He refused his assent
because it did not conform to his instructions. But even
had the governor's assent been obtained, the lords of trade
would have effectually blocked the bill. At this time, they
were more opposed than formerly, to declaring bills of
credit a legal tender in the colonies. In a report to the
king, in 1764, they had pronounced this idea to be based
upon fraud, and suggested that all resolutions in the colo-
nies making such bills legal tender should be null and void. *
But the legislature of New Jersey had patience, persever-
ance and an evident faith that in some way they would ob-
tain the favor of a paper currency bill upon their own
terms. In response to the continued petitioning of their
constituents, a committee of both houses declared a new
emission to be necessary. A bill for striking f 100,000 was
passed in April, 1768, but failed to receive the assent of
1 Assembly Journal, 1767, 1768. tIbid., June 23, 1767.
*N. J. A., vol. xvii, p. 488. KIbid.y vol. ix, p. 405.
299] THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM 299
the governor, for the same reason that governed his conduct
the year before.1
Franklin acknowledged the possible service to the pro-
vince that would attend a new emission and in behalf of the
New Jersey council asked Secretary of State Hillsborough,
if objection would be entertained to his assenting to a £100,-
000 emission bill, without a suspending clause, if the money
were not declared legal tender and the interest should be
appropriated to public purposes.2 But only if a draft of
the bill had been first transmitted for the king's approval,
or had a suspending clause, was the governor's assent to be
given.8 In order to facilitate the public business, Franklin,
early in 1769, sent a draft of the £100,000 act to England,
that any alterations might be suggested before the next
assembly meeting.* On the ground that the act implied
that the money was to be legal tender the measure was not
to be recommended for the king's approbation.5
Although the terms of the home authorities were re-
garded as unusually severe, the legislature of the colony
hoped to devise an expedient, whereby the benefits of the
prospective currency might in their estimation overbalance
the inconveniences.8 The device agreed upon was that the
bills should be legal tender only to the loan offices issuing
them, a plan which had been adopted, according to the as-
sembly, in Pennsylvania and Maryland.7 The measure
passed at the November session of 1769 received the gov-
ernor's assent, and its defence before the royal authorities
was intrusted to Benjamin Franklin, the provincial agent
at the court.8
1 Assembly Journal, Apr. 23, 1768; N. J. A., vol. x, p. 48.
%N. J. A., vol. x, p. 49. sIbid., p. 60. 'Ibid., p. 99.
5 Ibid., p. 106. 6Ibid., vol. xviii, p. 43.
''Ibid., vol. x, p. 200. 8 Ibid., p. 136.
3<x> THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [300
Having substantially qualified their position in regard to
the bills, and provided for undoubtedly proper funds for
the redemption of the currency, the assembly had no appre-
hension regarding the fate of the act.1 This conviction
was strengthened also, because the governor had urged the
allowance of the bill as the best obtainable, even though
deficient as to the appropriation of the interest money.2
When notice of the disallowance of this act was received in
September, 1770,3 Franklin, as well as the assembly, was dis-
pleased, declaring it absurd to expect persons to mortgage
their estates to loan offices for money, which later the loan
offices could not be forced to receive again in discharge of
the mortgages.4
The result of the last disallowance of their loan office act
was to effectually discourage the assembly from attempting
another bill for some time.5 In 1771 the house refused to
appropriate money for the supply of the royal troops, and
by an overwhelming majority,6 an attempt to draft a bill
in strict compliance with the royal mandate was discoun-
tenanced.7 Instead, a resolution was passed that bills of
credit would answer no good purposes unless they were
legal tender to the loan offices. Many petitions were re-
ceived by the assembly from 1771 until 1774 praying for
an emission of paper money upon loan, but it was not until
February of the latter year that action was again taken in
favor of a new emission.8
On February 20, 1774, in a committee of the whole
house, the assembly resolved by a vote of 22 to 7, that
1 A"". J, A., vol. x, p. 136. *Ibid., p. 150.
8 Ibid., vol. xviii, p. 192. *Ibid., vol. x, p. 200.
*Ibid., vol. xviii, p. 200.
* Assembly Journal, Apr. 18, 1771.
7 Ibid., May 31, 1771. %Ibid., 1771-1774.
3oi] THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM 301
£100,000 should be emitted in bills of credit.1 The gov-
ernor, questioned upon the subject, declared it would avail
nothing for him to assent to a measure which made the bills
of credit legal tender to the loan office commissioners, even
though a suspending clause should be added, for it would
suffer the same fate as previous bills.2 The governor sug-
gested the expedient of allowing the bills to pass as legal
tender to the provincial treasurers for the discharge of
taxes, in accordance with a then recent act of Parliament.
Such a bill was accordingly passed in March, 1774.3 Al-
though the interest money which would accrue in the event
of the confirmation of the act was not to be appropriated
as the governor and council had desired, Franklin did not
think proper to refuse his assent.4 An order in council,
under date of February 20, 1775, finally fixed the stamp
of the royal approval upon the measure for which New Jer-
sey had schemed and striven so long.5 Frank and unquali-
fied approval it was not. The bill was allowed, on the
ground that paper money, when forbidden to be legal tender,
had had salutary effects in the colonies.
That the act had provided no permanent salaries for the
civil officers of government during the existence of the loan,
but provided for the appropriation of the interest money to
the support of government by future acts of the assembly,
was criticised as a defect. To meet this objection the king
was urged to make a requisition for the purpose upon the
New Jersey assembly. But to comply with such a recom-
mendation the assembly was particularly disinclined, and
indeed, the Revolution had begun before the legislature was
officially notified of the royal allowance of the £100,000 act.6
1 Assembly Journal, Feb. 20, 1774. *Ibid., May 2 and 3, 1774.
* Allinson, op. cit., p. 419.
*N. J. A., vol. x, p. 461. hIbid., p. 549.
• Assembly Journal, Nov. 24, 1775.
302 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [302
The paper money question was one of the most trouble-
some to the royal officials at home and in the colonies. It
was a pertinent and stubborn fact that the peculiar circum-
stances of the American colonies made necessary a sufficient
and flexible medium of exchange. Despite the theoretical
objections to the method chosen to accomplish the desired
end, the temptation became overpowering to declare emis-
sion after emission in order to lighten the burdens of taxa-
tion. The evils of a paper currency were minimized in New
Jersey, however, by the careful way in which provision was
made and adhered to for redeeming the bills of credit. It
was this fact largely which made the residents there less
able to appreciate the position taken by the home govern-
ment, and which made them so insistent for relief through
resort to an expedient in which they saw only good.
The New Jersey assembly could not " conceive it pos-
sible for any Fund to be of a more fixed and determinate
Value," than the land security, carefully inspected by loan
officers, upon which the emissions were based.1 " Our
Lands are daily rising in worth," cried the colonists. That
was true for many years, but times of stress came then, as
now. When lands decreased in value, the bills of credit did
also. The depreciation of Jersey bills, however, was less
than those of New York and Pennsylvania. In 1741 Gov-
ernor Morris wrote " that the bills or what they call the
Paper Money of this Province have not only retained but
encreas'd their Credit being now 12J/2 P Cent better than
those of the neighboring province of New York." 2 Never-
theless the bills did fluctuate in value, and the fact that the
deterioration was less than in other provinces, did not ob-
viate the fundamental objections of the lords of trade.
Merchants and traders were losers just in proportion to the
sinking credit of this unstable currency.
lN. J, A., vol. vii, p. 27. *Zbid., vol. vi, p. 135.
303] THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM 303
Aside from the theoretical objections to paper money,
the London authorities naturally opposed the practice of
supporting the civil establishments in the colonies by means
of the interest from the bills of credit. This was a preva-
lent scheme to avoid taxation. In so far as the Jerseymen
attempted to escape taxation for the support of government
by resorting to the emission of paper money, its use must
be especially condemned. The obvious danger of such a
practice was that of an over-issue. As the bills were regu-
larly canceled at their expiration, those outstanding were
insufficient to pay the expenses of government. As one of
the documents of the time declared, the effect of continued
emissions upon " the Body Politic, is like cold water to a
man in high fever, the more is given still the more is called
for." ' And New Jersey was no exception to the colonies
that wished to pay the salaries and other charges of gov-
ernment in this way. " Tis 17 years since any Tax was
raised on the People for Support of Government," Belcher
informed the lords of trade in 1749.2 Two years later it
was found necessary to raise the money for the support of
government by a tax upon real and personal estates. Dur-
ing the Fourth Intercolonial War the expense of govern-
ment was again paid by the interest of money emitted on
loan. This practice continued until about 1769, when the
government was again supported by annual taxes.8 It is
thus evident that for only two brief periods between 1735
and 1776 were the inhabitants taxed for the support of gov-
ernment. When, with this fact, it is considered that there
was no provincial duty or excise, it is difficult to believe
that the colonists were tax-burdened, as was their frequent
complaint.
lN. J. A., vol. vi, p. 226.
iIbid., vol. vii, p. 246. * Ibid., vol. ix, p. 580; vol. x, p. 447.
304 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [304
Whatever opposition the colonial governors showed to
the emission of bills of credit, was due to respect for the
letter of their instructions, and not to a desire to forbid
the emissions. In many cases, indeed, denial of assent to
issues of paper currency presaged the assembly's refusal to
vote the necessary funds for the support of the civil estab-
lishment. The three leading governors of New Jersey dur-
ing this period, Morris, Belcher and Franklin, personally
favored a reasonable amount of paper currency in the col-
ony, and at least in the case of the last two, urged the lords
of trade to allow the passage of credit acts, that conflicted
with the letter of their instructions.
The opposition to the restrictions imposed by the mother
country upon the paper currency legislation in the colony,
increased as the spirit of opposition to parliamentary tax-
ation developed. This was doubtless due to the fact that
when bills of credit could not be emitted, taxes were neces-
sarily increased. The opposition of the home government
to legal tender paper currency in the colonies was more
consistent and resolute in the later, than in the earlier, colo-
nial era. All the colonies including New Jersey, whose
emissions were doubtless the least objectionable, felt the
effect of this vigorous policy.
After the paper bills of credit came into general use,
the counterfeiting evil became of serious importance. Imi-
tating foreign coins was not only difficult, because of the
scarcity of metal, but the danger of detection was increased,
because of the comparatively small amount in circulation.
Counterfeiting the paper bills of credit, however, was less
expensive and less risky. As early as 1727 it was found
necessary to replace bills of a previous issue in part because
several thousand pounds of the earlier issue had been coun-
terfeited.1 The acts of emission decreed the penalty of
^evill, op. cit., vol. i, p. 146.
305] THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM , 305
death, without benefit of clergy, for altering or counterfeit-
ing any of the bills. Notwithstanding this extreme penalty
counterfeiting prevailed to an unfortunate extent. In 1748,
a council resolution declared that if a jury were called to
hear the case of a counterfeiter in Morris County, convic-
tion would be impossible, because the jury itself would
include either some guilty of the same crime or others who
were relatives of the accused! ' The course of justice was
not so much impaired in all the counties, however, because
many persons suffered the extreme punishment for their
crimes.
There was other legislation against counterfeiting, aside
from the sections in the acts emitting bills of credit. The
activities of the counterfeiters became especially bold during
the violent period of the land riots. The legislature passed
an " act for punishing the coiners and counterfeiters of
foreign coin passing current ; and the counterfeiters of bills
of credit of this Province" in February, 1748.2 The por-
tion of the act relating to foreign coins made current by
lawful authority was unquestioned, but the king's attorney
general objected to the uncertainty of the description of
foreign coins that should be passed by common consent as
full satisfaction for debts, the penalty for the counterfeit-
ing of which was also death.3 The act was accordingly
disallowed.4
The preamble of an act passed in 1766 recited that there
was no New Jersey law for punishing " capitally " many
evil-minded persons who had lately come into the province
and counterfeited the bills of credit of the neighboring
colonies. ' Situated between New York and Philadelphia,
lJV. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 48.
*Ibid., vol. xv, p. 570. s Ibid., vol. vii, p. 305.
4Allinson, op. cit., p. 71. * Ibid., p. 287.
306 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [306
New Jersey was a convenient and natural stamping-ground
for the manufacture of valueless money. This bill of 1766
was designed to more effectually prevent such illicit busi-
ness. The usual penalty was decreed. An act to more ef-
fectually " punish the counterfeiters of foreign Gold or
Silver Coin " current in the colony was passed in March,
1774.1 Under this law, for the first offence the miscreant
might at the discretion of the court be treated to one or all
of the following punishments, namely, to be whipped^
branded " by an iron sufficiently hot to make a lasting
mark," fined, imprisoned, pilloried or cropped. The penalty
for the second offence was death. In the £100,000 act of
1774, an addition was made to the regular provision that
" 'Tis Death to Counterfeit." As encouragement, a reward
of fifty pounds was to be paid to any person, who acting
as an informer, was instrumental in securing the conviction
of a counterfeiter.2
Notwithstanding the heavy penalties, as mentioned above,
New Jersey suffered much from the practices of the coun-
terfeiters. It was not unusual for the Pennsylvania Gazette
to print " A Caution to the Public," because of the issue
of counterfeit Jersey Bills. The " Caution " would explain
the variations for the benefit of " those who have not both
sorts to look at together." 3 The Pennsylvania Journal for
July 28, 1748, noticing the execution of Henry Yager, con-
victed for counterfeiting New Jersey money, reported that
" the Government is determined to exert itself in detecting
and punishing this growing Evil." 4
Unfortunately the escape of ten out of eleven counter-
feiters from the Morris county jail in October, 1748, pro-
voked a quarrel between the branches of the government
^llinson, op. tit., p. 441. 2 Ibid., p-435-
8 N. J. A., vol. xii, p. 242. 'Ibid., p. 469.
307] THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM 307
which effectually upset any stern determination to check the
evil.1 The prisoners had broken jail and had traveled un-
molested to their homes. Believing that the authority of
the judges should be strengthened, Belcher urged the legis-
lature to pass a law for that purpose.2 Because of the great
number of counterfeiters in Morris County, the council's
plan was that an act should be passed to enable the governor
to grant commissions for bringing counterfeiters to trial in
any county, upon which he, with the advice of the council,
might determine.3 They did vouchsafe the opinion, how-
ever, that some of the magistrates and judges of Morris
County were lax. The assembly declared that not the laws,
but the officers were at fault, and refused to pass any law
providing for the transfer of the cases to other counties.4
Neither house had a monopoly of the right nor was either
disposed to compromise, and no agreement could be reached.
One of the most notorious of the colonial money-makers
was Samuel Ford, a sleek villain, who continued his law-
less practises in New York and New Jersey for many years
and in the end escaped the deserved punishment for his
crimes.6 He had perfected himself in his " profession,"
by association with some of the famous Dublin crooks of
that period. Associated with him in his ventures were
John King and Joseph Richardson, who had visited Ireland
with Ford. The Ford " mint " was in the thickest of a
well-nigh impassable marsh, near his Hanover, Morris
County, home.
In July, 1773, suspicions were directed against Ford, and
his arrest for distributing counterfeit money followed.
lN. J. A., vol. xvi, p. 82. *IHd., p. 25.
*fbid., p. 33- 4Ibid., p. 41.
6 See Sherman, Morristown; Whitehead, East Jersey Treasury Rob*
bery, N. J. Hist. Soc. Proc, vol. v, p. 49.
308 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [308
After spending but a day in jail, he made good his escape,
aided by his friend John King, a deputy sheriff, and perhaps
winked at by Thomas Kinney, the high sheriff of Morris
County. Efforts to capture. Ford and his accomplice Rich-
ardson were unavailing, the former, it is said, finally settling
in Virginia, under the name of Baldwin. Charges were
presented to the governor against Kinney by none other
than King, who charged the high sheriff with abetting
Ford in his escape.1 Although the council believed the
charges to be unsupported, the governor was advised to
prosecute the indictment which had already been found
against Kinney in Morris County. The attorney general
was ordered to prosecute the case.2
Bills of indictment for having been implicated with Ford
were later brought against four men of supposed respecta-
bility in the colony. These men were David Reynolds,
Samuel Hays, Benjamin Cooper and Barnabas Budd. The
reason that only the first named suffered the penalty for
his crime, must be related in connection with the story of a
crime committed in 1768, the solution of which apparently
baffled the efforts of the provincial officials.
For six years the robbery of the East Jersey treasury had
remained an unraveled mystery. The home of Stephen
Skinner, the East Jersey treasurer, at Perth Amboy, had
been robbed of £6,570 9s 4d on the night of July 21, 1768.
The house was occupied at the time, but the thieves worked
with such ability and agility that, having broken open the
iron chest, they escaped with the money, and successfully
eluded all attempts to apprehend them. In a proclamation
of July 26th, a reward for the capture of the robbers was
offered, £50 to be paid by the governor, an additional £100
1 N. J. A., vol. x, p. 419.
1 Assembly Journal, Feb. 16, 1774.
309] THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM 309
by Mr. Skinner, and a confessing accomplice would be en-
titled to the king's pardon.1 The council advised that the
assistance of the governors of New York, Pennsylvania and
Connecticut be asked, and that an express be hurried along
the sea coast.2 It is interesting to notice that this advice
was given a month after the perpetration of the crime.
When the legislature met, in October, 1769, the assem-
blymen expressed concern that the robbers had not been dis-
covered and promised to give their best attention to the
affair.3 The treasurer, hoping for indulgence for his
errors, but wishing no mercy for any guilt, submitted his
case to the assembly.4 A full inquiry into the robbery was
postponed until the next session, after a declaration was
made that nothing had up to that time appeared to impeach
the character of the treasurer.5
At the session in October, 1770, the assembly made a
searching inquiry into the matter. Many witnesses were
examined- and the members of the house even visited the
scene of the robbery. After considering the evidence, the
house resolved that the money was taken because of the
" want of that Security and Care that was necessary to keep
it in Safety," and the treasurer's request that the amount
stolen be allowed him was denied.6 This resolution of the
assembly impugned the treasurer, although no evidence
condemnatory of his conduct in office had been advanced.
The matter rested until September, 1772, when Skinner,
in a memorial to the lower house, urged that the evidence be
reconsidered, on the ground that the damaging resolution of
1770 was repugnant to the declaration of 1769, that the
assembly had found nothing to impeach his character.7 As
x N. J. A., vol. xvii, p. 524. *Ibid., p. 525.
8 Ibid. , vol. xviii, p. 42. 4 Assembly Journal, Nov. 29, 1769.
6 Ibid., Nov. 29, 1769. * Ibid., Oct. 17, 1770.
''Ibid., Sept. 9, 1772.
310 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [310
no new evidence had been introduced, the assembly denied
the request for a re-hearing, and asked the governor to
join with them in some method for compelling the treas-
urer to account for and pay to the colony the sum stolen.1
The assembly intimated to the governor, moreover, that
the treasurer should have been removed after the robbery.2
This attitude of the lower house was scarcely consistent,
and its position hardly tenable. A resolution proposing that
the treasurer be removed had previously been rejected as
unjust, and the assembly had continued to vote Skinner's
salary.3 The governor pertinently mentioned these facts
and promised to unite with the house upon any proper
measures whenever they were suggested. This was the
beginning of a long and bitter quarrel between the governor
and the assembly, which effectually stopped legislation for
some time.
In a message to Franklin on September 18th, he was re-
quested by the assembly to remove Skinner and join with
the lower house in a law to authorize a newly-appointed
treasurer to bring suit against the " now Treasurer " for
the treasury deficiency, because he was negligent in his
office!4 Disapproving of this the governor was asked to
submit some more agreeable method. The governor prop-
erly refused to remove the treasurer, before the offence
charged against him had teen satisfactorily proved.5
Having laid the matter before the council for their ad-
vice, that house, on September 20th, advised the governor
that it would not be proper to remove Skinner.6 In ac-
cordance with their further advice, he recommended to the
1 Assembly Journal, Sept. 10, 1772.
tIbid., Sept. 12, 1772. *fdid.t Sept. 15, 1772.
'Ibid., Sept. 18, 1772. bIbid., Sept. 23, 1772.
*N. J. A., vol. xviii, p. 294.
3 1 1 ] THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM 3 1 1
assembly a conference committee of the two houses to de-
liberate upon the matter.1 The two committees met but
could not reach an agreement at this session.2 That they
saw no reason for altering their former opinion, was the
answer which the assembly returned to the governor, and
he was left to pursue whatever methods he desired.3
At this juncture Skinner presented a memorial, stating
his willingness to appear in a suit to be brought against
him for the purposes desired by the assembly. Having de-
cided that his removal from office must precede any action
on their part, they refused to consider the proposal.4 In a
message of September 26th, the governor stated his position
admirably but with little effect upon the stubborn legis-
lators. He refused to remove the treasurer because of a
mere opinion, expressed as such, by the house. Only when
the treasurer's negligence had been legally determined would
it be just to cause his removal. The attorney general, being
the treasurer's brother, could not prosecute the case, but
the governor declared himself willing to appoint for that
purpose whomsoever they recommended. But if the as-
sembly would not provide for the expenses of the suit, it
would hang fire, and the blame must rest upon them. Re-
turning no answer to this message, the house, having wearied
of the quarrel, was prorogued at its own request.
It was during the interval between the September, 1772,
meeting of the assembly and the opening of the next session,
in November, 1773, that the activities of the Morris County
counterfeiters were revealed. Reynolds, the only member
of the quartet indicted for counterfeiting, who was exe-
cuted, had divulged certain information connecting Ford
lN. J. A., vol. xviii, p. 339.
* Assembly Journal, Sept. 23, 1772.
*/bid., Sept. 25, 1772. *Ibid., Sept. 26, 1772.
312 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [*I2
with the robbery of the treasury. Cooper, Haynes and
Budd, in confessions which gained for them freedom, also
made statements incriminating Ford in connection with the
robbery.
Governor Franklin referred to the treasury theft as hav-
ing been brought to light, when he addressed the legis-
lature at the opening of the session in 1773, and urged that
he be enabled to send proper persons on an expedition to
capture the robbers.1 The assembly, not inclined to act in
concert with the governor, recommended that rewards of
£300 each be offered for the apprehension of Ford and
Richardson, and £50 for King. Although the governor had
laid before the house the confessions and examinations
taken in connection with the affair, the assembly inquired
the reasons for his belief that the mystery of the robbery
had been solved.2
As firm as was the governor in his attitude toward Skin-
ner, so resolute also was the assembly that the East Jersey
treasurer should be removed. The governor in a long
and careful message to the lower house detailed the reasons
for his opinion. The assembly was inclined to scepticism
regarding the confessions, because they had the appearance
of having been extorted from the convicts by means of the
" third degree." 3 The governor's position was, briefly, that
credence could properly be given to those confessions where
1 Assembly Journal, Nov. 12, 1773. 7Ibid.y Nov. 16, 1773.
3 From the account of Justice Ogden, before whom the second confes-
sion of Cooper was taken, we must conclude that the "third degree"
was administered. The sheriff was ordered to take off Cooper's irons
and pinion him, as if he was about to be hanged. The sheriff was then
ordered to take the rope in his hands, tell Cooper he was sorry he had
to do his duty, and must take him out. The rope was then coiled and
moved by the sheriff. It is reported that at this point "Cooper was
frightened, knew more and would confess it." Therefore he confessed
that Sam Ford had robbed the East Jersey Treasury.
313] THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM 3 1 3
they were not repugnant to credible evidence, and, that
while there was positive and circumstantial evidence to
prove that Ford was concerned in the robbery, there was
nothing to prove the contrary.1
Meanwhile, Skinner again memorialized the assembly to
the effect that he was anxious for some settlement and
would agree to any method which was not over-prejudicial
to him.2 The house having ignored his former memorial,
on December 17, 1773, he urged that a suit at law be
brought, and promised to resign if the verdict should be
against him. The assembly was unalterably opposed to
Skinner. It was believed by some that the controversy was
but the cloak to conceal their real plan to insist that the ap-
pointment and removal of the treasurers should be by them
alone. James Kinsey, from Burlington County, was one of
the leaders against the governor in this matter, and is said
to have declared that the treasurer would have been liable
had lightning blasted the treasury.8
On December 18th the assembly made a formal report to
the governor of their position.4 The report was doubt-
less penned by Kinsey. It was a lengthy argument in favor
of their position that the confessions could not be regarded
as credible. In this, however, they were grossly incon-
sistent, for it was admitted that Cooper's confession had
been of great service against the counterfeiters. Admitting
that the money was stolen, they still regarded the treasurer
liable at law. Because removal was prerequisite to the
institution of a suit at law, Skinner's removal was requested.
The council did not hold this opinion, however, and unani-
mously advised the governor, that removal was not neces-
1 Assembly Journal, Nov. 29, 1773. 2Idid., Dec. 6, 1773.
8 N. J. A., vol. x, p. 414.
4 Assembly Journal, Dec. 13, 1773.
314 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [314
sary to the institution of a. legal suit against the treasurer.1
The assembly held to the belief that the public should bring
suit and not confide simply in Skinner's promise to resign,
if the verdict was against him.2
During this dispute^ the wheels of government had been
stopped. From arguments the assembly turned to threats,
and, in February, 1774, flatly informed the governor that
the fate of the bills for the support of government and for
the supply of the barracks depended upon his decision re-
garding Skinner's removal.3 But the people themselves
now sought to influence directly by means of petitions the
determination of the question, which had developed into an
expensive and fruitless debate.4 The first petition that came
to the assembly early in February urged that Skinner
should be removed and then prosecuted, one from Burling-
ton County, even suggesting that if the governor persisted
in his position, that the assembly should petition the king.
The tide turned, however, and later petitions cried out
against the injustice of condemning a person before he had
been tried by his peers, which a removal before conviction
would seem to indicate. There was much zeal displayed for
" that most valuable Privilege of the Subject, to wit, a
Trial by his Peers."
But regardless of petitions, each side remained firm.
The governor was doubtless right in his position, and a
master of argumentation, he riddled the arguments of the
assembly, turning some into boomerangs against them.5 The
assembly, at a loss to refute Franklin, and unwilling to be
convinced, on February 16, 1774, went on record as believ-
ing that the affair still remained " in an obscurity which we
1 N. J. A., vol. xviii, p. 375.
1 Assembly Journal, Dec. 21, 1773. * Ibid., Feb. 9, 1774.
4 Ibid., Feb., 1774. 6 Ibid., Feb. 14, 1774.
315] THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM 315
must leave to Time to unravel." Skinner again requested
a settlement by legal suit, and in addition asserted his will-
ingness to give any security that could reasonably be asked
of him.1 The satisfaction which the treasurer obtained was
to be told to resign if he wished a trial.
By a vote of 19 to 7, the house entered into seven resolves
on February 19th.2 The treasurer was declared guilty of
remissness in keeping the money ; he should not be entrusted
with its care; the assembly could consent to no law in-
trusting funds to him; Skinner's continuance in office was
unsatisfactory to the people; the treasurer's negligence and
the dissatisfaction of the people were sufficient reasons for
removal ; any ill consequences or damage resulting from his
continuance in office, should be placed against those who
continue him in his position; and, the king should be peti-
tioned for redress.
The quarrel gave every evidence of being interminable,
when Skinner voluntarily resigned on February 22d. The
previous day the assembly had asked Franklin to ap-
point some proper person for receiving the taxes for the
ensuing year in East Jersey.3 The governor having re-
vealed this request to Skinner, the treasurer resigned and
John Smyth was appointed to succeed him.4 His resigna-
tion is an interesting document, setting forth his anguish
and mortification during the recent trouble, but his deter-
mination that the public interest should no longer be put in
competition with his individual interest.
A bill was immediately introduced to authorize the new
treasurer to bring an action against Skinner for the amount
1 Assembly Journal, Feb. 17, 1774.
■ Assembly Journal, Feb. 19, 1774. The first resolution was carried
by a vote of 21 to 5.
8 Assembly Journal, Feb. 21, 1774. *Ibid., Feb. 24, 1774.
316 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [?>l6
stolen. The governor did not agree with the method pur-
sued by the assembly according to the act, and offered to
refuse his assent if Skinner so desired.1 The latter, trust-
ing in the justice of the legislature, interposed no objection
and the bill was passed.2 By the law, Smyth was ordered
to sue for the money, if Skinner refused to pay £6,570 9s.
4d. upon demand. John Wetherill, James Kinsey and Rob-
ert Price, or their survivors, were appointed managers of
the suit and were authorized to draw a sum not to exceed
£200 from the treasury for its prosecution. The judge and
jurors were declared exempt from the payment of taxes
raised on account of the suit.
The measure did not pass, however, without the exhi-
bition of ill-humor between the houses of the legislature.
In sending this act to the council, the assembly urged that
it be given speedy consideration. The council with sen-
sitive dignity and wounded pride hoped that the assembly
did " not mean to convey an Idea that this House would
not bestow an early and sufficient Attention to the Bill as
the Importance of it should require, without being then put
in mind of their Duty." 3
Meanwhile the bad humor of the assembly had not been
mollified by Franklin's appointment of Skinner to the coun-
cil. Even without this added impetus, the personnel of the
managers would have insured the prosecution of the case
with suitable avidity. In the excitement of the approaching
Revolution, however, counterfeiters and treasury robbers
became of secondary consideration, and the suit against
Skinner was never concluded. During the war, the ex-
1 Assembly Journal, March 11, 1774.
2Allinson, op. cit., p. 449.
*N. J. A., vol. xviii, p. 465.
317] THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM ^7
treasurer turned loyalist, and his New Jersey property was
confiscated and sold. That may have afforded some degree
of consolation to the ardent spirits, who worked with such
assiduity, in session and out of session, for his removal.
This subject has been treated in such detail because of
the insight which it so clearly shows of the workings and
characteristics of the colonial government. It is interesting
to note how disproportionate an amount of the public money
and attention was consumed by this unusual but compara-
tively unimportant affair. Its real importance was magni-
fied because it was made the occasion for the expression of
the growing hostility felt against the royal executive. The
assembly gained the victory in this struggle. This was all
the more significant, inasmuch as the victory was in the
field of finance. Another step was gained in the ladder up
which the assembly was ever slowly but surely climbing,
to make the popular branch of the legislature of undoubted
supremacy in the affairs of the colony.
In financial affairs, the New Jersey Assembly succeeded
in gaining unquestioned control. Despite the protests of
the royal officials at home and in the colony, the lower
house continually asserted and stubbornly maintained the
principle that it alone could originate and alter money
bills. Payments for the usual expenses of government were
made by a warrant of the governor, with the consent of the
council, upon the provincial treasurers. Accounts were to
be audited by crown officers.
The money raised for the extraordinary expenses of the
war was paid out in an irregular manner. Commissioners,
independent of the governor, were appointed for carrying
into execution the purposes of the acts for aiding the king
in military operations. The commissioners were made ac-
countable to the assembly only, which by such acts was
3i8 THE PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY [318
given the power of allowing or disallowing accounts.1 In
1759, Bernard complained of this irregular practise of
issuing warrants to persons accountable to the assembly.2
An additional instruction was thereupon sent to him,
whereby he was ordered to refuse his assent to any bills for
raising money unless the sums appropriated were to be upon
warrant of the governor with the advice and consent of the
council.3 The accounts were in future issued upon warrant
of the governor, but were not audited by royal officials.
The treasurers were regularly ordered by the assembly to
lay their accounts before the house, and a joint committee
of the assembly and council inspected them.
In March, 1774, doubtless as a result of the treasury
robbery, an act was passed " to oblige the Treasurers of
the Colony of New Jersey to give Security for the due
Execution of their Offices and to prescribe the Mode in
which the same Security shall be taken." 4 Before any
public money was put into his hands, the treasurer was to
give bond for £10,000 proclamation money. The governor,
council and assembly were to be the judges of the sufficiency
of the security. This act, entirely laudable, had the effect
of more properly securing the public funds.
lN. J. A., vol. ix, p. 154.
*ffid*» P- 154- zIbid„ p. 158.
*Allinson, op. cit., p. 447-
VITA
Edgar Jacob Fisher was born in Rochester, New York,
in 1885, and received his public and high school education
in that city. In September, 1903, he entered the University
of Rochester, obtaining the degree of Bachelor of Arts from
that institution in June, 1906. The year 1906- 1907 was
spent in pursuing graduate studies under Prof. William C.
Morey and Prof. George M. Forbes, at the University of
Rochester, and in June, 1907, the author of this study re-
ceived the degree of Master of Arts. Having matriculated
at Columbia University, he spent the next two years in resi-
dence at that institution. He attended the seminars of Prof.
Herbert L. Osgood, and Prof. William A. Dunning, and
courses under Professors Osgood, Dunning, Burgess,
Sloane, Robinson, Seligman, Seager, and Shepherd. Dur-
ing the year, 1909- 19 10, he was principal of the Roselle
Park (New Jersey) High School.
1RSTTY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY
14 DAY USE
RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED
LOAN DEPT.
Th« book is due on the last date stamped below, ot
This book mou wh.ch Wed.
Renewed books are subject to imme*ate^ecall_
WW 5 '67 1
A£A^&
7^r-9T95TT*"
OCT
IN STACKS
RLCfclVtU
WTTS^-llAM
P9AN ©tei*r,
A
•^
LD 2lA-60m-7, 66
(G4427sl0)476B
#
General Library
University of California
Berkeley